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
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
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
Dionisius and Aquinas wee may learne sufficiently if nothing else were saide that howsoeuer Paule plant or Apollo water yet will no increase followe vnlesse God giue the same I therefore conclude that we do not beleeue this book or that Booke to be Cannonical because this man or that man or the church saith so but because the Scripture is ' axiopistos because it hath in it selfe that dignity that verity and that Maiesty which is woorthy of credite in it selfe The declaration of the church doth make vs know and beleeue the scripture but is onely an externall help to bring vs thereunto We indeed beleeue the Scripture this or that Booke to be canonicall because God doth inwardly teach vs and perswade our harts so to beleeue For Certes if we should beleeue this or that booke to be canonicall because the Church saith so then should the formall obiect of our faith and the last resolution therof be man and not God himselfe as Areopagna Aquinas the truth it selfe teacheth vs. Sixtly because we cannot be assured that the Church telleth vs the truth For how can the Church perswade vs that she knoweth it to be Gods word If aunswere be made that shee knoweth it of another Church then I demaund againe how that other Church can performe it And so either contrary to all Diuinity Phylosophy and right reason Dabitur processus in infinitum Or else they must say they receiued it by Tradition from the Apostles and thē are they where they began For first they cannot make vs know that assuredly Againe our Iesuite confuteth that answer when he liberally telleth vs that many partes of the Bible were long after the daies of the Apostles doubted of and consequently their Apostolicall so supposed Tradition is of no effect If answere be made that the Church knoweth it by Reuelation then their famous Bishop Melchior Canus telleth them plainely and roundly that it cannot bee so These are his expresse wordes Nec vllas in fide nouas reuelationes ecclesia habet For the Church hath no new Reuelations in matters of Faith If answere be made that the Scripture saith the Church cannot erre and so her testification is an infallible rule thereof we admit the answer we hold the same the controuersie is at an end the victory is our own Onely we must adde this which is already proued that that Church which cannot erre is not the late Romish church but the congregation of the faithfull Lastly the Scripture it selfe in many places telleth vs expresly that it is the word of God First wee haue in the foure Euangelistes these vvordes expressely set downe The Holy-Ghost of Iesus Christ according to Matthew Marke Luke and Iohn Secondly Saint Luke affirmeth in the beginning of the Actes of the Apostles that he made a Book of al those thinges which Iesus both did and taught meaning that gospell which is the third in number Thirdly wee are taught by Saint Peter that no prophesie of Scripture is made by any priuate motion but that holy men of God spake as they were mooued by the Holy-Ghost Fourthly S. Paule telleth vs That he receiued that of our Lord God which he deliuered in the Scripture Fiftly the same Apostle affirmeth that That Gospell of God 〈◊〉 written which was promised by his Prophets in the holy Scriptures Sixtly S. Iohn receiued his Reuelation from Christ which he was commaunded to write Lastly and this striketh dead When the rich Glutton tormented in Hell desired of our holy Father Abraham that one might be sent from the dead to his Bretheren then liuing Abraham answered that they had Moses and the Prophets whom ther ought to heare and beleeue And Christ himselfe told his Apostles that all thinges must needes bee fulfilled which were written of him in the Law of Moses in the Prophets and in the Psalmes Yea Christ tolde the two Disciples going toward Emmaus that they ought to beleeue all thinges which the Prophets spake and therefore beginning at Moses and all the Prophets hee did interpret to them in all the Scriptures the thinges which were written of himselfe And consequently the Scripture it selfe doth plainely tell vs that it is the word of GOD. For out of these wordes of the holy Scripture wee haue these points of Doctrine most cleerely deliuered First that our Sauiour Christ spake them Secondly that all things must be beleeued which are written in the Law in the Prophets and in the Psalmes Thirdly that all things foretold of Christ in the Law the Prophets and the Psalmes were fulfilled indeed Fourthly that Christ did interprete the chiefest partes of all the Law the Prophets and the Psalmes I therefore conclude that it is the word of GOD. As also that the dignity the excellency and the Maiesty thereof dooth insinuate no lesse vnto vs. S. R. Neither is Bels comparison true For wee beleeue not the Olde Testament to bee Gods word for any Tradition which the Iewes haue but which the Catholique church hath from the Apostles and their successors Who deliuered to the church and she to vs as well the Old as the New Testament for Gods word T. B. You contradict your selfe good Maister Fryer as who tels vs right plainely in another place that many parts of the Bible were doubted of a long time after the Apostles For if you had receiued by Tradition from the Apostles all the Scriptures both of the Old and New Testament ye could neuer so long after the Apostles haue bin in doubt of many partes thereof For by your supposed Tradition you had the same assurance for the whole as for the parts And consequently seeing you graunt your vncertainty for many parts you must perforce graunt the same vncertainty for the whole And so you confesse vnawares and against your wils so much in effect and true meaning as I contend to proue viz that your vnwritten supposed Apostolicall Traditions are as vncertaine as the winde and not an infallible rule of faith S. R. Bels third solution is that the New Testament is but an exposition of the Old and therefore may be tryed and discerned by the same But Sir Will you indeed try the New Testament Will you take vpon you to iudge Gods word And if you will try Gods word by what will you try the Old Testament Surely by Tradition or by nothing T. B. I answere that I admit both the Old Testament and the New because I beleeue God speaking in the same This is prooued already Againe seeing the Law and the Prophets and the Psalmes are approoued by Christes owne Testimony as we haue heard already and seeing withall that the New Testament is but an exposition of the Old as I haue prooued in the Downefall it followeth of necessity that the Old being receiued the New cannot be reiected Neither is he Iudge of Gods word that discerneth one Scripture by another◠because hee maketh not himselfe but Gods word
The Jesuites Antepast CONTEINING A Reply against a pretensed aun swere to the DOWNE-FALL OF POPERIE lately published by a masked Iesuite Robert Parsons by name though he hide himselfe couertly vnder the letters of S. R. which may fitly be interpreted A SAWCY REBELL Esay 38 verse 1. Put thine house in order for thou shalt die and not liue AT LONDON Printed by William Iaggard dwelling in Barbican 1608. To the Right Honorable my very good Lord Thomas Earle of Dorset Lord high Treasurer of England and one of his Maiesties most Honourable priuy Counsell â‚ IT is a constant and vndoubted truth approoued by all Canonicall Scriptures ancient Councels holy Fathers Ecclesiasticall Histories and Right reason it selfe that as there is but one onely GOD so but one Faith and one Religion Hence commeth it Right Honorable that the Pope and his Iesuites with other his Popish Vassals employ their whole wits learning study care industry and diligence to instill into the cares and harts of the multitude and common people that the Religion which this day they professe is the old Roman Religion which Saint Peter and S. Paule first planted in the Church of Rome And for this end they indeauâ—ur with might and maine yea euen with fire and Fagot to perswade or rather to enforce all Christians to call it the Old Religion and to professe and beleeue it to bee the Catholique and Apostolique Faith whereas the truth is farre otherwise as God willing shortly will appeare Which if the Vulgar sort did once vnderstand they would no doubt stand at defiance with the Pope and from their hearts detest his late start-vppe Romish Doctrine There is a Sect of Fryers at Rome called the Franciscanes who haue by little and little swarued from their first institution and become so licentious and dissolute that another sort of Fryers commonly called the Capucheues haue accused them to haue departed from their Ancient and Primitiue order and therefore do the Capucheues tearme themselues the reformed and true Franciscanes indeede This is this day our case in the Church of Noble England and in many other Churches within the Christian World The Capucheues hold fast keep still and constanty defend all the Ancient Orders of the first Franciscanes they onely reiect and abandon that which by litle and little crept into their Order viz superstition abuses and neglect of Discipline Euen so is it this day with our Church of England she holdeth-fast keepeth still and constantly defendeth all and euery iote of the old Romane Religion reuerencing it as Catholique and Apopostolique Doctrine she onely reiecteth and abandoneth Heresies Errours superstition and intollerable abuses by little and little brought into the Church For neither did most Noble Queene Elizabeth in her time neyther doth our most gratious Soueraigne King IAMES who this day most happily raigneth ouer vs set vp or bring into the Church any new Religion but onely reformeth the Church by the example of King Iosaphat King Ezechias King Iosias and other godly Kinges in their dayes and reduceth it to the Primitiue order and purity of the old Romaine Religion This to be so none can in conscience deny that will with a single and vpright eye this day behold the godly setled Canons of this Church of England For the late Bishops of Rome haue in many points of great importance swarued and departed from the Doctrine of their Ancestors whereof no doubt many Papists euen at about Rome it selfe would this day if they durst for fear of fire and Fagot accuse the Pope himself What shall I say of Hieronymus Sauonarola that famous Preacher and Dominican Fryer Was not be burnt with Fire and Fagot because he preached openly in the famous Citty of Florence against the licencious liues of the Pope and his Clergy and against superstition and abuses crept into the Church I wote it was so it cannot be denyed What Did not Iohannes Geilerius a famous Popish Preacher at Argentorate oftentimes complain to his trusty friends not daring to acquaint otheres therewith that the Thomists and Scotists had brought auricular confession to such a miserable point as none possibly could performe the same He did so their owne good friend Beatus Rhenanus doth contest the same with me What Did not Franciscus à Victoria that â—amous Popish Schoole-doctor complaine grieuously in his time of Popish intollerable dispensations Did he not publish to the view of the world that the Church was brought to such a miserable state as none were able to endure the same Did hee not cry out against the late Bishops of Rome and desire Clements Lines Siluesters His own Book is extant in print the world knoweth it to be so What shall I say of the Popes errors in Faith and Doctrine Was not Pope Liberius an Arrian Heretike Was not Pope Anastasius a Silestorian Hereretique Was not Pope Celestine condemned for erronious doctrin did not Pope Iohn the 22. of that name teach publikely a most notorious heresie Did he not commaund the vniuersity of Paris that none should be admitted to any degree in Theologie but such as would sweare to defend that heresie perpetually Did not the King of France with the aduise consent of the whole vniuersity for that end cause his daÌ„nable opinion to be coÌ„demned with the sound of Trumpets Adrianus who was B of Rome himselfe Alphonsus à Castro Melchior Canus and Viguerius all foure being very learned and famous Papists are constant witnesses of this truth Doth not Nicholaus de Lyra a famous and learned Popish Writer boldly and constantly affirme in his learned Commentaries that many Popes haue swarued from the Faith and become flâ—t Apostaâ—aes in their Romish seates He doth so it cannot bee gaine-said What shall I say of the Popes liues conuersation Was not Pope Iohn the eight of that name belying her sexe and clad in Mans attire with great admiration of her sharpe wit and singuler learning chosen to bee the Bishop or Pope of Rome Did she not shortly after by the familiar helpe of her beloued Companion bring forth the homely and shamefull fruites of her Popedome Is this true Is it possible Then farewell Popish Succession the chiefe Bulwarke of Romish Faith and Religion For seeing no Woman is or can be made capable of holy orders that succession which is deryued froÌ„ our holy Mistris Iohn Pope cannot possibly be of force Yet is this story confirmed to be true by the vniforme assent of many Papistes of great esteeme euen in the Church of Rome viz of Sigebertus Gemblacensis Marianus Scotus Matheus Palmerius Martinus Polonus Philippus Bergoniensis Baptista Platina Bartholomeus Carranza and others Was not Pope Iohn the twelft made Pope by violent meanes Did not his Father Albericus being a man of great power and might enforce the Nobles to take an oth that after the death of Pope Agapitus they would promote his Son
reply is this First that to deny Iosue to be king is a vaine cauill and argueth lacke of matter in our Iesuites answere for Iosue had the thing though not the name he was the Ciuil independent Magistrate and had the chiefe and supereminent power ouer the Isralites his Subiects as Moses whom he succeeded had and the other Kings Dauid Salomon Iosaphat Ezekias and Iosias In regard whereof he was and may bee truely reckoned with and among the other kings But when good reasons cannot bee had such Beggerly cauils must supply the want Secondly that it is a most notorious slander against the holy Scripture and consequently á notable blasphemy against God himselfe to say and desperately to avouch in a printed Booke that no High-priest was deposed by any of the said Kinges These are the expresse wordes of holie writ Eiecit ergo Salomon Abiathar vt non esset sacerdos domini Therefore Salomon cast out or deposed Abiathar the high Priest that he should not be the Priest of the Lord. Again holy writ hath these expresse wordes Et Sadoc sacerdote posuit pro Abiathar and the King put Sadoc the Priest in the roome of Abiathar Loe the holy scripture telleth vs two things most plainly and expressely and that is done euen in that Latin Vulgaâ—a editio to which the Pope hath tyed all his Iesuites and Iesuited Popelings The one that King Salomon deposed Abiathar the High-priest The other that hee placed Sadoc the priest in Abiathars roome Thirdly that it is most absurdly auouched of our Iesuit that Salomon onely confined Abiathar to his house for a time Concerning this deposition and casting out of Abiathar from his place and putting Sadoc the priest in his roome our Iesuite is at his wits end what to say and why I pray you For this end doubtles because hence it is proued euidently and by a necessary consecution that Kings both haue and may depose priests euen the hie priests and greatest priests of all But it can neuer be proued out of the holy scriptures that any Priest deposed any King no not the meanest king in all the world The Iesuite contradicteth himselfe mightily For first hee saith that none of the Kings deposed any priest Secondly that Salomon deposed Abiathar Thirdly that Abiathar was not deposed but onely for a time confined to his owne house What horsâ—e would not breake his necke to heare this sweet melodie The scripture telleth vs that king Salomon deposed Abiathar and for confirmation heereof the same scripture addeth that Sadoc the priest was set in his roome Fourthly to say as the Iesuite doeth that Salomon deposed Abiathar not as King but as prophet is to speake at randon and to make of scripture a nose of wax for no one Text from the first of Genesis to the last of the Apocalipse doth iustifie this fond and sottish answer of the masked Iesuite albeit I know this to bee true that he wanted not the aduise and counsell of his best learned Brethren Whosoeuer desireth further in sight into this subiect and of the soueraignty of kings ouer priests and Byshops which are their subiects if he peruse my Golden ballance of tryall I hope in God it will satisfie his desire CHAP. 4. ¶ Containing a confutation of the sixt Chapter of the masked Iesuite THe Iesuite in his sixt Chapter and first article is wholly occupied in impertinent matters and foolish demaunds not once touching directly ought that I haue written but let vs heare him once againe and so proceed to another Chapter S. R. Because the question is not vpon what cause Kings and Emperors humbled themselues to the Popes but whether they did or no And because they haue so done as Bell confesseth Catholicks infer the Pope to be their superior Vnlesse perhaps Bell thinke blinde zeale to disanul euery fact or guift and so say the Iewes persecuted not the Church because they did it vpon blind zeale nor our Catholique ancestors gaue any liuings to Churches because they did it vpon blind zeale as Bell must thinke for maintainance of Papistry T. B. O shamelesse and impudent Iesuite Is the question only what was done Where is thy wit Where is thy faith Where is thy Religion Doth not your Angellicall Doctor Aquinas teach you that all morall Acts haue their specification of the end and finall cause Doth not Scotus Ockamus Gabriel Iosephus Durandus and all the rest approue the same Doctrine How sayest thou then O blind Iesuit that the question is not vpon what cause kinges humbled themselues to the Popes but whether they did or no ô Tempora ô Mores Doth not alms otherwise a commendable act degenerate into sinne when it is giuen for vaine glory And this onely because the ende and cause for which it is giuen is nought and vnlawfull Dooeth not Christs Apostle tell thee that whatsoeuer is not of fayth is sinne That whatsoeuer is done ought to bee done to to the glory of God Alas alas euery childe that hath but learned the rudiments of Christianity can roundly tel our Iesuite that we must not so much respect what is done as what ought of right to be done We may not reason as our Iesuite Parsons doth for he is the man the thing was don therefore lawfully done Kings yeelded supreame authority to the Pope therefore they did it lawfuly By that kind of Logicke or rather Legierdemain all theftes all robberies all Rebellions all mischiefes vnder heauen may bee iustifyed and defended You Iesuites and your Iesuited pope-lings do take part with the Pope against your annointed Soueraigne and so by this new no Diuinity the pope is our King and Superiour For thus you reason beecause Kings haue so done the Pope is their Superiour For the question is not vpon whose grounde they did so but whether they did so or no. For by your Theology if the thing be done it is lawfully done but what Bell perhaps thinkes that blinde zeale dissanulleth euery fact and so neither the Iewes persecuted the Church nor our papistes gaue any liuing to the Church because they did it as Bell must thinke vpon blind zeale O monster of al Monsters ô Child of perdition ô sonne of the Deuill Bell saith not that blind zeale disanulleth any act Bell saith not that papists gaue no liuings to the Church Bell saith not that the Iewes did not persecute the Church No no it is the deuill in our Iesuite that mooues him thus falsly to slaunder Bell. It is one thing to say the papists gaue liuinges to the Church vpon a blinde zeale another thing to say they gaue nothing at all The former I say the latter I denie therefore when you papists labour to proue the popes soueraignty ouer Kings because some Kings haue acknowledged it vpon a blind zeale I answer that your proofe is of no force not for that such thinges haue not bin done but because they were not done as they should ought to
for Christs sake and behold our Iesuite at a great Non plus I haue prooued both by the Scripture out of Saint Iohn and by the testimony of the holy Fathers and famous Popish Writers that the very Essence Nature and formality of sin is the transgression of Gods Lawe That Gods law is nothing else but his eternall reason or will decreeing what ought to be done or not to be done and consequently that euery sin is mortall as beeing against Gods reason Will and Law Now our Fryer being indeede at his wits end knoweth not what aunswere to make but saith at Randon that the Fathers onely define mortall sin He neither hath Rime nor Reason thus to say but we must if ye will admit his bare word for he is an honest man I warrant you his word is as good as no Obligation The Fathers define sin generally they make no exception at all yet our Iesuite will needs haue them to define onely mortall What a thing is this Who euer hath heard the like The Question is whether euery sin be mortall or no. I affirme euery sin to bee mortall and I prooue it because the holy Scripture the Auncient Fathers and the Doctors doe define sin to bee so yet our Iesuite thinketh it enough barely to aunswere that they all speak of mortall sin not of veniall O sweet Iesus Our Iesuite is either too too foolish or els too too malicious His fond answer is tearmed in Schooles Petitio principij the begging of the Question He will needes haue the Fathers to except veniall sins and to acknowledge such sins although they take no notice of such sins neither once name such sins but contrariwise affirme all sinnes without exception to bee mortall These Fathers saith our fatherly Iesuite define mortall sin not veniall Euen so sorsooth for why should they define that which is not The Fathers were wise they knew that euery sin in it owne nature deserued death and therefore defined sin accordingly They knew that Saint Paule saith The reward of sinne is death They knew what God saith by his Prophet Ezechiell The Soule that sinneth shall dye the death They knew what God saith by his Prophet Dauid Thou art not a GOD that loueth wickednesse neither shall euill dwell with thee They knew what Christ will say at the day of dome Depart from me ye cursed into euerlasting fire But our Iesuite saith that veniall sinnes breake not friendshippe with God Well let him stand in iudgment against God for his venials I will say with the humble Prophet Enter not into iudgement with thy Seruant O Lord for no flesh can be iustified in thy sight S. R. I admit that by sin Saint Iohn vnderstood all kinde of Actuall sin and deny that Anomia Iniquity is taken for wickednesse and perfect transgression of the Lawe but generally as it is common to perfect transgression only swaruing from the Law T. B. I answere First that Anomia is the transgression of the Law according to the nature and proper signification of the word as their most famous Linguist Arias Montanus graunteth Secondly that iniquity is perfect sin and wickednesse as the Prophet telleth vs Discedite à me omnes qui operamini iniquitate Depart from me all ye that worke iniquity So the Latin Vulgata editio readeth which the papists must approoue perforce because the Pope hath so inioyned them Heere iniquity must needes bee taken for mortall sin for as our Iesuite saith Veniall sinnes do not breake friendship with God and I may presume to affirme of holy Dauid that hee commaunded not them to depart from him who were in fauour with God No no God loueth not those that worke iniquity Thirdly that Saint Iohn speaketh of mortall sinne by our Iesuites owne confession Fourthly that Saint Bede Lyranus and Carthusianus do all three with vniforme assent expound it of mortall sin Fiftly that our Iesuite vnawares graunteth no lesse These are his wordes For iniquity requireth onely want of equitie and conformitie to Gods Lawe Loe hee graunteth iniquity to want conformity to Gods Law and so say I vnawares he granteth iniquity to be against Gods law seeing it is here confessed of our Iesuite that it wants cōformity thereunto for that is to be against Gods Law S. R. Durand and Angles I confesse did thinke veniall sins to bee against the Lawe but neyther is this a matter of Fayth neyther do they intend to fauour Bell any thing T. B. Here our Iesuite graunteth me the victory confessing that his owne deare friendes Durand and Angles defend mine opinion But he addeth two things for his defence as hee thinketh yet I deny them and so I thinke will the indifferent Reader to be very ridiculous and altogether childish First he saith it is no matter of faith What then good Sir Is nothing to be regarded but matters of Fayth Is it a matter of faith that your Pope cannot erre That he is aboue a general Councel That he can depose kings Nay that either he or your selfe be an honest man And what is a matter of fayth Forsooth whatsoeuer the Pope will haue a matter of fayth Secondly he saith Durand and Angles intend not to fauour mee This is brother-folly to the former How farre to London a pokefull of Plumbes S. R. All formall sin is formall iniquity but not contrarywise As Adultery or murther committed by a foole or madde man is iniquity but no more sinne then it is in Beasts T. B. First Iniquity is wickednesse and consequently sin as is already prooued Secondly Iniquity is formally against equity as our Iesuite hath graunted Thirdly it is formally transgression of Gods Law as I haue many wayes confirmed Ergo it is formally sin Fourthly If Adultery or murther doone by a foole or mad man be iniquity it is also sin for all iniquity is sin as is already prooued Fiftly to say that Adultery done by a foole or madde man is no more sinne then it is in beastes seemeth to me a beastly affirmation Our Iesuite barely sayth it hee prooueth it not I know his supposed ground because forsooth it is not voluntary But I would haue him to tell mee how it is not as well sinne in Fooles and mad men as Adams fault is sinne in Infants against their will Because saith he they cannot auoyde it The same say I of Infantes I adde that Beastes neuer hadde it in their power to auoyde sinne and sinnefull actes but Fooles madde men and Infantes were all at once enabled to haue kept the Lawe when they were in Lumbis Adae which is enough for their iust condemnation And it is confirmed because they may as well bee freed from Originall sin as from murther and Adultery It is a common saying that if a drunken man kill a man when hee is drunke hee must bee hanged when hee is sober Yea the Ethnicke Philosopher can tell vs that a murtherer
for a constant position and sound Doctrine that euery sin is mortall of it owne nature our Doctrine therefore is the same which great learned Papists do defend And I must needs heere put the Reader in minde of the newnesse of late Romish religion viz that Venial Sinnes were neuer known to the Church vntil the late dayes of Pius the fift and Gregory the 13. that is to say about forty yeares ago O Popery thou art but a childe thou must neuer from this day be called the old Religion for heere our Iesuite confesseth thine Nonage and proclaimeth thee to bee the Nevv religion I must likewise insinuate to the Reader another point of great importaÌ„ce viz that the popes act is reputed the decree of the Church and that no part of Romish religion is a matter of faith vntill it please the Pope so to apoint it Now for Fisher and Gerson the one is a cannonized Popish Saint the other a Popish Byshop But these are not matters to stand vpon though they help our Iesuite to passe ouer the time and to dazle the eyes of the Reader S. R. He concludeth this Article with this goodly reason One stealeth iust so many Egges as are necessary to make a Mortall sinne another stealeth one lesse But there can be no reason why God may iustly condemne the one to hell and not the other Therefore they both sinne Mortally alike To this I aunswere by demaunding a reason why the Iudge may condemne him to death that stealeth thirteene pence halfe peny and not him that stealeth one peny lesse If he answer because the law condemneth one and not the other I aske againe what reason was there that the Law was made against the one and noâ— against the other And if Bell can find a reason in this he wil find one in his owne Question The reason of both is because such a quantity is a notable iniury to our neighbour and consequently it is against charity and so breaketh the Law and a lesse quantity is not T. B. The destinction betweene Mortall and Veniall Sinnes lately inuented by the Pope doth so trouble our Iesuite after his consultation with his best learned friendes that hee can shape mee no aunswere touching a few Egges Gladly he would seeme to say something yet after hee hath wearied himselfe with strugling against the truth he is where he first began Not knowing how to answere he demaundeth two Questions and that done hee telleth me I must answere my selfe This notwithstanding after better aduisement and consideration had of the matter he pretends to shew a reason of both his owne questions But howsoeuer that be which is indeed a meere mockery he leaueth my argument vntouched Let vs suppose for explication sake that Egges worth thirteene pence halfe peny makes a Mortal sinne and that God may iustly condemne him that stole them as also a Mortall Iudge amoÌ„g Mortall men Let vs likewise suppose for example sake that neyther the Ciuill Iudge nor God himselfe can iustly condemne him that hath stollen but so many Egges as are woorth twelue pence halfe penny Nowe this is my Question Nay this is mine assertion that there can no good reason be yeelded why God may iustly condemne the one to Hell and not the other To answere as the Iesuite doeth after hee hath deepely pondered the matter that one is a notable iniury to our neighbor not so the other is too teo childish and friuolous For if thirteene pence halfe peny be a notable iniurie so is also twelue pence One penny doubtlesse cannot make Mortall and Veniall difference neyther is it to the purpose to say as our Iesuite doth viz. that the ciuil Iudge cannot condemne the theefe that stealeth one peny lesse The reason is euident because the ciuil Iudge is vnder the law and subiect to it but God Omnipotent is aboue his Law and may dispense with it at his good pleasure So did Christ aunswere the Pharisees on the behalfe of his disciple The sabboath sayth Christ was made for man and not man for the sabboth Therefore is the sonne of Man Lorde of the sabboth also The Iesuites reason thus reiected as friuolous and nothing to the purpose let vs examine the matter to the bottome for it is a point of great consequence First then this is an vndoubted truth that the supreme ciuill Magistrate may as lawfully appoint death for stealing of twelue pence as for 13. pence halfe peny for the penalty of death is wholly arbitrary to the iudge He must frame his laws as serue best for the peaceable gouernment of his people Whereupon it commeth that in diuers countryes diuers punishments are designed for the same faults and all agreeable to Gods law This is likewise an vndoubted truth in Popery viz that some Sinnes are Veniall of their owne nature other some mortall Against this false ground of Popery doe I now contend We haue seene already that a theefe may as wel be condemned to dye for twelue pence as for more euen so then God à fortiori may as iustly condemne one for a Popish Veniall sinne as for a Mortall for euery sinne deserueth death of it owne nature bee it more be it lesse Yea if any sinne should of it owne nature be Veniall theÌ„ should Originall sinne in an infant be Veniall most of all because the Infant neyther can auoyd it neyther hath any will to do it I therefore conclude that it is against all sence and reason to say that God may iustly condeme a man for stealing so many Egges as in Popery make a Mortall Siâ—nâ— let them name what number they will and that he cannot likewise condemne him that stealeth but one Egge lesse And it is absurd to say or thinke that the least sinne that can be named doth not breake off amity and friendship with God if wee respect the sin in it owne Nature I proue it because the least sinne that can be named doth auert and turne the doer from the face of God Ergo from the amity and fauour of God I proue the Antecedent for the consequence is good and cannot bee denyed No sinne whatsoeuer more or lesse can be referred vnto God who detesteth all sinne Ergo euery sinne bee it neuer so small turneth vs away from the fauour of God Truely therefore wrote Byshop Fisher and Maister Gerson that euery sin is mortall of it owne nature And so is that proued which I defend The seuenth Article of Vnwritten Traditions THe Iesuite vseth many impertinent digressions and needlesse Taâ—tologies in this Article I standing to bee breefe will onely aunswere to such allegations as shall seeme necessary for the contentation of the Reader referring him for the rest to the Downfal where he may find all necessary pointes virtually confuted though not in expresse termes S. R. All such points of Christian fayth as are necessary to be actually beleeued of euery one that hath vse of reason though hee
be neuer so simple are actually contained in scripture eyther clearely or obscurely T. B. This doctrine is good I approue it with all my heart and willingly subscribe vnto it with my pen. If our Iesuite will stand to this Doctrine we shall soone agree S. R. For surely the Prophets and Euangelists writing their Doctrin for our remembrance would omit no one point which was necessary to be actually known of euery one especially seeing they haue written many thinges which are not so necessary And this thing teacheth S. Austen when he sayth those thinges are written which seemed sufficient for the saluation of the faithfull T. B. This Doctrine I likewise approue it is the verie same that I defend Keepe thee heere Iesuite and we shall not contend S. R. Methinks S. Austen plainly auoucheth that God hath procured euery thing to be clearly written which to know is necessary to euery mans saluation The same teacheth S. Syril saying Not al things which our lord did are written but what the writers deemed sufficient as well for manners as for Doctrine that by right saith and workes we may attaine the kingdome of Heauen S. Chrisostome sayth what things soeuer are necessary the same are manifest out of the scripture T. B. This doctrine I still approue as which the Reader may find to be taken out of the Downfall And so our Iesuite doth heere subscribe vnto my Doctrine though hee take vpon him to oppugne the same For the truth is mighty will in time preuaile This being so I haue no neede to stand long vpon this point For as the Reader seeth the Iesuite approoueth that Doctrine which I in the Downefall do defend S. R. Truly said Saint Ephiphanius that we may tel the inuention of euery question out of the consequence of Scriptures He saide not out of the Scripture For all cannot be taken thence as himself writeth but of the consequence of them Because all questions are resolued out of the scriptures or out of that which followeth of them as the effect of the cause T. B. This also is sound Doctrine and the very same which I defend in the Downfal And consequently the very weapons which our Iesuite hath put into our hands are sufficient to defend vs and our cause against him For if the Reader shal remember these grounds and these positions freely of him granted and withall haue recourse vnto the Downfall he shall be able with all facility to answere to all that the Iesuite obiecteth in this Article S. R. All points of Christian faith cannot be sufficiently and immediatly proued out of scripture For there is no place of all the scripture which sufficiently proueth all the rest to be cannonicall our B. Lady to be a perpetuall Virgin and. the Sabboth to be lawfully translated from Saturday to Sunday T. B. Now our Iesuite forgetteth himselfe and what doctrin he hath already deliuered It were a sufficient answere to tell him that hee heere confuteth himselfe But for the Readers helpe I will breefely aunswere his particulars To the first I say it is soundly and largely answered in the Downfall of Popery In regard of breuity I referre the Reader to the place quoted in the Margent To the second I answere first that I willingly acknowledge the most blessed Virgin to be the Mother of true God and true man and to haue bin a perpetuall Virgin both before Christs byrth and in his byrth and after his byrth Secondly that albeit I defend as our Iesuite also hath granted all things necessary to be beleeued vnto saluation to be contained in the holy scriptures yet do I not deny but willingly graunt and reuerently admit many things receiued by the perpetuall consent of the church and not repugnant to the written word as true wholesome and godly For I am perswaded with S. Austen that whatsoeuer is neyther against Fayth nor against good manners may indifferently be obserued for their society amongst whom we do conuerse Againe it is one thing to say that all necessary points of fayth and Doctrine are contained in the holy scriptures another thing to say that nothing not contained in the scripture hath bin receyued by tradition may be admitted for a truth It cannot be convinced out of the scriptures and therefore no matter of fayth that Saint Peter and S Paule dyed together at Rome yet do I admit it for a truth as receiued by Tradition from the Primatiue Church and testified by vniforme consent of al approued antiquity To the third I haue already said inough both in my Booke of Suruey and also in the Regiment of the Church For in things indifferent the Church may determine what is most expedient for the due circumstances of times places and persons S. R. God sayth Bell forbiddeth vs to adde to his word I answere that such places make nothing against Traditions which are necessary to mans saluation because such are indeed Gods word though vnwritten T. B. I answere our Iesuite with his owne words which follow immediately and are these for the two first places onely forbid adding to Gods word any thing of our own heade or which is mans word as may be proued by the reason of the forbiddance viz least we be disproued found lyars as no doubt we might by adding mans word which is subiect to lye but not by adding Gods worde which neuer can proue vntrue though it be not written Thus writeth our Iesuite confuting himselfe so sufficiently as more needs not be required In these words he telleth vs two things the one quite opposite to the other First he truly saith confuting himselfe that the Scripture forbiddeth to adde of our owne head any thing which is but mans word and subiect to falshood and lying This is good But secondly hee addeth that to adde Gods word though vnwritten is a lawfull thing but this is a silly begging of the question as the Schooles tearme it For I deny that vnwritten Word to bee Gods Word which our Iesuite should prooue but cannot And our Iesuite hath already confessed that all necessary pointes of faith are contained in the Scriptures written Word And consequently it is to late to tell vs now of adding or admitting the vnwritten Word I admit his former assertion as consonant to the Scriptures this latter I reiect as childish vaine and friuolous I proue it because euery word of God is to be admitted as a matter of faith and yet all matters of Faith are written as is already proued and granted This therefore not being written must be hissed out of the Schoole of Christians S. R. Bell alleadgeth the Prophets words To the Law rather and to the Testimony This place maketh nothing for him First because the Prophet nameth not onely the Law but Testimony also which comprehendeth Gods vnwritten word Secondly because Esay doth not absolutely bidde vs recurre to the Law
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
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
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
vs. And what is the cause Forsooth saith S. Austen because they onely heare a sound in their outward eares but not the heauenly Preacher sounding in their harts S. R. Well saide S. Austen I would not beleeue the Gospell vnlesse the Authority of the Church did moue me thereto This place so stingeth Bell as he windeth euery way to auoyd it T. B. Howsoeuer in your opinion it stingeth me yet haue I so sufficiently aunswered it in the Downfall as there is no need heere to adde any thing in defence thereof Neuerthelesse some few Annotations I will adde for explication sake First when S. Austen saith I wold not beleeue the Gospel vnlesse the Authority of the Church did moue me thereto He meaneth of himselfe as being a Manichee not as being a christian As if he had said If I this day were not a Christian but a Manichee as I once was I woulde not beleeue this Gospell which I wish thee to embrace vnlesse the Churches Authority did moue me to the same For these are S. Austens own words Si ergo invenirem aliquem qui Euangelio nondum crèdit quid faceres dicenti tibi non credo Ego vero Euangelio noÌ„ crederem nisi me Catholicae Ecclesiae commâ—veret authoritas If therefore I shoulde finde one that yet beleeueth not the Gospel what wouldst thou do to him saying to thee I beleeue it not I doubtlesse would not beleeue the gospell vnlesse the authority of the Catholicke church did mooue mee therâ—unto Loe he speaketh of him that beleeueth not the gospell and of himselfe not being a christian not of himselfe or any other that professeth the gospell Where I am to admonish the Reader that here as in many other places of my Bookes this period last recited is vnperfect in the Downefall For my selfe being absent from the Presse as dwelling farre off many faultes escape the Printer That this is the true meaning of S. Austen I proue it first because in the very same Chapter hee confesseth that the Authority of the Gospell is aboue the authority of the Church Secondly because in the Chapter aforegoing after he hath discoursed of many notable things in the church Consent Miracles Antiquitie and Succession he addeth that the truth of the Scriptures must be preferred before them all These pointes and reasons I cited before out of Saint Austen which because they confound our Iesuite hee impudently denieth them affirming that Saint Austen saith not so These therefore are S. Austens owne words in the first Chapter Quòd si forte in euangelio aliquid apertissimum de Manichaei Apostolatu 〈◊〉 pâ—tueris infirmabis mihi catholicorum anthoritatem qui iubent non credam If happily thou canst finde in the Gospell any manifest thing of the Apostle-ship of Manichaeus thou shalt discredite the authority of Catholiques to mee who commaund mee not to beleeue thee Againe in the fourth Chapter he hath these wordes Apud vos sola personaâ— veritatis pollicitatio quae quidem si tam manifesta monstratur vt in dubium venire non possit praeponenda est omnibus illis rebus quibus in Catholica teneor With you onely soundeth the promise of truth which if it bee prooued so manifest that it cannot be doubted of it is to be preferred before al those thinges that hold me in the catholique church Loe in the former place Saint Austen graunteth freely that the authority of the Scripture is aboue the authority of the church And in the latter that the truth of the Scripture must be preferred before all other things whatsoeuer Away therefore with our lying Fryer and giue hearing to his fables no longer Secondly the faith that proceedeth from the Church for TestificatioÌ„ is but humaine and not diuine For none saue God onely can beget faith diuine in vs. It pleaseth GOD to vse externall meanes and Ceremonies for the confirmation of our Faith but the grace power vertue is from himselfe alone The Law was giuen by Moyses but grace and truth came by Iesus Christ. I prooue it First because a supernaturall effect must needes bee produced of a supernaturall cause and consequently diuine faith beeing a supernaturall effect cannot proceede from the Romish Church Secondly a corporall agent cannot ascend and penetrate a spirituall obiect as a materiall Sword cannot penetrate an immateriall Spirit and consequently neither produce an immateriall effect as is faith diuine Thirdly no immateriall and spirituall accident can bee receyued into any corporall subiect and consequently no corporall subiect is apt to produce a spirituall effect Fourthly Saint Austen saith plainly that it is a greater woorke to iustifie a man then to create the VVorlde but no power saith the Popish Angelicall Doctor Aquinas which is vpon earth can concurre to creation Ergo neither to iustification and consequently neither to the producing of Faith diuine Thirdly when saith is wrought and begotten in vs we may not diuide the worke giuing part to God and part to the Church but we must ascribe the whole to GOD the true Author of the whole Therfore after S. Paule had tolde the Corinthians that he had laboured more aboundantly then all the Apostles hee forthwith added these wordes Yet not I but the grace of God which is with me For though maÌ„ be not in his actions as a brute beast or block but free from all coaction and constraint yet hath he no power but from aboue neither hath he any part more or lesse in producing Grace Faith or the supernatuall effects For though it be Gods pleasure to vse mans externall acts and operations for the exercise of his faith wheÌ„ he meaneth to produce supernaturall effectes yet dooth hee himselfe solely and wholy of himselfe produce the same effectes And heere I must tell the Reader of a great defect in the Latine Vulgata editio which the late Councell of Trent extolleth to the Heauens and withall Papists are bound to vse and beleeue It saith thus Yet not I but the grace of God with mee as if forsooth part were imputed to grace and part to the act and woorke of Saint Paule Whereas indeed the Apostle ascribeth the whole to God and vtterly refuseth to take any part to himselfe Which the Article â— in the Greeke left out in the Latine Vulgata editio maketh plaine and euident For after Saint Paule had saide That hee had laboured more then all the Aopostles he by and by addeth this correction Yet not I but the grace of God which is with me And heere because sensible things worke most in sensile persons let vs take an example of the Napkins and Partlets which were brought from Saint Paules body vnto the sicke for the Napkins by touching Saint Paules body receiued no inherent vertue to worke Miracles The Text saith plainely that God wrought the Miracles by the hand of Paule The Napkins and Handkerchiefes were but outward tokens to confirme the faith of