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
in his drunkennesse is worthy of double punishment First for his drunkennesse then for the sinne that followeth vppon the same For though the sinne consequent be not voluntary in the act and deed done yet is it voluntary in the cause S. R. Bell noteth the Romish Religion of mutability confessing that the olde Romaine Religion was Catholique sound pure with which he will not contend But seeing you haue granted the old Roman Religion to be pure and Catholique and slander the late I bring an action of slaunder against you and charge you to bring good witnesse when wherein and by whom the late Romaine Religion corrupted the purity of the old T. B. This is the point indeede that seduceth the silly ignorant sort throughout the ChristiaÌ„ world For the Pope his flattering Parasites beare them in hand that the late start vp Romish doctrin is the old Roman religion which S. Peter and Saint Paule preached to the Romanies in their life time But my life and saluation I gage for the triall it is not so No no It is a New Religion crept by little and little into the Church of Rome To which doctrine if the vulgar people would once hearken all partiality and sinister affection set apart they would vndoubtedly vtterly forsake the Pope and detest from their hearts all Popish faction Here our Fryer Iesuite threatneth me to bring an action of the case against mee for that as hee saith I slander their Religion He would haue me to tell him and his Pope when wherein and by whom the late Romish Religion corrupted the purity of the old I answer first that I desire to know our Iesuites name because we may perhaps agree without suite in Law Secondly that I haue in a printed Booke published many yeares ago to the view and iudgment of all the Christian world shewed in plaine and expresse tearmes at what times in what points by what persons the old Roman Religion taught by Saint Paule as holy Writ telleth vs and by Saint Peter as Histories Ecclesiasticall doe relate was successiuely corrupted errours embraced superstition nourirished ignorance countenanced and false Doctrine decreed for the truth This Booke is intituled the Suruey of Popery published about tenne yeares agoe in the yeare of our Lord God 1596. I haue challenged all Iesuites and Iesuited Papists ioyntly and seuerally to answere it and all my other Bookes They haue oftentimes in many of theyr slaundrous Libels made mention both of the Suruey and of my other Bookes and promised aunswers to the same but while the Grasse growes the Horse dyes This is the first answer that euer I receiued to this day Which how silly it is let others iudge For their late forerunner did but snatch here and there and aunswered directly nothing at all Our Iesuite heere insinuateth something which hee cannot well tell how to shuffle vp I also alleadged out of Iosephus Angles a famous Popish Schoole-Doctor and Byshop that the Popish Doctrine daily altereth in their Schooles S. Thomas sayth he and his followers hold That a Venâ—all sin is not so much against the Law as besides the Law But Durand and many others impugne this opinion and auouch Veniall sinnes to bee against the Commaundements And this opinion sayth hee seemeth now adaies to be more common in the schooles Here I wished the Reader to note by the way out of the word Modo Now adayes the mutability of the Romish Religion S. R. Angles insinuateth Schoole opinions to be mutable Bell applyeth it to the Romaine Religion as if it consisted of Schoole opinions which may be held Pro contra with vnity of Faith T. B. If Schoole opinions be mutable then Popish Religion is mutable of necessity For how dare the Schoole-Doctours teach publiquely contrary to the Popes minde VVas not your famous Doctour Michael at Louain threatned to frame his opinion to the Popes liking or else yee wâ—â—e what would haue followed Did not the Pope send Toledo the Iesuite to conferre with him and tell him what the Pope thought and therefore he must and so forth You know it was so Be not grieued I pray you to heare Beatus Rhenanus one of your deare friends speake a truth of your Schooles and Schoole-Doctouâ—s These are his wordes Thomas Aquinas Scotus c. Thomas Aquinas and Scotus men too much delighted with subtilties haue brought confession this day to such a pâ—sse that Ioannes Geilerius a Graue and reuerend Diuiâ—e and a Preacher a long time at Argentoraium sayd many a time to his friendes that it was impossible for a man to make his confessioÌ„ according to their Traditions Thus writeth Rhenanus Out of whose words I note First that the vain curious destinctions of the Schole-doctors haue brought much mischeefe into the Church of GOD. Which thing if a Papist had not spoken it would seeme incredible to the world Secondly that it is impossible for a Papist to make his confession acording to the Popish law and consequently that all Papists by Popish doctrine must perish euerlastingly Marke well my words Gentle Reader the Papists teach vs to hold for an article of our beleefe that we are bound to make our confessions as the Popish law prescribeth that is as Aquinas and Scotus haue set downe the same And for all that Gielerius a Papist himselfe a great diuine complained often to his frends that no man could possibly performe the same Now then since on the one side Popish confession must be made vnder pain of damnation and since on the other side none possibly can make the same as it is required it followeth of necessity by Popish Doctrine that all Papistes must be damned eternally O miserabie Popery coufounded by thy selfe O late start-vp Religion patched like a Beggers cloke Thine own Doctors O Popery such force hath the truth haue bewrayed thy treachery to the world Thirdly that many likewise among the Papists do externally obey the Popish Law who for all that in their hearts detest the late hatched Romish Religion This is euident by the secret complaint of the learned man Gielerius who tolde that to his trusty frends which he durst not tell the pope S. R. Their canonized Martyr Byshop Fisher sayth he and their Popish Byshop Gerson wrote that Veniall sinnes were such onely by the mercy of God Heere Bell for one truth vttereth two vntruths True it is that Byshop Fisher Gerson were in that errour but that was both before it was condemned in the church as it was since by Pius the v. Gregorius 13. Neyther did they account involuntary motions of Concupiscence for Veniall sinnes as Bell doth but such as Catholickes account Veniall But vntrue it is that eyther Byshop Fisher is cannonized or Gerson was a Byshop T. B. Heere our Iesuite graunteth freely that both the famous learned Byshop Fisher and that excellent Doctour Gerson of high esteem in the Counsell of Constance helde
necessary to be actually beleeued of euery one that hath vse of reason are actually contained in the Scripture Now out of these wordes I note First that the Scriptures were written for our remembrance and good Secondly that nothing is omitted in the Scripture which is necessary for our saluation Thirdly that the Prophets and Euangelists wrote many things not so necessary for vs and therefore would in no case omit those thinges which were necessary for our soules health Fourthly that all thinges which euery one is bound to beleeue actually are actually set downe in the Scripture This being true as it is most true indeed I am content to stand to the censure of euery indifferent Reader whether by the Iesuites confession and free graunt the Scripture be a totall rule of our Faith or no. For doubtlesse that which containeth all necessary points of Christian Faith cannot be a partiall rule but a total and consummate rule of our faith S. R. The most that Bell hath out of S. Cyprian is That what is no true Tradition must be prooued by Scripture which I willingly graunt Saint Cyprian thought the Pope onely to erâ—e in a Commandement to be done Bell condemneth him in his iudiciall sentences of Faith Whereas S. Cyprian professeth that false Faith can haue no accesse to S. Peters Chaire T. B. I haue prooued in the Downefall that though our Papists of late daies do impudently affirme that their Pope cannot erre when hee defineth iudicially yet this notwithwithstanding Saint Cyprian teacheth and telleth vs plainly and roundly that in his time the Byshop of Rome had no such authority as this day he proudly Antichristianly taketh vpon him For he roundly withstood the decree of Pope Stephanus who was then the Bishop of Rome and both sharpely reprooued him and stoutly contemned his falsely pretended authority And for all that Saint Cyprian was euer reputed a very holy Byshoppe in his life time and a glorious Martyr beeing dead But if the Byshop of Rome had beene Christs Vicar and so priuiledged as our Papists beare the World in hand hee is then doublesse Saint Cyprian must needes haue beene an Heretique and so reputed and esteemed in the Church of GOD For if any Christian shall this day do or affirme as Saint Cyprian did in his time or publiquely deny the Popes falsely pretended prymacy in any place Country Territories or Dominions where Popery beareth the sway then without all peraduenture he must bee burnt at a stake with fire and Fagot for his paines Now what doth our Iesuite answere to this discourse Forsooth that whatsoeuer is no true Tradition the same must be tryed by the Scripture Alasse alasse Who seeth not that our Iesuite and consequently all Papistes seeing hee hath the aduise of all the learned among them is at a Non plus I contend that Traditions ought to bee tryed by the Scripture whether they bee true and sound or no Our Fryer answereth that false Traditions and such as bee not true must be so tryed What a iest is this The Scripture is the Touch-stone by which wee must try false and true Traditions and so we cannot know them to be true Traditions before we try them by the Scripture How fondly therefore aunswereth our Fryer that if they bee not true they must be tryed by the Scripture We deny these and these Traditions to bee true and therefore appeale to the Scripture for the tryall thereof No no saith our Iesuite these may not bee tryed by the Scripture because they are true Traditions Marry Sir this is indeed an aunswere answerlesse For ye take all the tryall to your selfe and leaue none at all to the Scripture You will first set down in your iudgements which be true Traditions and which be false and that done we must goe try those to be false by the Scripture which you hold for false but with the other we must not deale at all By this kind of dealing I must needes say the Scripture is but a partiall rule of Faith indeed And what shal be the total rule of our saith Our Iesuite here tels vs that it is the Popes iudiciall sentence whose faith cannot faile For false Faith saith he can haue no accesse to Saint Peters chaire as though forsooth Saint Cyprian did thinke that the Byshop of Romes Faith could not faile where hee meaneth nothing lesse then to ascribe such a priuiledge to the Church of Rome For if he had beene of that minde he would neuer haue vrged Pope Stephanus to be tryed by the Scriptures No no Saint Cyprian speaketh not of errour in Faith or Doctrine but of neglect of discipline and false dealing of Schismatiques to whose false tales and reportes the Romaines would neuer yeelde their consent As if he hadde said The Schismatickes which wee haue driuen out of Affrica seeke intertainement at Rome but the Romans whose Faith the Apostle praised will neuer hearken vnto them or giue credite to their reportes He speaketh of one Felicissimus and other bad fellowes his Companions whose naughty dealing Saint Cyprian thought Cornelius and the godly Romaines would neuer fauour But such beggerly shifts as these be are good enough for Popish falsly pretended prymacy Of which subiect I haue written at large in the Hunting of the Romish Foxe S. R. Bell citeth Saint Ambrose who biddeth vs not beleeue Argument and disputations but to aske the Scriptures Apostles Prophets and Christ. But it maketh for vs because it alloweth enquiring of others besides the Scriptures namely of Apostles from whom the churches Traditions came T. B. Our Iesuite is a notable couetous Fellow he will haue all to make for him though it bee neuer so much against him Because Saint Ambrose after hee hath willed vs to haue recourse to the Scriptures and there to know the resolution of all doubts doth forthwith name the Apopostles Prophets and Christ he will haue S. Ambrose Will he Nil he to send vs to others besides the scriptures vvhereas Saint Ambrose dooth onely explicate himselfe telling vs vvhat Scriptures wee shall search viz not Oâ—ids Metamorphosis nor Tullies Offices but of the Prophets of the Apostles of Christ himselfe S. R. Bell citeth S. Chrysostome who saith that if any thing be spoken without Scripture the hearers mind wauereth somtimes doubting somtimes assenting otherwhiles denying But maruell it is that he would touch Saint Chrysostome who Hom. 42. Thessal Vpon these wordes Hold Traditions saith Hence it appeareth that the Apostles deliuered not all things by Letters that one aswell as the other are worthy of the same credite Wherefore we thinke the Churches Traditions to deserue beleefe It is a Tradition aske no more T. B. Here I might tell our Iesuite that Saint Chrysostome hath but fiue Homelies in all to the second of the Thessalonians though he name it the 42. Our Fryer would exclaime if he could â—ind such a fault in my writings True it is that Saint Chrysostome and other of
Church vnlesse Bell will impute the fault of some few to the whole And by this is aunswered vvhat he bringeth out of Socrates touching the diuersity of time and meate vsed in the fast of Lent Albeit what Socrates sayth of the Romane Church fasting but three weekes before Easter and not on Saterday is an vntruth See the eight distinction of the Popes decrees and note it well T. B. I prooued in the Downefall out of Eusebius Caesariensis the vncertainty of Popish vnwritten Traditions by the great diuersity about the keeping of Lent Because some thought they ought only to fast one day some two daies others more daies and some forty I prooued semblably out of Socrates that the people did differ no lesse in theyr manner of eating then they did in their daies of abstayning For some saith he would eate no liuing thing othersome of liuing things eat onely Fish some together with fish did ate also Birdes but some ate onely Bread and others at night eate all kind of meats without difference yea hee telleth vs in the same place that the Romans fast three weekes before Easter besides the Sabbaoth and the Lords day And that the Illirians and Alexandrians doe fast sixe weekes and yet doe they all tearm their fast Lent Here I inferred in the Downefall the vncertainty of Popish vnwritten Traditions Now our Fryer thinketh to answere all this though a Bulwarke inuincible with his onely bare Word viz in telling his Reader that Bell sheweth his want of iudgement in bringing a place cleerely against himselfe Mary Sir this is a ready answere indeede If such answeres will serue in vaine is all disputation But our Fryer would seeme to yeelde a reason of this his answere And what is that Forsooth that in the beginning all obserued one manner of Fast though some afterward either of ignorance or negligence he cannot tell whether did breake it To my Testimony out of Socrates he saith it is an vntruth because the Romains fasted the Saterdaies But I answere thus First that the vncertainety of Traditions is heereby so apparant as it is great impudency to deny the same For how can there bee any certainty where not onely the time of fasting but also the meats that must be eaten is vncertaine Both which happen is this case Secondly that the ancient Cannons of the Apostles cōfirme Socrates his affirmation for there is it thus written Si quis dominicū diem aut Sabbathū vno solo dempto ieiunare deprehendatur deponitor If any shal be conuicted to fast the Sunday or Sabbaoth one onely excepted let him bee depriued So then either our Fryer must graunt that Socrates spake the truth that he hath falsly accused him or else if hee like this better that the Pope contemned the cannon Apostolicall Yea the sixt Synod generall of Constantinople affirmeth it to bee against the Tradition of the Church to fast on Saterdaie Behold here the comely certainety of Popish Traditions The Tradition of the church saith We must not fast on Saterday the Pope holdeth the contrary and yet saith our Iesuite Traditions are most certaine S. R. Popish Traditions saith Bell tell vs that all the Bishops of Rome one after another haue taught successiuely the same Doctrine with Saint Peter howbeit theyr owne deere Fryer and learned Doctor Nicholaus de Lyra auoucheth plainely roundly and boldly to the whole Christian world that many Byshoppes of Rome haue falne away from the faith and become fit Apostataes But well may one bee an Apostata and yet teach the Doctrine of his Predecessor As S. Peter denyed his Maister and yet taught no contrary Doctrine Saint Marcellin offered sacrifice to Idols and yet taught no Idolatry Caiphas murdered Christ and yet prophesied T. B. Marke Gentle Reader the case is so plaine that Popes haue swarued from the right faith of Christ that our Frier cannot deny the same They may saith he be flat Apostataes forsake the Faith yet neuer preach a false faith They may sacrifice to Idolles yet neuer preach Idolatry They may deny Christ yet neuer preach against Christ. And indeed for preaching it may be true in an vsual Popish sense meaning For since they came to their Lordly primacy they haue abandoned preaching with solemnity Well hee that list to know what your Popes haue beene and what Faith they held I refer him to my book of Suruey and to my Motiues For I desire to be breefe especially since our Iesuite bringeth nothing to be aunswered which was not in effect confuted before it came to light S. R. Bell telleth vs of Constantius baptisme but it is a meere Historicall Tradition concernes no matter of saluation it is vnawares contested by Bel himself when he saith that he hath seene at Rome the Font and that Constantine is worthily called great T. B. I wrote in the Downfall that by Popish Tradition the Emperor Constantine was baptized at Rome in a Font remaining there to this day that my selfe haue seen the Fons in which as they say hee was baptized Howbeit Hyeronymus Eusebius Socrates Theodoretus Sozomenus Cassiodorus and Pompontus doe all affirme very constantly that he was baptized at Nichomedia But our Iesuite thinkes it enough to say that it concerns no matter of faith that my selfe confesse vnawares that I haue seene the Font in which they say Constantine was Baptized I aunswere to the former that if a man shall go to Rome and there reprooue any Tradition which the Pope holdeth or practiseth he shal be burnt as an Heretique To the latter that I onely report what I haue seene I neyther say Constantine was christned in it nor deny the same This I cōstantly affirme that since so many learned menne deny it it must needes argue great vncertainty in Popish vnwritten Traditions S. R. The Papists saith Bell by their Popish Traditions make some to honour Heretiques for Saintes For both theyr owne deare friende Platina and their famous Byshoppe Martinus Polonus doe tell vs that the dead corps of Hermannus were worshipped for a Saints Reliques at Ferrara the space of twenty yeares together who for all that Oh impious Idolatry and Idolatrous impiety was a knowne Heretick as the same Platina auoucheth Is not this a strange thing to make the error of common people a Popish tradition Besides Platina affirmeth no such thing himselfe but onely that some others write so T. B. Platina writeth as other Historiographers do that which he hath learned by credible report And he addeth that he verily deemed that Hermannus to bee one è fraticellis whose sect at that time abounded But their Bishop Martinus Polonus or whosoeuer was the Authour of the appendix ioyned to his Chronicle telleth vs plainely that the Maisters of the Inquisition sought out the truth of the matter and caused Harmannus his body to be digged out of the Graue and to bee burnt as an Heretique and his sumptuous shrine to bee
the iudge thereof No more thē hee who conferring Scripture with Scripture expoundeth one place by another Which kind of exposition S. Austen preferreth before all other S. R. Bell saith canonicall Scripture may bee discerned of it selfe as light from darke He prooueth it because Gods word is called a light and a Lanthorne which shineth to Men. Because spirituall men iudge all things because the vnction teacheth Gods children all things And Christes Sheepe both heare and know his voyce But this is easily refelled First because though Samuell were a faithfull and holy man and God spake thrice to him yet he tooke his word for mans word vntill Hely the high Priest tolde him it was Gods word Gedeon was faithfull and yet knew not at first that it was God that spake vnto him by an Angell and therefore demanded a Miracle in confirmation of it Likewise Saint Peter was faithfull and yet at first he knew not that it was an Angell that spake and deliuered him Secondly Gods word consisteth in the sence and meaning which the faithfull oftentimes doe not vnderstand Thirdly the distinction of Scriptures from not Scriptures is not so euident as the distinction of light from darknesse is for then no man could erre therein T. B. This aunswere of our Fryer is friuolous and childish That which hee obiecteth of Samuell Gedeon and Peter is not to the purpose For as I haue prooued out of Melchior Canus and others euery one of the faithfull knoweth not euery thing but onely so much as is necessary for his saluation to know neyther is such their knowledge at euery houre moment but then onely and in such measure when and in what degree it pleaseth God to giue it Some of Gods children are effectually called at the first hour some at the third some at the sixt some at the last For though al Gods children be elected and predestinate before all time yet are they al called both generally and effectually in time some sooner some later according to the good pleasure of the caller who calleth freely without respect of persons Now where our Fryer denyeth the distinction of Gods word from mans word to be so euident as the distinction of light from darkenes because then none as he saith could erre therein I answere that as he that is blinde corporally cannot discerne colours nor behold the bright beams of the sinne so neither can he that is blind spiritually discerne Gods word frō mans word nor behold the brightnes of eternall truth For as the Apostle teacheth vs. If Christs Gospell be hid it is hidde in them that perish in whom the God of this world hath blinded the minds of them which beleeue not least the light of the gospell of the glory of Christ should shine vnto them And the same Apostle telleth vs else-where That the spirituall man iudgeth all things but the naturall man perceiueth not the things which are of God S. R. Saint Iohn sayth Bell affirmeth that the Vnction teacheth vs all thinges which wee deny not but no where saith he that it alone teacheth vs without the testimony of the Church which is it that wee deny and Bell should proue T. B. I haue proued at large euen out of your owne reuerend Byshop Melchior Canus that as the well affected tast can easily discerne the differences of sauours so can the good affection of the minde discerne the Doctrine of saluation And therfore as the testimony of the church is not necessary to the one no more is it to the other Yea if that sence of our Fryer had beene the truth of the text all the graue expositors of S. Iohn woulde neuer haue omitted the same But our Fryer coulde bring no expositor for himselfe and therefore no reason that we should admitte this bare denyall against the plaine wordes of the Text. S. R. That of the Spiritual man is not to the purpose both because all the faithfull are not spirituall but some carnall and therefore may we better inferre that the Gospell is not euident to all the faithfull as also because Saint Paul explicateth not by what meanes the spirituall man iudgeth all things whether by the euidency of the thinges as Bell woulde haue him to Iudge scripture or by some outward Testimony T. B. I answere first that all the faithfull rightly so tearmed are spirituall and not carnall neyther do the places quoted by our Iesuite proue any thing for his purpose For if he will haue none to bee spirituall that are sinners then must he deny the Apostles of our Lord to haue beene spirituall For as S. Iames granteth freely They all sinned in many thinges Secondly that if the Apostle had not explicated by what meanes the Spirituall man iudgeth all things as he did indeed yet would it not follow thereupon that our Iesuite may expound it to his best liking Thirdly that the Apostle sayth plainly in the words afore going That the spirituall man iudgeth by the spirit of God that is in him Fourthly that our Iesuite belyeth Bell heere as he doth many times else-where For Bell would not haue the spirituall man to Iudge the scripture by the euidency of the things but by the spirit of God which is euer at hand euen within him to teach him all necessary truth S. R. Bell alledgeth the Scripture That Christes Sheepe heare and know his voice which no man doubteth of But the question is whether they heare it of himselfe alone or of his church T. B. This is but irkesome Tautologie it is answered againe and againe First the late Romish Church is not the church that cannot erre this is already proued Secondly I haue proued euen out of their owne Cardinall Tolet That Christes sheepe know him because hee first knoweth them Yea the Text doth plainly yeeld that sence I knowe my sheepe saith Christ and they know mee As if he had said My Sheepe therefore know mee because I first know them Christ therefore not the church maketh his sheep to know and discern his voyce Thirdly the church is an outward help as is the preaching of the word To beget a kind of morral certitude or humane faith in the hearers but neither of them eyther doth or can beget faith Diuine in any man Paule may plant and Apol'o may water but only God can giue the increase Experience may confirme this to be so For no testification of the Romish church can make the Turke or Iew bebeleeue or acknowledge Christs Gospel If it were otherwise 10000. Iews this day in Rome would becom christians I wil say more and it is S. Austens Doctrin Many come to the Church and heare the word of God read and preached vnto thē but beleeue it not as their liues declare for euery good tree bringeth forth good fruits as our master christ telleth
vnderstood properly as Cardinall Caietane telleth vs then doubtlesse farewell the Popish reall presence then downe with the Pope then downe with Popish Masse and at all Secondly Cardinall Caietane telleth vs plainely that it is not the scripture but the authority of the Pope or Church which is all one in effect that causeth vs so to vnderstande these words this is my body If this Cardinall durst haue sayde all he thought against the Popes doctrine it seemeth he would haue tolde vs more Now let the Reader Iudge whether I haue wronged Caietan and Angles or the Iesuit hath wronged me S. R. Aquinas saith Bell affirmeth constantly corpus christi non esse in pluribus locis simul secundum proprias dimensiones That Christs body is not in many places at once according to the proper dimensions thereof Whose assertion sayeth Bell is my flat position T. B. It is most true that both Aquinas teacheth so that Bel flatly holdeth the same Doctrine And it is also true that Aquinas elsewhere contradicteth himselfe as God willing shall by and by appeare S. R. But Bell herein 1. contradicteth himselfe 2. belyeth S. Thomas 3. vnderstandeth him not T. B. Let vs heare his dispute And marke it well S. R. He contradicteth himselfe For before he said Aquinas holde constantly as an Article of the Christian fayth that the true body of Christ is truely and really in the Sacrifice of the masse and now he saith that he affirmeth constantly an assertion which is Bels flat position to the contrarie Howe can Aquinas holde constantlie two contradictorie points T. B. Marke gentle Reader for Christes sake and then shalt thou see that our Iesuit hath nothing in him but falshood lying and Hypocrisie The Iesuite will needs haue me to contradict my selfe because Aquinas contradicteth himselfe What equity What charity What reason is in this man I charge them in my Motiues and elsewhere with manifold dissentions and contradictions plainely telling them that if they would be consonant to their writinges then we and they should soone agree But our Iesuite cannot endure to heare himselfe and his fellowes confounded by their owne writings Now let vs see who vnderstandeth Aquinas aright Aquinas holdeth that Christs body is in the popish cake and withal that one body cannot be in two places at once Our Iesuite would reconcile this apparant contradiction thus Aquinas meaning saith he is plaine and euident For hee thinketh Christs owne dimensions to bee the cause of his being in that place where he is naturally and the dimensions of the bodie which is Transubstantiated the cause of his being where he is Sacramentally Here our Iesuite first taketh vppon him to tell what men thinke which is proper to God alone Then he feyneth a distinction of a double being of Christes body For if we once take away feyning Popery will soone come to mourning Christes owne dimensions sayth our Iesuite are the cause of Christs naturall being but the dimensions of the bread changed and Transubstantiated into Christs body O horrible blasphemy are the cause of Christes sacramentall being The Papists hold generally that the accidents of bread in their consecrated host or cake remaine there without a subiect But heere we haue another tale viz. That they are in Christs body Most miserable is that Doctrine which must be maintained with such beggerly shifts Well I will prooue with one insoluble argument that Christs body cannot be in many places at once Vnum est indiuisum in se diuisum à quocunque alio One as all lerned men do grant is that which is vndiuided in it selfe and diuided from euery other thing But if Christs body can be in many places at once it is both diuided in it selfe and vndiuided from other things Ergo it neither is nor can be in many places at once When our Iesuite shall truly answere to this argument he will deserue a Cardinalles hat and I verily thinke that the Pope for the time being will willingly bestowe it on him Marry withall I adde this that I would not for the Popedome be bounde too fast till that time Here for the better clearing of this controuersie I will propound an Obiection which seemeth to make for the Papists at least in Popish sence and meaning The Obiection Two adequate bodies may be in one place at once and yet neither the place be deuided into two places nor yet the bodies transformed or confounded into one body Ergo à simili one body may be in two places at once as Christs body in many thousand Altars at popish Masse and yet neyther the body deuided into two places neyther the two places contracted into one T. B. When you O Iesuite shall be able to proue the Antecedent which will be ad Calendas Graecas when men vse to clip Pigges and Rats I will yeeld vnto you S. R. First in Christs natiuity two bodies were in one place at once because Christes body opened not his mothers wombe 2 Againe Christ arose out of the sepulchre the stone not being roled away 3. Christ came to his disciples when the doores were shut and so both his body and the wood of the doore were in one place at once Ergo two bodies may bee in one place at once and consequently one body may be in two places at once T. B. Concerning the opening of the Virgins wombe I haue answered sufficiently already For the rolling away of the stone from the Sepulchre I answere that the Angell of God had done it away before Christs resurrection and had brought it to the mouth of the sepulchre againe What need many wordes the answere of the Angell to the women doth fully determine this question He is not here saieth the Angell for he is risen as he saide Loe Christs body was not in the Sepulchre because Christ was risen so doeth the Angell reason But Gods Angell must goe to the schoole againe to learne to frame his argument in better manner if one body can bee in two places at once And why for the women might haue said to the Angel What if he be risen Yet may his body be heere stil in the graue For one body may be in two places at once But the Angel reasoned thus He is risen therfore he cānot be here Or he not heere because he is risen These are the words of the Ang. oukestin oode egerthe gar kathoos eipe He is not heer for hee is risen as he said Where I obserue first the assertion simply in it selfe Secondly the cause and reason of the same assertion The assertion is this Christ is not in the Sepulchre The reason heereof is this because Christ is risen Now then since Christ cannot be in the sepulchre because he is risen it followeth of necessity that eyther the Angell of God inspired with Gods holy spirit made a very foolish and friuolous argument which to affirme is void of all Christianity or else that Christs body cannot be
all viz that Christ in the Popish Masse both is consumed and dyeth yet not really but Sacramentally All which my selfe will most willingly admit and agree vnto But our Papists will say and vnsay They say that Christ is in their Masse truely and really sacrificed and not onely Sacramentally For otherwise we should agree to them and they to vs. And then must they needs say that he is really not onely sacramentally sacrificed in their Masse and consequently that he is killed and consumed in the same really S. R. Againe Bellarmine saith Bell telleth vs that Christs body and bloud are offered truely and properly in the Masse That a true and reall sacrifice requireth true and reall killing seeing the Essence of the sacrifice consisteth in killing But this proofe relyeth onely vppon Bells false translating the word Quando seeing which he should haue translated When. T. B. Heere our Iesuite would haue his Reader beleeue that Bell hath falsely translated Bellarmine And why I pray you Because forsooth saith he Bell hath translated seeing the Essence of the sacrifice for when the Essence of the Sacrifice Let vs examine this point to the bottome First that Quando dooth aswell signifie seeing as when I referre my selfe to all skilfull Grammarians Secondly that it is so taken in Bellarmine I proue by the circumstances of the Text. These are Bellarmines expresse wordes Denique vel in missa fit vera realis Christi mactatio eccisio vel non fit Si non fit non est verum reaâ—e sacrificium missa Sacrificium n. Verum reale veram realem occisioneÌ„ exiuit quando in occisione ponitur essentia sacrificij Si autem fit ergo verum erit dicere à sacerdotibus Chrstianis vere realiter christum accidi at hac sacrilegium non sacrificium esse videtur Finally there is in the Masse either a true and reall killing of Christ or there is not If there be not neither is the Masse a true and reall sacrifice For a true and reall Sacrifice requireth a true and reall killing seeing the Essence of Sacrifice consisteth in killing Againe Bellarmine hath these wordes Per consecrasionem res quae ofertur ad veram realem externam mutationeÌ„ destructionem ordinatur quod erat necessarium ad rationem sacrificij By consecration the thing that is offered is ordained to true reall and externall mutation and destruction as beeing necessary for the Essence of a Sacrifice Againe thus Nam oper consecrationem c. For by consecration Christs body receiueth the forme of meat and meat is ordained to be eaten and so to mutation and destruction Againe in these wordes Neque obstat quod corpus Christi nullam in se laesionem patiatur neque esse suum naturale amittat cum manducatur eucharista Nam amittit esse sacramentale proinde desinit realiter esse in altari desinit esse cibus sensibilis Neither is it any hindrance that Christes body receiueth no hurt in it selfe neither loseth it naturall being when the Eucharist is eaten For it loseth it Sacramentall being and therefore it ceaseth to bee really on the Aultar it ceaseth to be sensible meat Out of these wordes of Cardinall Bellarmine I note first that a true and reall Sacrifice requireth a true and reall killing Bellarmine prooueth it because otherwise the Masse should not be a true and reall Sacrifice Hee addeth the reason because the Essence of a Sacrifice consisteth in killing Secondly that by consideration the thing which is offered is ordained to true reall and externall destruction as a thing needfull to the Essence of a Sacrifice and consequently that if Christes body be really in the Masse it must be really killed or destroyed Thirdly that Christes body suffereth no hurt in the Masse because only it loseth the Sacramentall being in ceasing to bee really on the Aultar These obseruations being well marked it will appeare as cleere as the Sunne shining at noone-day that Bellarmine granteth the Essence of euery true and reall Sacrifice to consist in killing or destruction And therefore doth he graunt freely that Christ is killed in the Masse sacramentally though not really Christes body saith hee although it suffer no hurt in it selfe neither lose it naturall beeing when the Eucharist is eaten yet it loseth it sacramentall being and ceaseth to be really on the Popish Aultar But euery one knoweth that when any thing loseth the being or life theÌ„ it is killed and destroyed In regard heereof Bellarmine as is already prooued affirmeth resolutely that eyther there is a reall killing in the Masse or else no Sacrifice there at all Marry he expoundeth this reall killing in the Masse to bee nothing else indeede but the sacramentall destruction of Christs body in the Eucharist But therein he contradicteth himselfe because neither a sacramental body is a true and reall body neyther a sacramentall killing a true and reall killing And so when all is saide and done Bellarmine can conclude no more indeed but that Christs body is in the Eucharist sacramentally And therfore when Christ saith This is my body the true sence meaning is this no other This is my body Sacramentally or the Sacrament of my body S. R. Bell fondly inferreth Christ to be killed if his body and bloud be put apart in the Masse because not to put body and bloud apart where they were not before but to separate them where they are vnited is to kill Else GOD should kill a man if hee created a Soule and body apart T. B. The Crow thinketh her owne Bird the fairest and euery foole thinketh himselfe a wise man How fondly soeuer Bell inferreth and how wisely soeuer our Iesuite disputeth this must euer bee true viz That the Popish Priest in the Popish Masse doth what in him lyeth to kill christ in the Masse so often as he pronounceth their supposed consecration words if it should be true which the Pope and his Popelinges holde that by vertue thereof Christes body is put apart from his bloud and his bloud apart from his body For most certaine it is that no true man consequently Christ can liue any longer then his body and bloud be vnited together it is a meerfoolery to say as our Iesuite doth that to put a maÌ„s body bloud apart where they were not before is not to kill the man For example sake because our Iesuite seemeth very grosse I will not say a foole if it will please his worship to call a Butcher to him to take all his bloud from him as hee doth from an Oxe or Calfe and to receiue it into a great vessell so as no part thereof fall vppon the ground and that doone to carry the same to Saint Peters Church in Rome and to put it vnder the high altar there and vvhen he hath so done to carry his body to Hexam in the north parts of England there to bee solemnely buryed if then
I say our Iesuite remaine aliue and be not killed I will subscribe to this his doctrine And yet is it cleere that in this case his body bloud shold be put apart where they were not before But our Iesuite seemeth to ayme at a farther mark What is that at the creating of Christs body and bloud Is it so indeed Is it possible so to thinke It is very so For these are his words as you heare else God should kill a man if hee created a Soule and body apart Well now I remember an old said saw which doubtles is as foolish as it is old that the priest in the popish masse can create his God God so blesse me and all good Christians that we neuer harken to such Theology CHAP. 4. Containing the confutation of the lesuites fourth Chapter of the second Article IN this fourth Chapter our Iesuite rehearseth sundry absurdities which are found in the Popish Masse But the more hee busieth himselfe to discharge their Masse thereof the more the same absurdities do increase Let vs take a tast of one for all Bell saith he inferreth that either Christs Sacrifice was vnperfect in his last Supper or else that it was needles in his bitter passion on the crosse To which he answereth that neyther of both dooth follow For saith he Christs Sacrifice at his Supper was a most perfect vnbloudy Sacrifice and yet his Sacrifice on the Crosse was needfull as the peculiar price which GOD exacted at his handes for the redemption of the World Loe he granteth freely that Christs Sacrifice at his Supper was most perfect and yet the heathen Philosopher can tell him that Perfecto nihil addi potest To that which is perfect nothing can bee added This notwithstanding he affirmeth these three things First that the Sacrifice on the Crosse was needfull Secondly that it was the peculier price which GOD exacted Thirdly that it was for the redemption of the world Which three points being as truely marked and remembred as they are truely granted all but such as are Sensus communis inopes men without all both sense reason will plainely perceiue and constantly hold that Christs Sacrifice at his last Supper was either imperfect vvhich our Iesuite denieth or else no real sacrifice at al which I defend All the rest of the chapter is full of the like vanity for consideration whereof it is enough to peruse The Downefall of Popery CHAP. 5. Containing the Iesuites confutation touching Berengarius VVHere in The downefall of Popery I related truely the cruell dealing of the Pope and his Popish councell with Berengarius our Iesuite would gladly excuse the Pope and his Sinod but it will not be S. R. Bell exclaimeth mightily because Berengarius was compelled to beleeue that Christ in the Eucharist is sensibly touched broken with the hands of Priests torne with the teeth of the faithfull T. B. Bell doth so Idque merito He hath iust cause so to do R. S. Neuerthelesse Christes body is said to be toucht broken and chewed in the Eucharist because the signe of bread in which it really is is so vsed As GOD is said to haue beene crucified because the humanity in which hee was was so handled and Christ touched when his garment was touched T. B. Heere is all that confessed which I intended for to prooue viz That the bread of the Eucharist is called Christs body because it is the signe and Sacrament of his body And therefore that Berengarius was most cruelly and villanously dealt withall when he was enforced eyther to bee burnt with fire and Fagot or else to sweare that he beleeued in his hart that Christs body was truely touched and broken with the hands of Priests and truely torne with the teeth of the faithfull When for all that many learned Papists Bellarmine Melchior Canus and others with this our Iesuite who would and dooth say the best he can for the Popes defence do freely graunt and plainely confesse that Christes body can neither bee broken with hands nor yet torne or chewed with teeth Loe Berengarius was compelled to beleeue as an article of his faith that Christes body was truely in veritate broken with the hands of Priests and torne with teeth and yet the truth is farre otherwise as both Bellarmine Canus and our Iesuite do confesse Fie on such religion hang vp such Popish Faith accursed be such doctrine S. R. The holy Fathers Saint Cyprian Saint Chrysostome and others do teach vs plainlie that Christs body is broken with hands and chewed with teeth yea Christ himselfe saith This is my body which is broken VVill Bell now condemne Christ and these holy Fathers of wickednesse villany blasphemy and horrible impiety Nay will he condemne both English many forraine Protestants whose doctrine saith he is that Christs body is broken torne and consumed with mouth and teeth Behold good Reader For Papists to say Christs body is touched broken and torne is villany and horrible impiety but for Protestants to say the same and adde consuming too is good doctrine T. B. I prooued out of Cardinall Bellarmine that famous Iesuiticall Fryer that Christs body cannot bee broken and torne saue only in a figure or Sacrament And that by his doctrine it may be sayd to bee broken and torne when the signe thereof is broken and torne Out of whose doctrine I inferred this golden Colorrary viz that if it be true to say Christs body is broken and torne because the signe of his body is broken torne then truely may we say and truely do we say that Christes body is in the Eucharist because the signe of his body is there because the Sacrament of his bodye is there because the representation of his body is there And much more truely might Christ himselfe say This is my body when he gaue the signe and Sacrament of his body I then added that it is the constant doctrine of the church of England which also many other reformed Churches approoue therein that Christs body is receiued broken torne and consumed with mouth teeth figuratiuely significantly mystycally sacramentally And consequently if the Papistes would be iudged by this doctrine which by the pen of the Iesuite Bellarmine they heere deliuer the controuersie would soone bee at an end Now I referre my self to the indifferent Reader whosoeuer he be whether the Iesuite S. R. bee an honest man or no. For first hee beareth the Reader in hand that I condemne Christ and the holy Fathers Secondly that I condemne both the English Churche and many forraine Christians Thirdly he chargeth mee to hold the same Doctrine which I vtterly condemne in Popery Fourthly he iustifieth the condemnation of Berengarius whose doctrine for all that both Bellarmine and Melchior Canus do iustify and himselfe vnawares in this chapter If I should deale with the Papists in this manner all the world would exclaime against me If any indifferent Reader shall
not be compared with things diuine euen so the nature of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Ghost is vnited inseperably and by his word as by brightnes hee hath vouchsafed to shew himselfe vnto vs. Fondly therefore doth our Iesuite dispute when he would proue Christs body to be both the figure and the thing figured out of the apostles words wherfore by the word Figure vnderstandeth the Essence and equality of God Hee vseth a Metaphoricall speech for the dulnes of our capacities who can vnderstand nothing in the admirable diuine mysteries but by similitudes drawne from Creatures To our Iesuites second Obiection that Seth was both a true man and withall the figure of a true man I make this answere viz That it maketh against himselfe The reason is euident because as I haue prooued out of Haymo the figure of the thing figured in humaine Creatures are different and the one distinguished from the other And the Iesuite must needes graunt so much or else say as I think he will not for shame that Seth was Adam and his owne Father But in Christes body the case is otherwise for the Papistes hold that Christes body in the Eucharist is Idem corpus numero the same body in number with his body on the crosse and his body now in heauen If they shall say otherwise then perforce must they say that which they dare not that Christ hath moe bodies then one S. R. I returne Bels Argument vppon himselfe because if figures must needes be inferior to things figured the Eucharist is some nobler thing then bread T. B. Our Iesuite careth not what he say so hee seeme to say somewhat so gladly would he and his fellowes haue the vulgar sort to think that they haue answered The Downfall of Popery But God be thanked they still fall downe that striue against it I aunswere First that albeit all figures were not inferior to the things figured yet should my manner of disputation bee good against Bellarmine because my argument is deduced out of his own ground and therefore called after their vse Argumentum ad hominem Secondly that our holy Eucharist is far nobler then bare Bakers bread viz Christs true and reall body sacramentally euen that very body which was nayled on the crosse that very bloud which with the spear issued out of Christs side All which I haue prooued at large in my Suruey of Popery and there haue answered al that possibly can be said for the Popish reall presence S. R. Neither Christs whole body nor part thereof is in the Eucharist before the pronuncication of the last word yet are not the former words superfluous For the last worketh the transmutation not by his owne vertue alone but with the vertue of them also or rather God worketh all when the last word is pronounced T. B. Behold here gentle Reader what vncertaintie is in popish faith and Doctrine For first our Iesuite telleth vs that either the last word in their supposed consecration worketh transubstantiation alone or with the help of the rest or else God worketh all when the last word is spoken Marry which of these is the truth that hee cannot tell vs. Secondly their Angelicall Doctor and Saint Aquinas saith that this conuersion is not like to naturall conuersions but is altogether supernaturall wrought by the onely power of God Thirdly the same Saint Aquinas telleth vs that this conuersion is doone in an instant Fourthly if either fit matter want or any word of consecration or the intention of the Priest nothing is changed it still remaineth bread Now then on the one side euery action that God doth is done in an instant the reason is euident because God is of infinite power to whose action no resistance can be made All learned papists graunt this to be so On the other side euery action that man doth is successiue in time because man is of finite and limited power the words therefore of consecration either worke nothing at all and so they are ciphers which to hold is absurd in popish doctrine or else transubstantiation is effected in time which is repugnant to Gods infinite power Heere I must tell our Iesuite that he passeth ouer with silence two most notable contradictions whereof he speaketh not one word for feare of biting I told him in the Downefall that Berengarius was compelled to confesse and beleeue that Christes body is broken with hands and yet doth Bellarmine graunt that it is not brokē with hands Ergo it is broken with hands and not broken with hands What can be a plainer contradiction None at all S. R. Catholiques thinke indeed that when the Priest wanteth both actuall and virtuall intention or omitteth any essentiall worde that there is no Consecration and the priest sinneth therein greeuously but the people worshipping erroneously vpon inuincible ignorance offend no more then did Saint Iohn when hee worshipped an Angel as God or as did Iacob when he lay with Lia who was not his wife thinking verily she had beene his wife Rachell T. B. This is horrible impiety that by Popish Religion men women are compelled to adore that with diuine worship as the euerliuing God whith perhaps euen by the Popes owne faith and beleefe is nothing else but a piece of bread Yet is it farre greater impiety and slat blasphemy against the sonne of God to excuse the people from sinne which commit openly such palpable and grosse Idolatry But inuincible ignorance saith our Iesuite doth excuse them as it did S. Iohn and Iacob Howsoeuer the case stand with S. Iohn and the Patriarke Iacob whereof I am not now to dispute ignorance can neuer excuse Idolatry Hee saith Christ that knoweth the will of God and doth it not shal be beaten with many stripes He that knoweth not the will of God and yet doth things worthy of stripes shal be beaten with few stripes And we are taught in Ezechiel that the wicked shall die in his iniquity though the watchman gaue him no warning The man of God which beleeued the old Prophet that lyed vnto him sinned greeuously as appeared by his punishment because he transgressed the word of the Lord albeit hee offended ignorantly thinking hee had done the will of God S. R. What maketh it against the masse that three or foure Catholiques did in a difficult matter before it was defined by the Church dissent from the rest Let Bell if hee can shew this diuersity now since the Councell T. B. In the Downefall of Popery I proued out of Durand that onely the forme of Bread is changed in the Eucharist that the matter of Bread remaineth stil. Out of Rupertus the Popish Abbot that the bread is vnited Hypostatically to the sonne of God That Caietanus Henrieus Capreolus are of another opinion That Iohannes Parisiensis helde also that the bread was assumpted but in a different maner from the opinion of Rupertus That
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
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
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
must sweare that the Pope can depose all Emperors and Kings in the Christian world Secondly they sweare to admit the Popes decrees whō they freely grant may bee an Heretick Thirdly they sweare obedience to him in matters of Faith whom as themselues confesse they can depose for heresie Fourthly that the pope is not supreme Iudge of controuersies seeing Bishops may examine and iudge whether what he commandeth be agreeable to Gods word the Canons Lastly that they swear flat rebellion against their soueraigns seeing they sweare to defend the Popes primacy against all men whomsoeuer T. B. Let vs examine this honest tale made in the behalfe of the Pope and for the benefite of the Reader let vs both heare it and answer it particularly S. R. As for the first point it is vntrue as appeareth by the answer to the first article T. B. The first point is that the Pope can depose Emperours and Kings Our Fryer denyeth it and sendeth the Reader to the first Article I agree also that the Reader peruse my reply with the Downefall then yeeld his censure accordingly for that the Pope challengeth such power though the Iesuite for shame here denieth it it is as cleere as the Sunne shining at noone-day S. R. The second and third containe no inconuenience For we must obey what he decreeth or defineth iudicially as sitting in S. Peters chaire though in hart he were an Hereticke as our Sauiour commaunded the Iewes to follow what the Scribes taught out of Moses Chaire but to abstaine from their priuate Leauen T. B. The second point was that the Bishops sweare to admit his Canons and decrees whom they freely grant may bee an Heretique The third point was that the Bishops sweare obedience to him in matters of Faith whom they can depose for heresie These pointes which our Iesuite proposeth couertly because he would not haue the Reader to vnderstand thē must neuer be forgotten We must saith our Fryer obey beleeue what the Pope decreeth iudicially though in hart he be an Heretick This is strange Doctrine to a Christian hart though approued of all Papists It is not amisse here to adde the Testimony of their graue Quodl betist These are his words As the prudent Greeke appealed from Alexander furious to Alexander sober and Bishoppe Crostate from Pope Adrian priuate to Pope Adrian publique and as Summus pontifex in Cathedra Petri so may the Seculars appeale from the Pope as Clemens vnto his holinesse as Peter These words are expressely set downe Quodl 6. art 10. By this Doctrine so plainely deliuered which is a constant position in the Romish Church the Secular Priests giue vs to vnderstand that execrable and neuer enough detested fallacy wherewith the Pope his popelings haue a long time seduced a great part of the Christian world viz that the Pope may erre as a priuate man but not as a publicke person Of which absurd Doctrine I haue written at large in my Treatise intituled The Hunting of the Romish Foxe I will therefore for the present onely speake thereof as these words giue me fit occasion First then we see heere that if we meane to wring any truth out of the Popes nose we must haue recourse to his holines at such time as he is sober not when he is furious least he become starke mad forget for euer the knowledge of the truth Secondly we must haue his aduise when he is a publike person not a priuate man Thirdly we must go vnto him not as he is indeed this or that Pope but as he is S. Peter that blessed Apostle of our Lord Iesus Thus much is deduced out of this popish Doctrine by euident and necessary consecution These points if they be well marked will vtterly confound all popish Doctrine and turne it vpside downe For first it is a constant Axiome in all popish Doctrine that the Pope and none but the pope must be the Iudge in all controuersies of faith and Doctrine This notwithstanding wee see by this popish doctrine which is currant in the Romish Church that if the Pope Iudge of any matter as he is furious and not sober as he is a priuate man and not a publike person as hee is Clemens Sixtus Adrianus or some other like pope and not Saint Peter himselfe then may hee erre and so both bee deceiued himselfe and deceiue all others Whereupon it followeth of necessity that euery one must well examine the popes Doctrine and Iudgement before he beleeue it otherwise doubtles he may receiue poyson for medicine falshood for truth and erroneous for Orthedoxe Christian doctrine Nay otherwise he cannot possibly tell when he shall appeale from the pope as a false teacher and seducer of the people Secondly the time cannot be named in which the Byshop of Rome shall be the Byshop there not a publick person at the selfe-same time for euen then when hee is a sleepe he is a publicke person or else no Byshop doubtlesse For once a Byshop euer a Byshop by Popish indeleble Character Yet I willingly graunt that a publique person may do some act which may be censured the acte of a priuate man but that cannot serue their turne Thirdly If the Papists will neuer apeale to the pope nor haue any intercourse with him vntill he be Saint Peter they shall neuer do it till the worlds end Fourthly if he be Peter by Office or calling then is hee alwayes Peter vnlesse perhaps hee be sometime Lucifer which were a rare Metamorphosis Fiftly this Popish distinction may fitly be termed a trick of fast and loose For if the Pope define a truth they may thē say he defined as a publick person But if he define an error then they say he defined as a priuat mā So doubtles it may be said indeed that he can neuer erre but some mā in his robes or some Deuill vnder his pall Briefely on the one side as we haue heard already the Pope commands vpon paine of Sacriledge not to dispute of his power nor to examine his doings and yet on the other side we must know whether he speake and define as a publicke person or as a priuate man before we beleeue his decrees which knowledge for al that can no way be had but by due examination of the popes doings What remaineth but to exclaime and complaine to our trusty friendes as the great learned Papist Gielerius did that by this Popish Doctrine no man can go to heauen S. R. For we must obey and beleeue what he decreeth iudicially though in hart he be an Hereticke T. B. Then sir we must examine the doctrine which the pope deliuereth to know whither it proceedeth from the Pope as a publique person or as a priuate man For otherwise we may as soone receiue deadly poyson as wholy medicine and as soone worship Harmannus the Heretiques bones as the reliques of S. Peter or S. Paule But this examination the Pope forbids and your selfe Maister Fryer
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
religious Fryer Alphonsus de Castro shall be the vmpire in this mystery These are his words At papam solum absque congregatione concilij posse in ijs quae ad fidem spectant errare multi non contemnendae authoritatis theologi asseruerunt imò aliquos pontifices summos in fide errasse comperâ—uns est Deinde si tanta esset solius Papae authoritas quanta totius concilij plene recte congregati frustra tantus labor pro conciliorum congregatione sumeretur That the Pope alone without the assembly of a Councell may erre in thinges pertayning to the Faith many Diuines of high esteeme doe hold and affirme yea it is most certain that some Popes haue erred in the Faith Againe if the Popes authority alone were as sure sound as the whole Councell fully and lawfully assembled then doubtlesse in vain should such paines bee taken in calling a Councell together Thus writeth this learned Popish Fryer affirming stoutly and resolutely mine illation against the Rhemists For this which I haue often tolde the Papistes will in the ende be found an vndoubted and inuincible truth viz that I defend no point of Doctrine against the Papists which the best learned Papists doe not approoue in their printed Bookes And heere by the way I note out of this Popish Doctor that many great learned Papistes doe constantly affrim that the Pope may erre in matters of faith as also that sundry Popes haue De facto erred already Now in Gods name let vs proceed to the mighty Traedition viz of the Bible it selfe S. R. Whence haue we the Apostles Creede but by Tradition as testifie Saint Hierome Saint Austen and Ruffinus VVhence the perpetuall virginity of our blessed Lady VVhence the lawfull transferring of the Sabbaoth day from Saterday to Sunday Whence many other thinges as testifie S. Hierome S. Cyprian and others but by Tradition But especially whence haue we the Bible it selfe Whence haue we that euery Booke Chapter and verse of it is Gods word and no one sentence therein corrupted in all these 1600. yeares T. B. This is nothing else but ridiculous and irkesome Tantologie It is answered againe and againe The Apostles Creede wee haue by Tradition in compendious manner but it is conteyned in the written Word As the Fathers admit many Traditions so doe I with the Church of England For we reiect no Tradition vnlesse it bee either repugnant to holy Writ or else obtruded as a necessary point of Saluation Which if the Reader marke seriously hee shall finde the Iesuite at a Non plus Concerning the Bible that it hath not beene corrupted for these 1600. yeares I aunswere that this blessing commeth not from the late Romish Church but from the GOD of Heauen who preserued the old Testament from corruption wheÌ„ it was longer in the handes of the wicked Iewes Howe we know it to be the word of GOD I haue shewed at large in the Downefall and thinke it needlesse heere to iterate the same Yet as our Iesuite shall giue occasion some more shall be added by way of reply S. R. Bels first aunswere is that there is great difference betwixt the primatiue Church the Church of late daies For the Apostles heard Christes Doctrine saw his Miracles and were replenished with the Holy-Ghost and consequently they were fit witnesses of all that Christ did and taught which adiunctes the Church of Rome hath not Here Bell blasphemeth Christes Church of late dayes auouching her neither to be replenished with the Holy-Ghost contrary to our creede professing her to be holy and Christs promise that the Holy-Ghost should remaine with her for euer Nor to be a fit Witnesse of his truth contrary to Saint Paule calling her the Pillar of Truth T. B. The blasphemy proceedeth from your selues from your pope to whom you ascribe such a prerogatiue as is proper to God alone when you tell vs he cannot erre I therefore answere that the true Church of God is holy hath the assistance of the Holy-Ghost and is a constant witnesse of Christs truth But these promises pertaine not to the church of Rome but to the whole congregation of the faithfull This Congregation is the pillar of Truth this Congregation hath the Holy-Ghost this Congregation is holy this Congregation cannot erâ—e in things necessâ—â—y to eternall life This proposition is prooued at large in my Suruey of Popery It is now enough to admonish the Reader thereof For I haue prooued it both by the Testimony of the holy Fathers and of the best approued Popish Writers One or two shall now suffice Alphonsus that famous Popish Fryer hath these wordes Ecclesiamilâ—tans est fidelium omnium congregatio quae corpus vnum est cuius caput est Christus The Church militant is the Congregation of all the faithfull which is one body whereof Christ is the head Thus writeth our religious Fryer VVho would haue thought that a Popish Fryer should or would thus haue defined the Church The Iesuites will not thus define it Heere is no mention of the pope and yet of the Popish Church he is the head He that opened the mouth of Balaams Asse opened now the mouth of our Fryer Alphonsus The truth must and will in time preuaile Panormitanus a Popish Abbot a Popish Arch-â—ishop and a Popish Cardinall hath these expresse wordes Licet concilium generale representet totamecclesiam uniuersalem tamen in veritate iâ—i non est vera ecclesia vn uersalis sed reprâ—sentatiuè quia vniuer salis ecclesia constituilur excollectione omnium sidelium vnde omnes sideles orbis constitunt istam ecclesiam vniuersaleÌ„ cuius capâ—t sponsus est Christus Sequ tur ista est illa ecclesia que errare non potest Although a generall Councell represent the whole vniuersall Church yet in truth there is not the true vniuersall Church but representatinely for the Vniuersall Church consisteth of the collection of all the faithfull Wherefore all the faithfull in the world make this Vniuersall Church whose head and Spouse is Christ. And this Church is it that cannot erre yea the Popes owne glosse vpon his owne Decrees dooth most liuely describe that Church which cannot erre to bee the congregation of the faithfull Thus is it there written in expresse wordes Quaero de qua ecclesia intelligas quod hic dicitur quod non possit errare Siipso papa certum est quod papa errare potest Respondeo ipsa congregatio sidelium hic dicitur ecclesia talis ecclesia non potest nonesse I aske thee O pope Luci of what Church thou vnderstands that which thou tellest vs in this place To wit that the church cannot erre For if thou vnderstandest it of the pope himself it is very certaine that the pope may erre I answere therfore that the church is here taken for the congregation of the faithfull such a church can neuer erre indeed Out of these words of these great
Papistes I note First that the Church is the Vnïuersall Congregation of the faithfull throughout the whole VVorlde whereof the head is not the Pope but Christ Iesus our Lord. Secondly that this is that Church which cannot erre Thirdly that when the Pope saith the Church cannot erre then his owne deare and faithfull interpreter telleth him that that priuiledge is not graunted to the Pope but to the whole congregation of the faithfull And the sayd Glosse prooueth the same by many Canons of the popes owne Decrees Fourthly that the church in which the truth alwayes abideth is the congregation of the faithfull and therefore truly said Durandus that the late popish church is not comparable to the primatiue Church which heard Christs Doctrine saw his Miracles and was replenished with the Holy-ghost S. R. But suppose that the present Church could not bee a fit witnes as the Primatiue was What is this to the Argument that proueth necessity of Tradition because without Testimony of the Church wee cannot discerne true Scripture from false T. B. The visible externall church is only an externall mean Instrument or outward help whereby we are induced to giue humaine credite to one Scripture rather then to another But the formall cause why we beleeue any Scripture to be Gods word is God himselfe and the inspiration of his holy spirit Hereof occasion will be offered to speake hereafter more at large S. R. Bels second answere is that as Papistes admit the Iewes Tradition of the old Testament for Gods word and withall refuse many other Traditions of theirs so Protestantes admit this Tradition of the Bible and reiect all other We contend against Protestants that Scripture is not sufficient to proue all points of Christian faith but that Tradition is necessary for some and Bell heere confesseth it Where is now the Downefall of Popery Methinkes it is become the Downefall of protestantry VVhere is now Bels first exposition That Scripture containeth in it euery Doctrine necessary to mans Saluation VVhere is now that wee must not adde to Gods word if this Tradition must needs be added thereunto Where is now that this present church can be no fit witnesse if by her testimony wee come to know the truth VVhere is now the curse which S. Paule pronounceth against him that preacheth any Doctrine not contained in the Scripture Where is now that Scripture is the sole and onely rule of faith T. B. Here our Iesuite in all brauery tryumphing before the victory exclaimeth six seuerall times where is now this and where is now that And when all is done his exclamation is not woorth a dead Rat. Whosoeuer shall duely peruse the Downefall will easily perceiue therein that all which our Iesuite hath brought in all this his great glory was soundly confuted before it came to light Neuerthelesse for the better contentation of the Christian Reader I thus reply vpon our Lordly Fryer First with their owne deare Fryer Alphonsus à Castro in the words Hocn habemus ex ecclesia vt sciamus quae sit scriptura diuina at cum Scripturam â—sse diuinam nobis constiterit iam ex seipsa habet vt ei per omnia credere teneamur It commeth from the Church that we know which is holy Scripture but after we know it to be the holy Scripture henceforth it hath of it selfe that wee are bound to beleeue it in euery point Thus writeth this famous Papist and he doth illustrate his assertion by a similitude drawn from a Creditor and a Debtor As if saith he witnesses should bee brought for the proofe of an Instrument in which Peter standeth bound to pay to Iohn 100. crownes the witnesses do not make Peter to be bound to Iohn For although Peter should deny it and no Witnesses could prooue it Peter for all that should owe the debt But the Witnesses effect so much that hee may be conuicted to owe the debt Much more to this effect hath Alphonsus but I desire to bee briefe This I inferre out of his words that though we grant the Scriptures to be known by the Testimony of the Church yet after that notification it deserueth credite of it selfe for euery iote contained in the same Secondly that seeing the Scripture acknowledged for Gods word of all Christians containeth by the Iesuites confession as is already prooued all thinges necessary for christian beliefe vnto Saluation it followeth of necessity that no vnwritten Tradition is necessary to Saluation For doubtlesse if euery Article and all thinges necessary to salution be written then can nothing at all be necessary that remaineth vnwritten Thirdly I constantly auouch and christianly affirme mark gentle Reader attentiuely that the holy Scripture dow shew it selfe to be Gods word euen as the Sun and the Candle by their light do shew themselues what they are I proue it First because the Prophet cals the Scripture a Lanthorne Thy word O Lord saith holy Dauid is a Lanthorne to my feet and a light vnto my pathes And the Apostle confirmeth the same when hee saith Wee haue a right sure word of prophesie whereunto if ye take heede as vnto a light that shineth in a darke place ye doe well vntill the day dawne and the day-starâ—e arise in your hearts Secondly because Christ himselfe telleth vs that his Sheepe do heare his voyce My Sheepe saith he heare my voyce and I know them and they follow me Againe thus I am the good Sheepheard I know my Sheepe and they know me But Câ—rtes if it bee true as it is most true because the truth it selfe hath spoken it that Christes Sheepe heare Christ and know Christs voyce then must it needes be true in like manner that when they eyther read the scriptures or heare them read then they know Christ speaking in the same and heare his voyce Toletus a Iesuite Cardinall of Rome hath these expresse wordes Electi praedestinati dei infallibiâ—er cognoscunt pastorem Christum quae 〈◊〉 ad tempus errent tamen tandem suum verum agnoscent pastorem Sequitur at Christum necesse est agnoscere Est autem haec nota effectus prioris propterea u. oues cognoscunt me quia ego cognâ—sco eas Gods elect and predestinate Children do know Christ their Pastor infallibly because albeit they erre for a time yet in the ende they will know their true Sheepheard for of necessity they must knovv Christ. For therefore do my Sheepe know me because I know them Thus writeth our Iesuite out of wose words I note first that all Gods children are not effectually called at one time but erre and wander as sheepe without a sâ—epheard but euer in the end they acknowledge Christ their true Shepheard â—â—condly that Christs Sheepe know Christ not beecause the Church sheweth Christ to them but because Christ knoweth them This point must bee well marked that Christs sheep therefore know Christ because Christ first knoweth them not because the church make Christ
circumcise haue gone from him and disobeyed his voice and therfore must haue their harts circumcised that they may returne to him againe serue him with their whole heart that is to say chearefully and vnfeignedly Whosoeuer can and will read S. Hierome in the place quoted in the Margent seriously and at large shall finde this controuersie so fully decided as hee can no longer stande in doubt thereof For euer must this Apostolicall Doctrine be holden for a most constant position In multis offendimus omnes We all offend in many things And this likewise for a receiued Axiome in the Schoole of all right Christians Non est homo qui non peccauit There is no Man that sinneth not If therefore our Iesuite sinne not hee is no man if his pope sinne not he is not man but either God or the Deuill GOD I am sure he is not if the Deuill God blesse vs from him In like manner it is saide of King Assa that his hart was perfect al his dayes and yet is he reproued both for resting vpon the king of Aram and for not seeking God in his disease The speech is Sinedochicall because he was vpright in many things S. R. Saint Hierome curseth this blasphemy of Bell God hath giuen vs those commandements which we cannot possibly keepe Likewise Saint Austen saith that God coulde not commaund any impossible thing because he is iust T. B. I answer first that the Symbole or Creed from whence our Iesuite will needs borrow a curse and father it vpon S. Hierom is not his as the censure vpon the same doth declare The like I may say of S. Aistens sermons de Tempore Secondly Saint Hieroms meaning S. Austens also is nothing else indeed but that Gods commaundements are possible to be kept of man as man though not of corrupt man after the fall of Adam This point is handled more at large in the Downefall of Popery That this is Saint Hieroms opinion indeede I haue already proued at large touching S. Austen these are his owne expresse wordes Certe iustus Deus negari non potest Imputat autm Deus homini omne peccatum Et hoc quoque confitendum puto quìa neque peccatumest quicquid non imputabitur in peccatū Et si est aliquod peccatum quod vitari non potest quomodo iustus deus dicitur si imputare cuiquam creditur quod vitari non possit Respondemus iam domini contra superbos esse clamatū beatus cui nō imputavit dominus peccatum Non. n. imputat his qui sideliter ei dicunt dimitte nobis debita nostra sicut nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris Et iuste non imputat quia instum est quod ait in qua mensura mensi fueritis in eadem remetietur vobis Peccatum est autem cum vel non est charitas quae esse debet vel minor est quā debet siue hoc voluntate vitari possit siue non possit quia si potest presens voluntas hoc facit si autem non potest praeterita voluntas hoc fecit tamen vitari potest non quando voluntas superbalaudatur sed quando humilis adiuvatur God doubtlesse is iust it cannot be denyed He also imputeth euery sinne vnto man I also thinke that this must be granted because it is no sinne whatsoeuer is not imputed for sinne and if there be any sinne which cannot be auoyded how is God called iust if hee impute to any man that which cannot be auoyded We answere that of olde it was proclaimed against the proud Happy is the man to whom the Lord hath not imputed sin For he imputeth not sin to thē which faithfully say to him forgue vs our debts as we forgiue our debtors And iustly he doth it not because it is iust which he saith In what measure your selues shall measure in the same shall it bee measured to you againe And it is sin when either there is not that Charity which ought to be or when it is lesse then it ought to be whether this can bee avoyded with will or it cannot for if it can be auoyded then present wil hath done it if it cannot be avoyded then wil past did it Againe the same Saint Austen hath these words Ante omniainquit interrogandus est qui negat hommē sine peccato esse posse quid sit quodcunque peccatum quod vitari potest an quod vitari non potest Si quod vitari potest potest homo sine peccato esse quod vitari potest Nulla n. ratio vel institia patitur saltem dici peccatum quod vitari nullo modo potest Respondemus vitariposse peccatum si natura vitiata sanetur gratia Dei per Iesum C. D. N. In tantum n. sana non est in quantum id quod faciendum est aut caecitate non videt aut infirmitate non implet dum caro concupiscit aduersus spiritum spiritus aduersus carnem vt ea quae non vult homo faciat He saith Celestine that saith man cannot liue without sinne must first of all bee demaunded what he will haue sinne to be whether that which can be auoyded or which cannot be auoyded If that which can be auoided man may be without that sin which can bee auoyded For neither reason nor Iustice suffereth that to bee called sinne which no way can be auoyded We answer that sinne may bee auoyded if corrupt Nature bee healed by Gods grace through Iesus Christ our Lord. For infomuch it is not healed by hovv much it either through blindnes sees not or through infirmity fulfils not what ought to bee doone while the flesh lufteth against the spirit and the spirit against the flesh so as man doth the things he would not Thus discourseth this holy and learned Father the most Noble Champion of Christes Church Out of whose Doctrine these excellent obseruations may be gathered First that that is no sinne which GOD imputeth not for sinne and consequently that when GOD doth not impute our sinnes to vs then are wee truely saide to bee without sin In Gods acceptation euer vnderstand although sin be still inherent in vs. Secondly that they are to be condemned for proud arrogant persons who thinke themselues to bee without sinne Thirdly that our mercifull God imputeth no sinnes to his faithfull Children who in the Lords Prayer humbly desire pardon for the same This is a point of great moment it must bee well remembred and neuer forgotten The Papistes most desperately and damnably affirme that some sinnes are Veniall of their owne Nature whereas the truth is this indeede viz that albeit all sinnes bee mortall and deadly of their owne Nature as I haue proued in the Downefall yet are all sinnes as Saint Austen grauely and Christianly in this place vnfoldeth Veniall to Gods Children who in true Faith inuocate his holy Name and humbly craue pardon for the same