The Jesuites Antepast CONTEINING A Reply against a pretensed aun swere to the DOWNE-FALL OF POPERIE lately published by a masked Iesuite Robert Parsons by name though he hide himselfe couertly vnder the letters of S. R. which may fitly be interpreted A SAWCY REBELL Esay 38 verse 1. Put thine house in order for thou shalt die and not liue AT LONDON Printed by William Iaggard dwelling in Barbican 1608. To the Right Honorable my very good Lord Thomas Earle of Dorset Lord high Treasurer of England and one of his Maiesties most Honourable priuy Counsell â‚ IT is a constant and vndoubted truth approoued by all Canonicall Scriptures ancient Councels holy Fathers Ecclesiasticall Histories and Right reason it selfe that as there is but one onely GOD so but one Faith and one Religion Hence commeth it Right Honorable that the Pope and his Iesuites with other his Popish Vassals employ their whole wits learning study care industry and diligence to instill into the cares and harts of the multitude and common people that the Religion which this day they professe is the old Roman Religion which Saint Peter and S. Paule first planted in the Church of Rome And for this end they indeauâ—ur with might and maine yea euen with fire and Fagot to perswade or rather to enforce all Christians to call it the Old Religion and to professe and beleeue it to bee the Catholique and Apostolique Faith whereas the truth is farre otherwise as God willing shortly will appeare Which if the Vulgar sort did once vnderstand they would no doubt stand at defiance with the Pope and from their hearts detest his late start-vppe Romish Doctrine There is a Sect of Fryers at Rome called the Franciscanes who haue by little and little swarued from their first institution and become so licentious and dissolute that another sort of Fryers commonly called the Capucheues haue accused them to haue departed from their Ancient and Primitiue order and therefore do the Capucheues tearme themselues the reformed and true Franciscanes indeede This is this day our case in the Church of Noble England and in many other Churches within the Christian World The Capucheues hold fast keep still and constanty defend all the Ancient Orders of the first Franciscanes they onely reiect and abandon that which by litle and little crept into their Order viz superstition abuses and neglect of Discipline Euen so is it this day with our Church of England she holdeth-fast keepeth still and constantly defendeth all and euery iote of the old Romane Religion reuerencing it as Catholique and Apopostolique Doctrine she onely reiecteth and abandoneth Heresies Errours superstition and intollerable abuses by little and little brought into the Church For neither did most Noble Queene Elizabeth in her time neyther doth our most gratious Soueraigne King IAMES who this day most happily raigneth ouer vs set vp or bring into the Church any new Religion but onely reformeth the Church by the example of King Iosaphat King Ezechias King Iosias and other godly Kinges in their dayes and reduceth it to the Primitiue order and purity of the old Romaine Religion This to be so none can in conscience deny that will with a single and vpright eye this day behold the godly setled Canons of this Church of England For the late Bishops of Rome haue in many points of great importance swarued and departed from the Doctrine of their Ancestors whereof no doubt many Papists euen at about Rome it selfe would this day if they durst for fear of fire and Fagot accuse the Pope himself What shall I say of Hieronymus Sauonarola that famous Preacher and Dominican Fryer Was not be burnt with Fire and Fagot because he preached openly in the famous Citty of Florence against the licencious liues of the Pope and his Clergy and against superstition and abuses crept into the Church I wote it was so it cannot be denyed What Did not Iohannes Geilerius a famous Popish Preacher at Argentorate oftentimes complain to his trusty friends not daring to acquaint otheres therewith that the Thomists and Scotists had brought auricular confession to such a miserable point as none possibly could performe the same He did so their owne good friend Beatus Rhenanus doth contest the same with me What Did not Franciscus à Victoria that â—amous Popish Schoole-doctor complaine grieuously in his time of Popish intollerable dispensations Did he not publish to the view of the world that the Church was brought to such a miserable state as none were able to endure the same Did hee not cry out against the late Bishops of Rome and desire Clements Lines Siluesters His own Book is extant in print the world knoweth it to be so What shall I say of the Popes errors in Faith and Doctrine Was not Pope Liberius an Arrian Heretike Was not Pope Anastasius a Silestorian Hereretique Was not Pope Celestine condemned for erronious doctrin did not Pope Iohn the 22. of that name teach publikely a most notorious heresie Did he not commaund the vniuersity of Paris that none should be admitted to any degree in Theologie but such as would sweare to defend that heresie perpetually Did not the King of France with the aduise consent of the whole vniuersity for that end cause his daÌ„nable opinion to be coÌ„demned with the sound of Trumpets Adrianus who was B of Rome himselfe Alphonsus à Castro Melchior Canus and Viguerius all foure being very learned and famous Papists are constant witnesses of this truth Doth not Nicholaus de Lyra a famous and learned Popish Writer boldly and constantly affirme in his learned Commentaries that many Popes haue swarued from the Faith and become flâ—t Apostaâ—aes in their Romish seates He doth so it cannot bee gaine-said What shall I say of the Popes liues conuersation Was not Pope Iohn the eight of that name belying her sexe and clad in Mans attire with great admiration of her sharpe wit and singuler learning chosen to bee the Bishop or Pope of Rome Did she not shortly after by the familiar helpe of her beloued Companion bring forth the homely and shamefull fruites of her Popedome Is this true Is it possible Then farewell Popish Succession the chiefe Bulwarke of Romish Faith and Religion For seeing no Woman is or can be made capable of holy orders that succession which is deryued froÌ„ our holy Mistris Iohn Pope cannot possibly be of force Yet is this story confirmed to be true by the vniforme assent of many Papistes of great esteeme euen in the Church of Rome viz of Sigebertus Gemblacensis Marianus Scotus Matheus Palmerius Martinus Polonus Philippus Bergoniensis Baptista Platina Bartholomeus Carranza and others Was not Pope Iohn the twelft made Pope by violent meanes Did not his Father Albericus being a man of great power and might enforce the Nobles to take an oth that after the death of Pope Agapitus they would promote his Son
in defence of late start-vp Popery His Doctrine smelleth of nothing but of winde vanity and leasinges His first lye is this That the glosse saith not de nihilo but de nullo The second lie is this that I affirme the glosse to say in all cases and at all times The third lye is this that the words by me alledged are taken out of Iustinian The 4. lie is this that the glosse speaketh of Ciuill contracts Lies abundant for one short sentēce And why doth our Iesuit thus shamefully heap lyes vpon lyes Doubtles because he now seeth the halter about the Popes necke the Pope ready for his trechery to be hanged on the Gallowes as one that is conuicted by the flat Testimony of his owne sworne Vassals of most notorious blasphemy against the sonne of God For first to make of nothing something is vndoubtedly propper to the blessed Trinity the Father the sonne and the Holy-ghost three in distinction of persons and one in Vnity of substance And consequently if the Pope can make something of nothing he must perforce be another God This consequence our Iesuit and his Pope dare not admit in verball phrase although they practise it in reall act and that the truth may euidently appeare beecause it is a matter of great consequence I will examine euery parcell of the Iesuites aunswere seuerally by it selfe S. R. The glosse saith not the Pope can make de nihilo aliquid but de nullo aliquid T. B. This is a most notorious lye I referre my selfe for the truth hereof to al indifferent Readers that haue the popes decretals and can read and vnderstand the same And if the glosse say not de nihilo as I affirme but de nullo as our Iesuite saith let me be discredited for euer Oh sweet Iesus Who could euer thinke that the Papists would bee so impudent as to deny the expresse words of the text Nay I will proue it by the circumstances to the Iesuites euerlasting shame and confusion For first if the assertion were borrowed from the ciuill law and meant of ciuill contracts pacts or stipulations as our Iesuite impudently auoucheth but against his owne conscience if he haue any left then shuld it not be aliquid but aliquod as euery meane Gramarian can and will testifie with me Againe the glosse saith the Pope can change the Nature of thinges by applying the substance of one thing to another But doubtlesse when the Emperor maketh that to be a ciuill contract which afore was none hee doeth not apply the substance of one thing to another but onely commandeth his subiects to accept that for a law which before was none Thirdly no mortall man can apply the substance of one thing to another and so change the nature thereof Although the Pope take vppon him to chaunge bread into Christs body And therefore when the glosse addeth immediately and of nothing he can make something hee meaneth of that diuine power which is propper to GOD alone Like as Antoninus affirmed as is already proued that the Pope doth challenge power super omne quodcunque est ouer euery thing whatsoeuer is and hath any being and consequently ouer God himselfe And so whether he be Antichrist or no I referre it to the iudgement of the Reader for if the Pope be aboue God I dare not take vpon my selfe to bee his iudge Neither will it serue to say that Saint Antoninus doth not affirm the Pope to be aboue God For though he say not so expressely yet doth hee affirme so much virtually when he telleth vs that hee is aboue euery thing that hath being For God hath not only a being but such a supereminent being as surpasseth all intelligence and is the cause of the being of all creatures S. R. Neither yet in all cases and at all times as Bell addeth T. B. If our Iesuite were not intrinsecally as it were made of lying he would neuer for shame delight so much therein These are my wordes in my Booke and yet the truth is that as man can in some cases at some time make one thing of another so in all cases at all times to make something of nothing is proper to God alone Yet the lying and impudent Iesuite not able to encounter me nor to gainesay my proofes and reasons laboreth with might maine to disgrace me with the Reader to get the victory with flat lying Our slanderous and rayling Iesuite reporteth my wordes in this manner for saith Bell it is a thinge proper to God to make something of nothing in al cases and at al times So then all that I said was this viz That though man can at sometime in some cases make one thing of another yet to make of nothing something is proper to GOD alone neither is man able to performe the same S. R. The foresaide words are taken out of Iustinian where the Emperor saith that because he can make to be accounted a stipulation where none is much more hee can an insufficient stipulation to be sufficient T. B. The foresaid words cannot bee found in Iustinian it is a lye with a witnes The Popish Religion cannot be defended but with falshood deceit and leasings The residue is confuted already S. R. Which Bell would apply to creation and the making of Creatures of nothing as God made the world T. B. I both would and haue applyed it so in very deed and I haue proued it so sufficiently as the Iesuit cannot tel what to say to the same and therefore did he bethink him to betake himselfe to his accustomed art of Lyeng The second Article Touching the Masse Chapter first ¶ Of the reall presence of Christs body in the popish Masse S. R. THough saint Thomas teach that Christes quantity is also in the Sacrament yet affirmeth hee it not as a point of faith In like manner Bellarmine in the place which Bell citeth teacheth and truly that Christes quantity is in the Sacrament but not with Bels addition As a point of Fayth T. B. Here I perceiue I haue an Eele by the tayle Anguis est elabitur Doe our Papists teach that which they beleeue not to be true And doe they that in the Sacrifice of their most holy so supposed Masse Who would haue beleeued it if our Iesuite Parsons had not said it But good Sir tell me this Doe you teach that of your reall presence in your holy Masse which ye beleeue not to be true Then doubtlesse your silly subiects your Iesuited Papists haue neede to looke to your fingers Then must they remēber Christs rule Beware of false prophets which come to you in sheepes cloathing but inwardly are rauening Wolues And if you teach vs as ye beleeue then must your doctrin be an article of your faith Againe two Popes Vrbanus the fourth and Innocentius the fifth haue confirmed Aquinas his Doctrine for Authenticall and strictly commaunded to admit and receiue all that he hath written
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
for a meer vndoubted truth It followeth therefore by a necessary consecution that the quantity of Christs body to be in the Popish Masse is an article of popish faith S. R. Let vs see therefore how Bell disproueth it Forsooth because it implyeth contradiction for a greater body as Christs is to be contained in a lesser as in a Cake Behold the foundation of Bels faith We bring Christs expresse wordes that what he gaue to his Apostles at his last supper was his body giuen and his bloud shed for remission of sinnes T. B. Our Iesuite flyeth quite from my argument because it striketh him dead and laboureth to proue that Christes body is in the Sacrament But all in vaine For first that is not now in question Againe he is to answere me and not to wander about impertinent matters Thirdly I haue answered all that he obiecteth here as also all that can be obiected on their behalfe in my Suruey of Popery many yeares ago to which no Papist durst euer frame an answer vnto this day Fourthly I willingly grant the holy bread in the blessed Eucharist to be Christes body and the holy wine to be his bloud yet not really and substantially as the Papists hold but mystically and sacramentally according to the truth of Gods word And I retort the Iesuites reason out of Christes wordes against himselfe For if Christ had not meant that his body was then giuen sacramentally and not really he would haue said which shall be giuen not which is giuen in the Present tense I proue it because if Christs body had then beene giuen really and his bloud then shed really for the sinnes of the world no other Sacrifice attonement satisfaction or reconciliation had beene needfull on our behalfe which how absurd it is euery childe can discerne Christs meaning therfore is this This is my body sacramentally Or this is the sacrament of my body and bloud but not This is my naturall body and my reall bloud He that desireth the profe hereof at large I refer him to my Suruey of Popery S. R. But to come to Bels reason How proueth he it to bee contradiction for a greater bodie to bee contayned in a lesse T. B. Heere our Iesuite bestirreth himselfe to proue if it wold be that Christs body is not both contained and not contained in their Sacrament but all in vaine For his proofes if they were true as they be falfe would onely conclude this and nothing else viz. that God is able to do it S. R. For albeit it be contradiction for a greater body occupying a place proportionate to it greatnes to be conteyned in a lesse for so it should both be contained and not contained in the lesse yet no contradiction at all it is for a greater body retayning it greatnes to be so coarcted by Gods omnipotency that it fill a place farre lesse then is naturally due or proportionate to it greatnes For in this case it followeth not that it should both be contained not contained in the lesser bodie as in the former case but contained onely And thus we say hath Christ disposed of his bodie in the Sacrament Wee proue it by manie waies T. B. I aunswere with all subiection and due reuerence vnto Gods omnipotent power that God cannot doe any thing which eyther implyeth contradiction in it selfe or imperfection in God Not because there is any defect in GOD himselfe God forbid wee should so thinke but because there is defect in the thing that should so be done By reason of the former God cannot make a dead man remayning dead to be liuing albeit he can raise a dead man to life againe So neyther can God make a blinde man remaining blinde to see nor a deafe man remaining deafe to heare nor a dumbe man remaining dumbe to speake albeit he can restore seeing to the blinde hearing to the deafe and speech to the dumbe By reason of the latter God can neyther make another God nor any creature equall to himselfe nor commit any sinne nor faile in his promise nor repent of any thing that he hath done Now to coarct a great body so retaining it greatnes still that it may be conteined in a lesse body implyeth flat contradiction not for the reason which our Iesuite bringeth but because it is against the intrinsecall reason and the very Essence of quantity which is to haue partē extra partem one part without another And consequently our Iesuits supposed coarctation implyeth flat contradiction For it is impossible to conceiue or vnderstand how a body eight cubits long and eight cubits broad remaining so long so broad hauing euery part without other to be contayned of another body being but seuen cubits long and seuen cubits broad It implyeth as flat contradiction as to make a deafe man remaining deafe to heare It is therefore impossible to all power both create and vncreate to make Christs body to be contained in a little round cake in the Popish Masse S. R. First because Christs body in his natiuity opened not his Virgin-mothers wombe Ergo then it occupyed not a roome naturally proportionate to the greatnesse The consequence is euident and the antecedent is proued by many fathers T. B. I deny both the consequence and the antecedent The consequence because if it were as the Iesuite supposeth which I deny yet should Christes body haue occupied a roome naturally proportionate to the greatnes thereof And our Iesuite denying it vnawares affirmeth all Children to be vnnaturally in their mothers wombes The antecedent because Christ opened his mothers wombe as other children do For first Christ was presented to the Lord according to the Law as the Holy-ghost dooth record yet the Lawe required such presentation onely of them which opened their mother wombe Secondly Christ was made like vnto his Brethren in all things sin onely excepted Thirdly the auncient Fathers Tertullian Origen Ambrose and Hierome are of the same opinion Their expresse words are set downe at large in my Suruey of Popery And it will not serue the turne to say as some do that though Christ was borne of a Virgin yet should she haue bene corrupted no Virgin if her wombe had beene opened in the byrth of Christ. For first not onely holy writ but the auncient Fathers also and other learned Deuines are to be heard before all Physitions in the misteries of our faith Secondly Fernetius maketh nothing for the Papistes as who speaketh only of the dilatation of the Matrice that after the naturall and ordinary course Thirdly albeit it be most true as all holy Writers with vniforme assent do contest that Christs holy Mother the blessed Virgin Mary was euer a pure Virgin before his birth in his birth and after his birth yet it is likewise true that her wombe was opened in his byrth as is already proued For as their owne Angellicall D. sayth whose Doctrine sundry Popes one after another haue confirmed Virginity is
I say our Iesuite remaine aliue and be not killed I will subscribe to this his doctrine And yet is it cleere that in this case his body bloud shold be put apart where they were not before But our Iesuite seemeth to ayme at a farther mark What is that at the creating of Christs body and bloud Is it so indeed Is it possible so to thinke It is very so For these are his words as you heare else God should kill a man if hee created a Soule and body apart Well now I remember an old said saw which doubtles is as foolish as it is old that the priest in the popish masse can create his God God so blesse me and all good Christians that we neuer harken to such Theology CHAP. 4. Containing the confutation of the lesuites fourth Chapter of the second Article IN this fourth Chapter our Iesuite rehearseth sundry absurdities which are found in the Popish Masse But the more hee busieth himselfe to discharge their Masse thereof the more the same absurdities do increase Let vs take a tast of one for all Bell saith he inferreth that either Christs Sacrifice was vnperfect in his last Supper or else that it was needles in his bitter passion on the crosse To which he answereth that neyther of both dooth follow For saith he Christs Sacrifice at his Supper was a most perfect vnbloudy Sacrifice and yet his Sacrifice on the Crosse was needfull as the peculiar price which GOD exacted at his handes for the redemption of the World Loe he granteth freely that Christs Sacrifice at his Supper was most perfect and yet the heathen Philosopher can tell him that Perfecto nihil addi potest To that which is perfect nothing can bee added This notwithstanding he affirmeth these three things First that the Sacrifice on the Crosse was needfull Secondly that it was the peculier price which GOD exacted Thirdly that it was for the redemption of the world Which three points being as truely marked and remembred as they are truely granted all but such as are Sensus communis inopes men without all both sense reason will plainely perceiue and constantly hold that Christs Sacrifice at his last Supper was either imperfect vvhich our Iesuite denieth or else no real sacrifice at al which I defend All the rest of the chapter is full of the like vanity for consideration whereof it is enough to peruse The Downefall of Popery CHAP. 5. Containing the Iesuites confutation touching Berengarius VVHere in The downefall of Popery I related truely the cruell dealing of the Pope and his Popish councell with Berengarius our Iesuite would gladly excuse the Pope and his Sinod but it will not be S. R. Bell exclaimeth mightily because Berengarius was compelled to beleeue that Christ in the Eucharist is sensibly touched broken with the hands of Priests torne with the teeth of the faithfull T. B. Bell doth so Idque merito He hath iust cause so to do R. S. Neuerthelesse Christes body is said to be toucht broken and chewed in the Eucharist because the signe of bread in which it really is is so vsed As GOD is said to haue beene crucified because the humanity in which hee was was so handled and Christ touched when his garment was touched T. B. Heere is all that confessed which I intended for to prooue viz That the bread of the Eucharist is called Christs body because it is the signe and Sacrament of his body And therefore that Berengarius was most cruelly and villanously dealt withall when he was enforced eyther to bee burnt with fire and Fagot or else to sweare that he beleeued in his hart that Christs body was truely touched and broken with the hands of Priests and truely torne with the teeth of the faithfull When for all that many learned Papists Bellarmine Melchior Canus and others with this our Iesuite who would and dooth say the best he can for the Popes defence do freely graunt and plainely confesse that Christes body can neither bee broken with hands nor yet torne or chewed with teeth Loe Berengarius was compelled to beleeue as an article of his faith that Christes body was truely in veritate broken with the hands of Priests and torne with teeth and yet the truth is farre otherwise as both Bellarmine Canus and our Iesuite do confesse Fie on such religion hang vp such Popish Faith accursed be such doctrine S. R. The holy Fathers Saint Cyprian Saint Chrysostome and others do teach vs plainlie that Christs body is broken with hands and chewed with teeth yea Christ himselfe saith This is my body which is broken VVill Bell now condemne Christ and these holy Fathers of wickednesse villany blasphemy and horrible impiety Nay will he condemne both English many forraine Protestants whose doctrine saith he is that Christs body is broken torne and consumed with mouth and teeth Behold good Reader For Papists to say Christs body is touched broken and torne is villany and horrible impiety but for Protestants to say the same and adde consuming too is good doctrine T. B. I prooued out of Cardinall Bellarmine that famous Iesuiticall Fryer that Christs body cannot bee broken and torne saue only in a figure or Sacrament And that by his doctrine it may be sayd to bee broken and torne when the signe thereof is broken and torne Out of whose doctrine I inferred this golden Colorrary viz that if it be true to say Christs body is broken and torne because the signe of his body is broken torne then truely may we say and truely do we say that Christes body is in the Eucharist because the signe of his body is there because the Sacrament of his bodye is there because the representation of his body is there And much more truely might Christ himselfe say This is my body when he gaue the signe and Sacrament of his body I then added that it is the constant doctrine of the church of England which also many other reformed Churches approoue therein that Christs body is receiued broken torne and consumed with mouth teeth figuratiuely significantly mystycally sacramentally And consequently if the Papistes would be iudged by this doctrine which by the pen of the Iesuite Bellarmine they heere deliuer the controuersie would soone bee at an end Now I referre my self to the indifferent Reader whosoeuer he be whether the Iesuite S. R. bee an honest man or no. For first hee beareth the Reader in hand that I condemne Christ and the holy Fathers Secondly that I condemne both the English Churche and many forraine Christians Thirdly he chargeth mee to hold the same Doctrine which I vtterly condemne in Popery Fourthly he iustifieth the condemnation of Berengarius whose doctrine for all that both Bellarmine and Melchior Canus do iustify and himselfe vnawares in this chapter If I should deale with the Papists in this manner all the world would exclaime against me If any indifferent Reader shall
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
haue bin done You papists haue submitted your selues to be the Popes and the King of Spaines subiects as Story alledged for himselfe at his arraignment and consequently by Popish Diuinity you may take vp armes against king Iames our most gracious Soueraigne and bee no Traytors in so doing For as you write with your pennes so doe you beleeue in your harts and practise in your liues Your late Treason of Gunne-powder to say nothing of all the rest makes it euident to the world God saue our Noble King Iames deliuer him from your bloudy hands for though you speake well of him with your tongue yet do yee wish in your harts to do him the greatest wrong S. R. THat Emperours haue acknowledged the Popes superiority Bell himselfe confesseth where hee saith that some Christian Kings and Emperours haue vpon a blinde zealâ—e humbled themselues to the Pope yea which is more haue yeelded vp their soueraigne rightes vnto him And shal not the Pope bee Superiour vnto them vvho haue humbled themselues and yeelded their Soueraigntie to him T. B. This is my reply First that one may yeeld vp some part of his Soueraignty to another and for all that remaine still continue that others Superior The case is cleere it needeth no proofe If the Iesuite will not yeeld to this he must perforce yeeld to that which will confound both him and the Pope viz that the pope is superior to the Emperor euen in Temporalibus The reason is euident because the Pope challengeth the Temporall soueraigne right of Italy and the free donation of the Emperor Secondly if euery one that humbleth himselfe to another becommeth by and by that others inferiour then doubtles the priest that is confessary to the Pope becommeth the popes superiour For to answere that the Pope doth not humble himselfe to his ghostly father is not onely absurd but flat against the Popes religion And yet our Iesuite disputeth thus Catholiques argue that Kinges and Emperors haue acknowledged Popes their superiors This Bell graunteth in confessing their humiliation to Popes which is neuer done but to superiors Alas alas I pittie the Iesuites folly For first in Popery euery king humbleth himselfe to a silly priest Ergo the priest is the kings superiour Againe euerie papist humbleth himselfe to Images dead bones and especially to the wood of the crosse yea sometimes to the bones of an Heretique as I haue proued in the Article of traditions Ergo Images dead bones wood c. are superiors to the Papists Thirdly the Papists are commanded to humble themselues to that which the Priest holdeth ouer his head at Masse which by their Doctrine if it lacke consecration as it may many waies fall out is but a bare piece of bread Ergo a piece of Bakers bread is their superior Fourthly Pope Siluester the second sometime a Monke a Frenchman borne Gilbertus by name humbled himselfe to the deuill yeelded homage to him so long as the deuill accomplished his desire This story is set downe at large in my Suruey of Poperie Now that the deuill of hell was and is his superior both to this Pope and to many others I admit your argument with all applause Fiftly kings do often humble themselues to their subiects Ergo their subiects are their superiors Sixtly the Emperor humbleth himselfe many times euen vnto those that owe duety to him Ergo his inferiors become his superiors Lastly Absalom when any man came neere vnto him and did him obeysance put forth his hand and tooke him and kissed him and on this manner did Absalom to al Israel that came to the King for Iudgement Ergo euerie man in Israel was Absaloms superiour But the contrarie is the truth and our Iesuite a most notorious lyar CHAP. 5. ¶ Conteyning the confutation of the seuenth Chapter of S. R. that masked Iesuite S. R. VIctoria saith that the glossers of the Lavve haue giuen this Dominion to the Pope they being poore in substance and learning Here insteede of proofes I find an vntruth For neyther doth Victoria in these wordes speake of many things but onely of Dominion meaning Temporall ouer the whole world neyther yet doeth hee call it absurd T. B. I answere first that I cited Victorias words truely after my wonted manner neuer adding or changing one word in my Author Secondly that I added these wordes and these Lordly Titles not in the Latine but in the English not simplie but with a parenthesis that the Reader might know I did it for explication sake which thing is vsuall not onely to our Iesuite but to all other writers Thirdly Victoria as I haue expresly shewed elsewhere speaketh of many Lordly titles ascribed to the Pope But our Iesuite granteth enough viz the dominion ouer the whole world and all power both Ecclesiasticall and temporall on earth For if the Pope haue all Kings can haue none Fourthly maister Gerson a man of high esteeme in the Popish church saith plainly as our Iesuite granteth and I affirme that all power both in heauen on earth which Christ himselfe had is giuen to the Pope What needes more This is flat blasphemy against the sonne of God Fiftly our Iesuite denyeth in one page that which hee granteth in another concerning the Popes power The sound of the Bell maketh him forget himselfe Chapter 6. ¶ Containing the confutation of the 8. and 9. chapters of the Iesuite S. R. touching eight steps of the Popes ladder S. R. COnstantine saith Bell at his departure did as the popes Parasites tell vs giue large guifts to the Pope euen his whole power dominion and territories both in Rome Italy and all the West Behold a man hauing a Wolfe by the care which he dare neyther hold nor yet let go For if he graunt that Constantine gaue the Pope his whole power and dominion ouer Rome Italy and all the West he must needes grant that the Pope of right hath Imperiall power ouer all the west if he deny it he sheweth not how Constantines departure was a step for the Pope to climbe to higher authority T. B. If Robert Parsons that Trayterous Iesuite who dareth not tell his name but hydeth it vnder S. R. be a wolfe indeed as I suppose he is then doubtlesse I haue him by the eares legges nose and all and so fast bound with linkes and chaines of yron as the Pope and all his Iesuited Vassals are neuer able to deliuer him out of my handes For albeit Constantine that most Noble Emperor gaue not the Pope his whole power and Dominion ouer Rome Italy and all the West nor any part thereof yet doth it follow consequently that his departure from Rome to Constantinople was the first step to Popish falsly supposed Primacie The reason is euident because the Emperor being farre off at Constantinople in the East the false pretended donation froÌ„ Constantine was holden beleeued for a trueth The multitude in the western
Iustice. Thirdly seeing Good Workes cannot so merite heauen as ill workes merite hell Fourthly seeing the best merits are nothing else but the meere giftes of GOD I must needes conclude that Workes are not condignely meritorious of eternal life S. R. Bell citeth Theophilact because he sayth Saint Paule called eternall life Grace and not a Reward as though he had sayd It is not the reward of our labors But this is nothing against vs who willingly confesse erernall life to be grace and not to proceede of our owne labours done by our selues but done and wrought also by the grace of Christ. T. B. Our Iesuite is so pinched and nipped by my Authorities and reasons that he had rather say any thing then acknowledge the truth that I defend Here as we see hee is become a Semi-pelagian Heretique for he affirmeth eternall life to bee wrought and doone of our selues yet not wholly of our selues but partly also of the holy Ghost And after such a silly manner he is enforced to answer all the rest viz euer against himselfe S. R. True it is that Augles as a follower of Scotus seemeth to thinke that the condignity of Good Workes riseth not of any equality which is in them vnto glory but of Gods promise to reward them T. B. It is well that ye wil once seeme to graunt a truth The truth is this that both Iosephus Angles and your Cardinall Bellarmine do freely grant being ouercome with the force of trueth that Good workes can merite nothing but by reason of GODS promise freely made vnto men I haue prooued the Controuersie so euidently that our Iesuite doth nothing else but weary both himselfe and his Reader in writing most friuolously against the same I referre the Reader to The Downfall it selfe where hee shall find euery Argument and peece of reason soundly answered before our Iesuite had published the same And therefore for mee to vse any further reply therein were but Actum agere For doubtlesse whosoeuer shall duly all partiality set aside peruse The Downfall as it came from my penne and lay downe this Iesuites aunswere to it in euery place and compare them together he will I am fully perswaded freely confesse that no further reply is necessary in that behalfe The sixt Article of the destinction of mortall and veniall sinnes S. R. ALl his proofes may be reduced to this Syllogisme What is against Gods Law is mortal sin all sin is against Gods law Ergo all sinne is mortall Beholde Bell here absolutely concludeth all sinne to be mortal and after calleth our veniall sinnes cursed and deformed which argueth that he thinketh all sin to be indeed mortal notwithstanding Gods mercy The propositioÌ„ he supposeth the assumption he prooueth out of scripture fathers and schoolemen T. B. This controuersie consisteth wholy in this viz whether euery sin be of it own nature moâ—al or no. I hold the Affirmatiue our Iesuite the Negatiue And for all that hee freely granteth vnawares as you see that I haue prooued mine opinion and doctrin both out of the holy scripture and also out of the fathers and schoole-Doctors S. R. Christ saith Bell telleth vs that we must giue account for euery ydle word and S. Iohn saith that euery sinne is Anomia that is Transgression of the law Saint Ambrose also defineth sin in generall to be transgression of Gods law and S. Austen describeth it to be euery word deed or desire against Gods law Yea Bellarmine arffimeth euery sin to be against Gods law The Rhemists also confesse that euery sin is a swaruing from the Law Likewise Iosephus Angles and Durandus teach venial sins to be against the law To this argument Catholicks answer differeÌ„tly some by denial of the proposition others by denial of the assumption Some say that euery sin which is against the Law is not mortall but onely that which is perfectly against it Others say that veniall sinnes are not against the Law but besides the Law T. B. Heere is an answere aunswerelesse For first our Fryer graunteth that I haue prooued by the Scripture by Saint Ambrose by S. Austen by Bellarmine their famous Cardinall by the Rhemists their learned bretheren by Iosephus Angles their religious Fryer and reuerend Byshop and by Durandus their famous Schoole-Doctor that euery sin more and lesse is against the Law of God and consequently mortall of it owne nature Secondly our Fryer freely confesseth that this argument of mine doth so trouble the Papists that they cannot agree among themselues how to answere the same Some sayth he deny the proposition some deny the assumption other some say they cannot tell what and our Iesuite himselfe standes amazed whether it is better to yeeld to the truth or to face it out desperately and impudently with Legierdemain iugling falshood and deceitfull dealing S. R. Yet better it is to say that veniall sinnes are beside the Law then against the Lawe T. B. Our Iesuite being in perplexity like as Buridanus his Asse what to answere to my argument resolueth to take the best way as he supposeth for he thinketh as felons Traytors standing at the barre in their arraigment that it is the best to plead not guilty But I must tell him two things The one that to be beside the Law and against the Law is al one in effect For as our master Christ saith Hee that is not with him is against him and consequently if he do besides Christs commaundement hee doth against the same The other that Durandus and many Popish Schoole-Doctors confesse resolutely that euery sinne is against Gods law And Iosephus Angles affirmeth constantly that Dwrands opinion is now adaies the Doctrine of theyr Schooles Where I wish the Reader to note by the way the mutability of late start vp Romish Religion Read the Downefall where this point is set downe at large S. R. Therefore if Bell graunt indeede as he doth in words that by Gods mercy some sins are made veniall he must also confesse that by Gods mercy they are not against his charity and friendship T. B. I graunt that as all sinnes is mortall of their owne nature which I haue prooued copiously in The Downefall euen by the testimony of very famous Papists so are all sins veniall by Gods mercy for the merits of his sonne Iesus to the regenerate his elect children and consequently though all sins bee against Gods friendship who hateth and detesteth all sinne in their owne nature yet are all the sins of Gods elect reputed not onely as veniall but none at all in Christ Iesus they receiued into Gods fauour for Christs sake S. R. Bell prooueth out of Saint Ambrose that sin is defined the transgression of the law And out of S. Austen that it is diuine reason or the will of God commaunding the order of nature to be kept and forbidding it to bee broken But these Fathers define onely mortall sin T. B. Mark
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
must sweare that the Pope can depose all Emperors and Kings in the Christian world Secondly they sweare to admit the Popes decrees whō they freely grant may bee an Heretick Thirdly they sweare obedience to him in matters of Faith whom as themselues confesse they can depose for heresie Fourthly that the pope is not supreme Iudge of controuersies seeing Bishops may examine and iudge whether what he commandeth be agreeable to Gods word the Canons Lastly that they swear flat rebellion against their soueraigns seeing they sweare to defend the Popes primacy against all men whomsoeuer T. B. Let vs examine this honest tale made in the behalfe of the Pope and for the benefite of the Reader let vs both heare it and answer it particularly S. R. As for the first point it is vntrue as appeareth by the answer to the first article T. B. The first point is that the Pope can depose Emperours and Kings Our Fryer denyeth it and sendeth the Reader to the first Article I agree also that the Reader peruse my reply with the Downefall then yeeld his censure accordingly for that the Pope challengeth such power though the Iesuite for shame here denieth it it is as cleere as the Sunne shining at noone-day S. R. The second and third containe no inconuenience For we must obey what he decreeth or defineth iudicially as sitting in S. Peters chaire though in hart he were an Hereticke as our Sauiour commaunded the Iewes to follow what the Scribes taught out of Moses Chaire but to abstaine from their priuate Leauen T. B. The second point was that the Bishops sweare to admit his Canons and decrees whom they freely grant may bee an Heretique The third point was that the Bishops sweare obedience to him in matters of Faith whom they can depose for heresie These pointes which our Iesuite proposeth couertly because he would not haue the Reader to vnderstand thē must neuer be forgotten We must saith our Fryer obey beleeue what the Pope decreeth iudicially though in hart he be an Heretick This is strange Doctrine to a Christian hart though approued of all Papists It is not amisse here to adde the Testimony of their graue Quodl betist These are his words As the prudent Greeke appealed from Alexander furious to Alexander sober and Bishoppe Crostate from Pope Adrian priuate to Pope Adrian publique and as Summus pontifex in Cathedra Petri so may the Seculars appeale from the Pope as Clemens vnto his holinesse as Peter These words are expressely set downe Quodl 6. art 10. By this Doctrine so plainely deliuered which is a constant position in the Romish Church the Secular Priests giue vs to vnderstand that execrable and neuer enough detested fallacy wherewith the Pope his popelings haue a long time seduced a great part of the Christian world viz that the Pope may erre as a priuate man but not as a publicke person Of which absurd Doctrine I haue written at large in my Treatise intituled The Hunting of the Romish Foxe I will therefore for the present onely speake thereof as these words giue me fit occasion First then we see heere that if we meane to wring any truth out of the Popes nose we must haue recourse to his holines at such time as he is sober not when he is furious least he become starke mad forget for euer the knowledge of the truth Secondly we must haue his aduise when he is a publike person not a priuate man Thirdly we must go vnto him not as he is indeed this or that Pope but as he is S. Peter that blessed Apostle of our Lord Iesus Thus much is deduced out of this popish Doctrine by euident and necessary consecution These points if they be well marked will vtterly confound all popish Doctrine and turne it vpside downe For first it is a constant Axiome in all popish Doctrine that the Pope and none but the pope must be the Iudge in all controuersies of faith and Doctrine This notwithstanding wee see by this popish doctrine which is currant in the Romish Church that if the Pope Iudge of any matter as he is furious and not sober as he is a priuate man and not a publike person as hee is Clemens Sixtus Adrianus or some other like pope and not Saint Peter himselfe then may hee erre and so both bee deceiued himselfe and deceiue all others Whereupon it followeth of necessity that euery one must well examine the popes Doctrine and Iudgement before he beleeue it otherwise doubtles he may receiue poyson for medicine falshood for truth and erroneous for Orthedoxe Christian doctrine Nay otherwise he cannot possibly tell when he shall appeale from the pope as a false teacher and seducer of the people Secondly the time cannot be named in which the Byshop of Rome shall be the Byshop there not a publick person at the selfe-same time for euen then when hee is a sleepe he is a publicke person or else no Byshop doubtlesse For once a Byshop euer a Byshop by Popish indeleble Character Yet I willingly graunt that a publique person may do some act which may be censured the acte of a priuate man but that cannot serue their turne Thirdly If the Papists will neuer apeale to the pope nor haue any intercourse with him vntill he be Saint Peter they shall neuer do it till the worlds end Fourthly if he be Peter by Office or calling then is hee alwayes Peter vnlesse perhaps hee be sometime Lucifer which were a rare Metamorphosis Fiftly this Popish distinction may fitly be termed a trick of fast and loose For if the Pope define a truth they may thē say he defined as a publick person But if he define an error then they say he defined as a priuat mā So doubtles it may be said indeed that he can neuer erre but some mā in his robes or some Deuill vnder his pall Briefely on the one side as we haue heard already the Pope commands vpon paine of Sacriledge not to dispute of his power nor to examine his doings and yet on the other side we must know whether he speake and define as a publicke person or as a priuate man before we beleeue his decrees which knowledge for al that can no way be had but by due examination of the popes doings What remaineth but to exclaime and complaine to our trusty friendes as the great learned Papist Gielerius did that by this Popish Doctrine no man can go to heauen S. R. For we must obey and beleeue what he decreeth iudicially though in hart he be an Hereticke T. B. Then sir we must examine the doctrine which the pope deliuereth to know whither it proceedeth from the Pope as a publique person or as a priuate man For otherwise we may as soone receiue deadly poyson as wholy medicine and as soone worship Harmannus the Heretiques bones as the reliques of S. Peter or S. Paule But this examination the Pope forbids and your selfe Maister Fryer
knowne vnto them Ergo they know the scripture to bee Gods worde because Christ not the church sheweth it vnto them Thirdly because the spiritual man as the Apostle writeth iudgeth al things and himselfe is iudged of no man Ergo he can iudge the holy Bible to be Gods worde For doubtles he that can Iudge euery thing can especially Iudge that thing which is most necessary for him And consequently Hee can Iudge truth from falshood Gods word from the word of euery creature This reason is confirmed by the constant Testimony of many famous papists Dionisius Carthusianus hath these words Spiritualis autem homâ— in quo est spiritus dei iudicat id est benâ— discernit omnia adsalutem pertinentia de singulis talibus verum iudicum proferendo inter bonum malum veruÌ„ falsum veraciter distinguendo The spirituall man which hath the spirit of God indgeth and truely discerneth all thinges which pertaine to saluation prououncing true iudgement of euery such thing and truely distinguishing betweene good and euill truth and falshood Nicolaus de Lyra affoordeth the same exposition to this Text of scripture The famous popish writer Aquinas is of the same mind These are his words Apostolls hic dicit quod spiritualis iudâ—â—at omnia quia sâ—lt homo habeus intellectum illustratii affectum ordinatum per spiritum sanctum de singulis quae pertinent ad salutem rectum indicium habet The Apostle heere saith that the spirituall man Iudgeth all thinges because forsooth a man hauing his vnderstanding enlightned and his affection ordered by the Holy-ghost hath a right Iudgement of all things which pertaine to saluation Iohannes Hosmeisterus hath these words Spiritualis fide sua eo penetrat vt omnia quae sunt spiritus Dei dijudicare possit nec iudicio suâ— fallatur vt bonum dicat malum vel stultum 〈◊〉 est sapientissimuÌ„ The spiritual man doth penetrate so far by his faith that he is able to iudg al things that are of the spirit of God neyther can he be deceiued in his Iudgment that he eyther call Good euill or that foolish which is most wise Out of the words of these great popish Doctours who are euer the best witnesses against the papists I obserue these instructions for the Reader First that euery regenerate person and child of God for all such are Spiritual is able to Iudge of euery thing that concernes his saluation and consequently which is falshood which is Gods word which is not because that especially pertaines to his saluation Secondly that euery childe of God is able by his faith to wade so farre that he can iudge of all needfull trueth and whatsoeuer is conuenient for his soules health neuer be deceiued in his Iudgement Fourthly because S. Iohn tels vs that the vnction which the faithfull haue receiued doth teach them all thinges Ergo to discerne Gods word from mans word Melchior Canus a learned Schooleman and a famous Byshop teacheth vs the selfe-same Doctrine in plainer termes These are his expresse words Praestanti quod in se est Deus fidem ad salutem necessariam non negat Sequitur non n. vnctio queÌ„cunque simpliciter docet de omnibus sed quemque de his quae sunt cipropria necessaria Sequitur concedimus liberaliter doctrinaÌ„ cuique in sua vita statu necessariam illi fore prospectaÌ„ cognitam qui fecerit voluntatem Dei. Sicut n. gustus bene affectus differentias saporum facilè descernit sic animi optima affectio facit vt homo doctrinam dei ad salutem necessariaÌ„ discernat ab errore contrario qui ex deo non est To the man that doth what in him lyeth God neuer denyeth faith necessary to saluation For the vnction doth not simply teach euery one euery thing but it teacheth euery one so much as is proper and necessary for him And we graunt freely that doctrine necessary for euery mans life and state is sufficiently knowne to him that doth the will of God For like as the well affected tast doth easily discerne the differences of sauors or tasts so doth the good affection of the mind bring to passe that a man may discerne the Doctrine of God necessary to saluation from contrary error which is not of God Thus writeth the grauest Papist for learning in the vniuersall world and consequently it is and must bee of great force against the Papistes whatsoeuer hath passed from his pen. And I protest vnto the Gentle Reader that nothing hath more estraunged me from Popery and set me at defiance with it then the cleere prospicuous Doctrine of the best Learned and most renowned Papistes for whosoeuer will seriously pervse the Bookes which I haue published to the view of the world shall therein finde by the Testimony of the best approued Papists euery point of setled Doctrine in the Church of England Out of the words of this learned Popish Byshop that when S. Iohn sayth The vnction teacheth vs all things Hee meaneth not the difficult Questions in Religion but all such points as are necessary for euery mans saluation Secondly that no man wanteth this knowledge and iudgment of Doctrine but he that is willingly ignorant and will not apply himselfe to liue Christianly Thirdly that euery priuate man is able to discern true Doctrine from Falshood and Error so farre forth as is requisite for his saluation as well as a sound and good tast is able to discern differences of tasts Ergo euery faithful Christian is able to discern Gods word from mans word because it is a thing necessary for his owne soules health The case is so cleare as it can by no reason be denyed Fiftly because the formall obiect of our faith is Veritas prima or God himselfe as Dionisius Areopagita telleth vs. Yea Aquinas the Popish Angellicall Doctor teacheth the selfe-same Doctrine Non. n. fides inquit diuina alicui assemitur nisi quia est à deo reuelatum For Diuine faith saith Aquinas will not yeeld assent to any thing vnlesse it be reuealed of God The truth of which doctrine S. Austen confirmeth in these Golden wordes Iam hic videte c. Nowe bretheren behold heere a great sacrament The sound of our wordes pierceth your eares but the Maister that teacheth you is within Thinke not that man learneth any thing of maÌ„ We Preachers may admonish you by sound of words but if he be not within that teacheth in vaine is our sounde The outward teachings are some helpes and admonitions but hee sitteth in his chaire in heauen that teacheth the hart The maister is within that teacheth It is Christ that teacheth It is his inspiration that instructeth Where his inspiration and vnction is not there the outward noyse of words is in vaine Thus writeth this holy auncient and Learned father with many moe words to the like effect By whose doctrine togither with that of
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
keeping when the defect is pardoned which is a farre different thing from saying that Christs keeping is counted our keeping And he meaneth that our keeping is defectuous because we keep not the commandements ad vnum apicem as he saith to the last iot or title but thorough Veniall sinnes haue neede to say Fogiue vs our Trespasses which Veniall Trespasses being pardoned we are accounted to do all Gods Commandements T. B. I answere first that it is a meer calumny to charge me with saying that Christs keeping is our keeping I onely said then and now say againe that wee fulfill the Law in Christ which is such a truth as you are neuer able to refute the same Secondly that I haue proued already that euery sinne is deadly of it owne nature and consequently that it is too great arrogancy in our Iesuite to expound S. Austen after his owne fancy hauing neyther authority nor reason so to do Thirdly that when our Iesuite confesseth that their Veniall sinnes are pardoned he vnawares confesseth that they cannot keepe Gods Commandements I prooue it because God either hath forbidden their Venials or is well pleased with them If he be well pleased with them then are they no sinnes at all for God is not well pleased with sinne If hee haue forbidden them then are they against his precept and consequently seeing the Papistes graunt that they cannot liue without their Venials they must also graunt of necessity that they cannot keep Gods holy Precepts And therefore it is time for all Iesuites and Iesuited Papists to say with S. Iames Wee all offend in many things And with the Prophet Dauid Enter not into Iudgement with thy seruants O Lord for none liuing shall be iustified in thy sight I therefore conclude with Saint Austen that all the Commandements are then reputed as done when whatsoeuer is not done Is of mercy forgiuen And with S. Hierome that the true wisedome of man is to know that he is vnperfect S. R. Saint Hierome confesseth that God hath giuen possible Commaundements least he should be Authour of Iniustice He saith likewise that he is to be detested as a blasphemer that saith God hath commaunded any impossible thing S. Austen also saith that God could not command any impossible thing because he is iust T. B. This Obiection is as a Bulwarke for Popish supposed Condigne Merite of vvorkes I therefore both proposed it in the Downefall and answered it in the same place My answere is there to bee seene at large to which I referre the Reader This is the summe and effect thereof viz that God commaunded nothing which was eyther impossible in it selfe to be done or to bee doone of man as man The same ie there prooued at large Touching S. Hierome I will adde a little because our Iesuite affirmeth him to be on his side The truth is this that S. Hierom in 3. whole books against the Pelagians hath no other scope purpose or intent saue onely to proue against them out of the holy Scriptures that none liuing doth keepe Gods Commaundements which hee prooueth no other vvay but because all haue sinned and done euill in Gods sight Three thinges therefore are cleere and certaine with S. Hierome First that all haue sinned and cannot bee iustified but by the mercy and fauour of God These are his wordes In multis offendimus omnes Non pauca peccata sed multa non quorundam sed omnium posuit Omnes n. quae sua sunt quaerunt non ea quae dei sunt We all offend in many things He put not a few sinnes but many not the sinnes of some but of all For all seeke the things that are their own and not the things that are Gods Again thus Neque n. homo potest esse sine peccato quod tua habet sententia sed potest si voluerit deus hominem seruare sine peccato immaculatum sua misericordia custodire Hoc ego dico quod deo cunctâ— possibilia sunt homint autem non quicquid voluerit possibile est maxime idesse quod nullam â—egeris habere creaturam For man cannot be without sinne as thou thinkest but God is able if it please him to preserue a man from sinne and to keep him immaculate by his mercy This I also grant that all thinges are possible to God but it is not possible for man to doe whatsoeuer hee would especially to bee that which thou hast not read any Creature to haue Againe thus Hec cuncta percurro vt oftendam à nullo legem esse completam per legem mandat a omnia quae continentur in lege Sequitur ergo non liberi arbitry potestate sed de clementia conseruamur I runne ouer all these thinges to shew that none hath fulled the Law and by the Law all the Commaundements contained in the Law Ergo we are preserued Or saued not by the power of free will but by the clemency Or mercy of God Secondly that all the elect people of God though they be sinfull in themselues by transgressing Gods law yet are they iust by the mercy of God in Christ Iesus The former pâ—rt Saint Hierome prooueth thus Non est homo iustus c. There is none iust vppon the earth none that doth good and sinneth not Againe There is no man that sinneth not Againe Who knoweth his sinnes cleanse mee from my secret faults Againe Enter not into iudgement wâ—th thy seruant for none liuing can bee iustified in thy sight These and many like places saith S. Hierom are euery where in the Scriptures by which it is manifest that none liuing can be without sinne The latter part the same holy Father prooueth thus Audi eundem euangelistam si confiteamur peccata nostra sidelis instus est vt dimittat nobis peccata nostra mundet nos ab omni iniquitate Tunc ergo iusti sumus quando nos peccatores fatemur iustitia nostra non ex proprio merito sedex dei consistit misericordia conclusit n. â—â—eusoâ—ma sub peccato vt omnibus misereatur Et haec hominis summa est iustiâ—a quicquid potuerit habere virtutis non suum putare esse sed Domini qui largitus est Heare the same Euangelist If wee confesse our sinnes he is faithfull and iust to forgiue vs all our sins and to cleanse vs from all iniquity Then therefore are wee iust when wee confesse our selues and our Iustice doth not consist of our owne merite but of Gods mercy For GOD hath shut vp all vnder sinne that he may haue mercy on all Againe in another place thus Haec est hominis vera sapientia imperfectum esse se nosse atque vtit a loquar cunctorum in carne iustorum imperfecta perfectio est This is the true wisedome of man to know that hee is vnperfect and that the perfection of all the iust in the flesh is