be neuer so simple are actually contained in scripture eyther clearely or obscurely T. B. This doctrine is good I approue it with all my heart and willingly subscribe vnto it with my pen. If our Iesuite will stand to this Doctrine we shall soone agree S. R. For surely the Prophets and Euangelists writing their Doctrin for our remembrance would omit no one point which was necessary to be actually known of euery one especially seeing they haue written many thinges which are not so necessary And this thing teacheth S. Austen when he sayth those thinges are written which seemed sufficient for the saluation of the faithfull T. B. This Doctrine I likewise approue it is the verie same that I defend Keepe thee heere Iesuite and we shall not contend S. R. Methinks S. Austen plainly auoucheth that God hath procured euery thing to be clearly written which to know is necessary to euery mans saluation The same teacheth S. Syril saying Not al things which our lord did are written but what the writers deemed sufficient as well for manners as for Doctrine that by right saith and workes we may attaine the kingdome of Heauen S. Chrisostome sayth what things soeuer are necessary the same are manifest out of the scripture T. B. This doctrine I still approue as which the Reader may find to be taken out of the Downfall And so our Iesuite doth heere subscribe vnto my Doctrine though hee take vpon him to oppugne the same For the truth is mighty will in time preuaile This being so I haue no neede to stand long vpon this point For as the Reader seeth the Iesuite approoueth that Doctrine which I in the Downefall do defend S. R. Truly said Saint Ephiphanius that we may tel the inuention of euery question out of the consequence of Scriptures He saide not out of the Scripture For all cannot be taken thence as himself writeth but of the consequence of them Because all questions are resolued out of the scriptures or out of that which followeth of them as the effect of the cause T. B. This also is sound Doctrine and the very same which I defend in the Downfal And consequently the very weapons which our Iesuite hath put into our hands are sufficient to defend vs and our cause against him For if the Reader shal remember these grounds and these positions freely of him granted and withall haue recourse vnto the Downfall he shall be able with all facility to answere to all that the Iesuite obiecteth in this Article S. R. All points of Christian faith cannot be sufficiently and immediatly proued out of scripture For there is no place of all the scripture which sufficiently proueth all the rest to be cannonicall our B. Lady to be a perpetuall Virgin and. the Sabboth to be lawfully translated from Saturday to Sunday T. B. Now our Iesuite forgetteth himselfe and what doctrin he hath already deliuered It were a sufficient answere to tell him that hee heere confuteth himselfe But for the Readers helpe I will breefely aunswere his particulars To the first I say it is soundly and largely answered in the Downfall of Popery In regard of breuity I referre the Reader to the place quoted in the Margent To the second I answere first that I willingly acknowledge the most blessed Virgin to be the Mother of true God and true man and to haue bin a perpetuall Virgin both before Christs byrth and in his byrth and after his byrth Secondly that albeit I defend as our Iesuite also hath granted all things necessary to be beleeued vnto saluation to be contained in the holy scriptures yet do I not deny but willingly graunt and reuerently admit many things receiued by the perpetuall consent of the church and not repugnant to the written word as true wholesome and godly For I am perswaded with S. Austen that whatsoeuer is neyther against Fayth nor against good manners may indifferently be obserued for their society amongst whom we do conuerse Againe it is one thing to say that all necessary points of fayth and Doctrine are contained in the holy scriptures another thing to say that nothing not contained in the scripture hath bin receyued by tradition may be admitted for a truth It cannot be convinced out of the scriptures and therefore no matter of fayth that Saint Peter and S Paule dyed together at Rome yet do I admit it for a truth as receiued by Tradition from the Primatiue Church and testified by vniforme consent of al approued antiquity To the third I haue already said inough both in my Booke of Suruey and also in the Regiment of the Church For in things indifferent the Church may determine what is most expedient for the due circumstances of times places and persons S. R. God sayth Bell forbiddeth vs to adde to his word I answere that such places make nothing against Traditions which are necessary to mans saluation because such are indeed Gods word though vnwritten T. B. I answere our Iesuite with his owne words which follow immediately and are these for the two first places onely forbid adding to Gods word any thing of our own heade or which is mans word as may be proued by the reason of the forbiddance viz least we be disproued found lyars as no doubt we might by adding mans word which is subiect to lye but not by adding Gods worde which neuer can proue vntrue though it be not written Thus writeth our Iesuite confuting himselfe so sufficiently as more needs not be required In these words he telleth vs two things the one quite opposite to the other First he truly saith confuting himselfe that the Scripture forbiddeth to adde of our owne head any thing which is but mans word and subiect to falshood and lying This is good But secondly hee addeth that to adde Gods word though vnwritten is a lawfull thing but this is a silly begging of the question as the Schooles tearme it For I deny that vnwritten Word to bee Gods Word which our Iesuite should prooue but cannot And our Iesuite hath already confessed that all necessary pointes of faith are contained in the Scriptures written Word And consequently it is to late to tell vs now of adding or admitting the vnwritten Word I admit his former assertion as consonant to the Scriptures this latter I reiect as childish vaine and friuolous I proue it because euery word of God is to be admitted as a matter of faith and yet all matters of Faith are written as is already proued and granted This therefore not being written must be hissed out of the Schoole of Christians S. R. Bell alleadgeth the Prophets words To the Law rather and to the Testimony This place maketh nothing for him First because the Prophet nameth not onely the Law but Testimony also which comprehendeth Gods vnwritten word Secondly because Esay doth not absolutely bidde vs recurre to the Law
the Fathers and my selfe with them doe willingly admit and greatly reuerence many vnwritten Tradâ—tions beeing consonant to the Holy Scriptures but neither as matters of Faith nor as partes of necessary doctrine but as thinges tending to order comelinesse in the worship of God and administration of his sacraments In this kind of Traditions I willingly agree with Saint Chrisostome Saint Basil S. Ambrose and other fathers Neither would I wish any to bee too curious in this kind of Traditions It is enough to heare of theÌ„ to whom the chiefe care of the church is committed that it is a Tradition of the Elders and so haue I answered enough to all friuolous obiections of our Iesuite especially if The Downefall be well marked The rest which I let passe is sufficiently confuted there Saint Chrisostoms meaning is plainely as I haue said Hence it may apeare because in the former part of this Obiection he will admit nothing without the scripture In thinges concerning faith and Doctrine euer vnder stande in the latter part of the Obiection he admitteth vnwritten Traditions and wil not haue vs too curious in receiuing them In thinge which are indifferent euer vnderstand S. R. Bell citeth Byshop Fisher because in one place hee calleth the Scripture the store-house of all truths necessarie to be knowne of Christians and in another sayeth that vvhen Heretiques contend with vs wee must defend our cause with other help theÌ„ by the holy scripture His meaning is that when we dispute with Heretiques we ought to haue other helpes beside scripture T. B. His meaning is as you say and I approue the same But why doth he require other helpe then the scripture seeing the scripture as he graunteth is the store-house of all necessary truths Shall I tell you You will not thanke me for my paines I haue set downe at large in my Booke of Motiues what this your holy Byshoppe hath written of Purgatory and Pardons I will now recount the argument onely referring the Reader to the place First Maister Fisher telleth vs that the Greeke church neuer bel eeued Purgatory Secondly that the Latine Church and Church of Rome did not beleeue the sayd Purgatory for many hundered of yeares after S. Peters death whose successor for al that the Pope boasteth himselfe to be Thirdly that this Purgatory was not beleeued of all the Latine Church at one and the same time but by litle little Where I wish the Reader to note by the way that Popery crept into the Church by little and little and not all at one time which is a point that galleth the papistes more then a little I weene Fourthly that Purgatory was beleeued in these latter dayes by speciall reuelation of the holy Ghost Fiftly that Pardons came not vp till Purgatory was found out for in Purgatory resteth the life of Pardons as which if ther be no Purgatory are not worth a straw Sixtly that Purgatory was a loug time vnknowne Seauenthly that Purgatory could not be found in the Scripture of a very long time Eightly that it was not wholly found out by the scriptures but partly by Reuelations And heere wee see that verified which our Iesuite out of Bellarmine telleth vs viz that the holy Scripture is but a partial rule of faith For if it be a totall rule of fayth the Pope as Maister Fisher affirmeth must both want his Purgatory and be bereaued of his pardons Ninthly that pardons were not heard of or knowne to the Primatiue Church Tenthly that then Pardons began when men began to feare the paines of Purgatory This is the summe of that worthy Doctrine which Byshop Fisher hath published to the world euen at that time when he defended the Pope and Popery after the best manner he could He that shall read his words in my Motiues at large cannot but detest the Pope and all popish faction Hence it is most apparant why the Byshop sayd that they must vse other helpes then the holy Scripture for the maintenance of their Religion for the Scripture is but a partiall rule of popish faith as wee haue heard alreadie S. R. Bell citeth S. Thomas that whatsoeuer Christ woulde haue vs to read of his doings and sayings he commanded the Apostles to write as with his own hands But this maketh nothing against vs both because S. Thomas saith not what Christ would haue vs beleeue but what hee would haue vs read and Traditions be such as Christ would haue vs beleeue though we read them not As also because S. Thomas speaketh not of all points of beleefe but onely of Christs sayings doings besides which the very sayings and dooinges of the Apostles recorded in their Acts and Epistles or testified by Tradition are to be beleeued T. B. I answere First that Popery is this day a most miserable Religion and woe vnto them that do beleeue and obey the same This is or may bee euident to euery one throughout this whole discourse Secondly that Aquinas auoucheth very plainely as I sayde in the Downefall that all things necessary to our saluation are contained in the Scriptures For in Christs deeds are contained his myracles his life his conuersation in his sayinges Semblably are contained his preaching his teaching his doctrine and consequently whatsoeuer is necessary for vs to know If then this be true as it is most true for the papists may not deny the doctrine of Aquinas that whatsoeuer Christ would haue vs to know of his myracles of his life of his conuersation of his preaching of his teaching of his doctrine the same is written in the Scriptures then doubtlesse none but such as will Cum ratione in sanires can deny all thinges necessary for our saluation to be contained in the holy scriptures Yea if our Iesuite will stand to his owne doctrine plainly auouched in this present Pamphlet this Controuersie is at an end for we agree therein These are his expresse words For surely the Prophets and Euangelists writing their Doctrine for our better remembrance would omit no one point which was necessary to bee actually knowne of euery one especially seeing they haue written many things which are not so necessary And this teacheth S. Austen when he sayth that those things are written which seemed sufficient for the saluation of the faithfull Thus writeth our Fryer Iesuite Out of whose words I note first that the Prophets and Apostles wrote their doctrine for our good Secondly that they left no point vnwritten which was necessary for vs to know Thirdly that he yeeldeth a reason why all thinges necessary are written viz because the Prophets Euangelists haue written many things which were not so necessary for vs to know Fourthly that S. Austen teacheth vs the same doctrin viz that all things necessary for our saluation are committed to writing and set downe in the Scripture yea the Iesuite affirmeth in another place out of the same Saint Austen that all things are plainly set downe
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
Papistes I note First that the Church is the Vnïuersall Congregation of the faithfull throughout the whole VVorlde whereof the head is not the Pope but Christ Iesus our Lord. Secondly that this is that Church which cannot erre Thirdly that when the Pope saith the Church cannot erre then his owne deare and faithfull interpreter telleth him that that priuiledge is not graunted to the Pope but to the whole congregation of the faithfull And the sayd Glosse prooueth the same by many Canons of the popes owne Decrees Fourthly that the church in which the truth alwayes abideth is the congregation of the faithfull and therefore truly said Durandus that the late popish church is not comparable to the primatiue Church which heard Christs Doctrine saw his Miracles and was replenished with the Holy-ghost S. R. But suppose that the present Church could not bee a fit witnes as the Primatiue was What is this to the Argument that proueth necessity of Tradition because without Testimony of the Church wee cannot discerne true Scripture from false T. B. The visible externall church is only an externall mean Instrument or outward help whereby we are induced to giue humaine credite to one Scripture rather then to another But the formall cause why we beleeue any Scripture to be Gods word is God himselfe and the inspiration of his holy spirit Hereof occasion will be offered to speake hereafter more at large S. R. Bels second answere is that as Papistes admit the Iewes Tradition of the old Testament for Gods word and withall refuse many other Traditions of theirs so Protestantes admit this Tradition of the Bible and reiect all other We contend against Protestants that Scripture is not sufficient to proue all points of Christian faith but that Tradition is necessary for some and Bell heere confesseth it Where is now the Downefall of Popery Methinkes it is become the Downefall of protestantry VVhere is now Bels first exposition That Scripture containeth in it euery Doctrine necessary to mans Saluation VVhere is now that wee must not adde to Gods word if this Tradition must needs be added thereunto Where is now that this present church can be no fit witnesse if by her testimony wee come to know the truth VVhere is now the curse which S. Paule pronounceth against him that preacheth any Doctrine not contained in the Scripture Where is now that Scripture is the sole and onely rule of faith T. B. Here our Iesuite in all brauery tryumphing before the victory exclaimeth six seuerall times where is now this and where is now that And when all is done his exclamation is not woorth a dead Rat. Whosoeuer shall duely peruse the Downefall will easily perceiue therein that all which our Iesuite hath brought in all this his great glory was soundly confuted before it came to light Neuerthelesse for the better contentation of the Christian Reader I thus reply vpon our Lordly Fryer First with their owne deare Fryer Alphonsus à Castro in the words Hocn habemus ex ecclesia vt sciamus quae sit scriptura diuina at cum Scripturam â—sse diuinam nobis constiterit iam ex seipsa habet vt ei per omnia credere teneamur It commeth from the Church that we know which is holy Scripture but after we know it to be the holy Scripture henceforth it hath of it selfe that wee are bound to beleeue it in euery point Thus writeth this famous Papist and he doth illustrate his assertion by a similitude drawn from a Creditor and a Debtor As if saith he witnesses should bee brought for the proofe of an Instrument in which Peter standeth bound to pay to Iohn 100. crownes the witnesses do not make Peter to be bound to Iohn For although Peter should deny it and no Witnesses could prooue it Peter for all that should owe the debt But the Witnesses effect so much that hee may be conuicted to owe the debt Much more to this effect hath Alphonsus but I desire to bee briefe This I inferre out of his words that though we grant the Scriptures to be known by the Testimony of the Church yet after that notification it deserueth credite of it selfe for euery iote contained in the same Secondly that seeing the Scripture acknowledged for Gods word of all Christians containeth by the Iesuites confession as is already prooued all thinges necessary for christian beliefe vnto Saluation it followeth of necessity that no vnwritten Tradition is necessary to Saluation For doubtlesse if euery Article and all thinges necessary to salution be written then can nothing at all be necessary that remaineth vnwritten Thirdly I constantly auouch and christianly affirme mark gentle Reader attentiuely that the holy Scripture dow shew it selfe to be Gods word euen as the Sun and the Candle by their light do shew themselues what they are I proue it First because the Prophet cals the Scripture a Lanthorne Thy word O Lord saith holy Dauid is a Lanthorne to my feet and a light vnto my pathes And the Apostle confirmeth the same when hee saith Wee haue a right sure word of prophesie whereunto if ye take heede as vnto a light that shineth in a darke place ye doe well vntill the day dawne and the day-starâ—e arise in your hearts Secondly because Christ himselfe telleth vs that his Sheepe do heare his voyce My Sheepe saith he heare my voyce and I know them and they follow me Againe thus I am the good Sheepheard I know my Sheepe and they know me But Câ—rtes if it bee true as it is most true because the truth it selfe hath spoken it that Christes Sheepe heare Christ and know Christs voyce then must it needes be true in like manner that when they eyther read the scriptures or heare them read then they know Christ speaking in the same and heare his voyce Toletus a Iesuite Cardinall of Rome hath these expresse wordes Electi praedestinati dei infallibiâ—er cognoscunt pastorem Christum quae 〈◊〉 ad tempus errent tamen tandem suum verum agnoscent pastorem Sequitur at Christum necesse est agnoscere Est autem haec nota effectus prioris propterea u. oues cognoscunt me quia ego cognâ—sco eas Gods elect and predestinate Children do know Christ their Pastor infallibly because albeit they erre for a time yet in the ende they will know their true Sheepheard for of necessity they must knovv Christ. For therefore do my Sheepe know me because I know them Thus writeth our Iesuite out of wose words I note first that all Gods children are not effectually called at one time but erre and wander as sheepe without a sâ—epheard but euer in the end they acknowledge Christ their true Shepheard â—â—condly that Christs Sheepe know Christ not beecause the Church sheweth Christ to them but because Christ knoweth them This point must bee well marked that Christs sheep therefore know Christ because Christ first knoweth them not because the church make Christ
in the Scripture which concerne either faith or manners Fiftly that our Iesuite granteth al things to be written of Christs both sayings and doings which Christ would haue vs to read Marry hee addeth three worthy exceptions First that though all Christs sayings and dooings be written which Christ would haue vs to read yet not all which he would haue vs to beleeue As thogh forsooth Christ would haue vs beleeue something which we may not read What a fond saying is this Nay what a fond Religion is Popery All things necessary for vs are written saith our Iesuite and yet he telleth vs withall that we must beleeue things which are not written And consequently we must beleeue thinges which are necessarie for vs. Nay which is more that Articles of the Christian fayth are not necessary for vs. Loe Popery is a very strange Religion Secondly that we must beleeue Traditions which Christ would not haue vs to read and consequently that Christ would not haue vs to read our beliefe Lord haue mercy vpon vs and keepe vs from this doctrine Thirdly that we must beleeue many vnwritten Traditions of the Apostles which are neither contained in Christs sayings nor in his dooinges But the holy Ghost came downe from Heauen not to teach the Apostles new Reuelations saue those thinges onely which Christ had foretold them and which they did not perfectly vnderstand But the comforter the holy Ghost saith Christ whom the Father will send in my name he shall teach you all things and bring all thinges to your remembrance whatsoeuer I haue saide vnto you so is the Originall in Greeke Panta ha eipon humin But the Latine Vulgata editio to which the Pope hath tyed all Papists readeth thus Whatsoeuer I shall say vnto you And hence it is that they would establish their vnwritten Traditions But the truth is as we haue seene viz that Christ hath commanded his Apostles to writâ— all things both of his myracles and of his Doctrin which he would haue vs know and beleeue as also that Christs Apostles receiued no new Reuelations of the holy ghost but the perfect vnderstanding of those thinges which Christ afore had taught them and heere we may note by the way that Aquinas vnderstandeth Saint Iohns words These thinges are written aswell of Christes Doctrine as of his Myracles S. R. Bell citeth an Apocryphall sentence out of Esdras 3. 4. vnder the name of the wise man as if it were Salomons T. B. If our Iesuite were not at a Non plus he would neuer be so friuolously occupied I name the wise man of whome I spake euen Esdras as our Iesuite graunteth If our Fryer denie all men to bee wise Salomon only excepted then doubtles not onely himselfe is a foole as it well seemeth by his Writing but his Pope also for he is not Salomon and so all Papists must bee ruled by a Foole and beleeue that a foole cannot erre And in the end they shaâ—l haue a fooles Bable and a Foxe taile for their paines S. R. Bell citeth Victoria thus I am not certaine of it sayth Victoria though all Writers affirme it which is not contayned in the scripture But Vistoria meaneth of thinges spoken not by Tradition but by propable Opinion as the conception of our Lady without Originall sinne and such like or he meaneth of thinges neyther actually nor virtually contained in Scripture as Traditions bee according to our second conclusion T. B. If I should answere fully to all our Iesuites fonde sentences my reply would grow to a bigger booke then is the great Bible For our Iesuite thinketh himselfe a verie wise man though before hee would haue none wise but Salomon First our Fryer telleth vs that Victoria meaneth not of Traditions but of probable opinions yet secondly hee graunteth that hee cannot tell what Victoria meaneth But perhaps sayth hee he meaneth of thinges neyther actually nor virtually contained in scripture Loâ— heere Gentle Reader Popish Traditions be neyther virtually nor actually contained in the Scripture Ergo say I they are no points of Christian fayth And I prooue it by our Iesuites owne expresse words All points sayth our Fryer of Christian faith are virtually contained in scripture Thus I nowe frame an Argument against Popish vnwritten Traditions to which when our Iesuite shall aunswere soundly I will thinke him woorthy to bee Pope of Rome All pointes of Christian fayth are virtually contained in the Scripture but Popish vnwritten Traditions are not contained virtually in the Scripture Ergo Popish vnwritten Traditions are no pointes of Christian fayth The consequence is good and cannot bee denyed It is in the second figure and moode called Baroco The assumption is the Iesuites owne in the Page quoted in the Margent viz 329. The proposition also is the Iesuites in another place viz Page 290. and so I inferre this Golden and ineuitable Corollary viz that Popisâ— vnwritten Traditions are no pointes of Christian fayth Well therefore may they bee partes of Turcisme of Iudaisme of Atheisme but partes of Christianity they cannot be Apage Apage they smell of Infidelity S. R. Bell againe citeth Victoria who sayth That for Opinions we no way ought to depart from the rule of scriptures What is this to the purpose Let Bell prooue that wee eyther for Opinions or any thing else depart from Scripture T. B. Bell hath proued your departure from the holy scripture in many of his Bookes many yeares ago published to the view of the world yet to this day this is the first answer the last and al that euer came from your pens But to satisfie your itching eares a little I must put you in minde what lately you haue heard in this short reply First that the Greekes neuer beleeued your Popish Purgatorie as which cannot bee prooued out of the Scriptures Secondly that the Byshoppe of Rome to challenge power to depose Kings is against the holie Scripture Thirdly that to acknowledge sinnes Veniall of their owne Nature is to depart from the scripture Fourthly that to giue Pardons as the Pope doeth is to depart from the scripture Fiftly that to establish Workes of condigne merite is to depart from the Scripture And so in the rest as I haue both heere and else where prooued at large For the Reading of Holy Scripture and the facilitie thereof touching thinges necessary for saluation our Iesuite bestirreth himselfe more then a little but the bare pervse of the Downefall will bee a sufficient reply to the same Once let vs heare him in this point S. R. The first point is not against vs who graunt that in Reading the Scripture wee may find all things necessary T. B. You told vs euen now Good Sir Fryer that your popish vnwritten Traditions are neyther actually nor virtually contained in the Scripture Ergo by your Doctrine now deliuered they are not necessarie Beholde heere Gentle Reader howe vncertaine Popish Doctrine is and into what
thing the King scorned to do Yea the constitution is expressely related in the Popes Extrauagant which beginneth thus Vnam sanctum set downe in the sixt book of the Decretals And as Gratianus reporteth Pope Nicolas taught the same Doctrine How impudent therefore is our fund Iesuite which denyeth such a manifest trueth But let vs heare what their famous Pope Gregory saith Si ego servus eorum in morte Longobardorum me miscere valuissem hodie Longobardorum gens nec regem nec duces nec conâ—ites haberet atque in summa confusione esset deuisa Sed quia deuÌ„ times in mortem cuiuslibet hominis me miscere formido If I their seruant woulde haue intangled my selfe in the death of the Lombardes the Nation of the Lombardes shoulde this day neyther haue had a King nor Dukes nor Counties but should haue bene in the greatest confusion But because I feare GOD I am affraide to intrude my selfe into the death of any man Loe Gentle Reader for the space of 600. yeares and odde the Byshops of Rome durst not deale in absoluing subiects from their alegeance nor in murdering of Kings and Emperors And why I pray you This their owne deare Saint Gregory surnamed the great telleth vs because he feared God consequently the late Bishops of Rome dare embrue their harts hands in the bloud of Gods anointed because they haue not the feare of GOD before their eyes Yea the Popes owne Monke as wee haue heard out of Sigebert already pronounced it flat Heresie to absolue subiects from the allegeance due vnto their Soueraigne And what saith theyr Pontaus Burdegalensis these are his words Hic primus caepit francos iuramento fidlitatis absoeluere This Pope Zachary was the first that absolued the Frenchmen from the oath of their fealty and allegeance This Pope liued about the yeare of our Lord God 752. so that it was neuer heard of among the French-men for the space of 750. yeares that the Byshop of Rome tooke vpon him to absolue subiects from their oth allegeance to their Soueraigne And Sigebertus proceedeth further reproueth it as a Nouelty or rather Heresie lately crept into the Church And who I pray you can doe this but Christ Iesus as true God so true man Doth not he challenge the right at the least of the spirituall sword that taketh vpon him to absolue subiects from the oth of their allegeance Nay doth hee not take vnto him the right of both swords For absolution I am well assured is euen by popish Doctrine an act of spirituall iurisdiction and to serue the prince is a secular and meere ciuil act Antoninus sometime Arch-byshop of Florence and a Popish cannonized Saint telleth vs without blushing that the Pope is Christs Vicar on earth hath equal power with God almighty These are his expresse words Cum auteÌ„ Vicarius Christi si papa c. For seeing the Po. is the Vicar of Christ none can lawfully withdraw himselfe from his obedience as none can lawfully withdraw himselfe from Gods obedience And as Christ receiued of his father the Dukedome and scepter of the Gentiles arising of Israel ouer all principality and power and aboue euery thing that hath being that to him euery knee may bend euen so Christe hath committed most full power to Peter and his successors Thus writeth our holy Arch-byshop Antoninus Out of whose wordes I obserue first that as Christ is the the head ouer his Church so is the Pope or Byshoppe of Rome head of the same Secondly that as Christ receiued of God the Dukedom ouer all power so hath the Pope receiued the same power of Christ. Thirdly that as Christ hath power aboue and ouer euery thing whatsoeuer hath any being so hath the Pope Fourthly that as to Christ euery knee must be bowed so also to the Pope Now if this be not to challenge the royall right of both swords let the indifferent Reader iudge Neither is it to the purpose to say that hee challengeth not Royall right For I weene our Iesuite will not deny Royall right vnto Christ who is Lord of heauen and earth true God true priest and true King And yet doth Antoninus ascribe and yeeld vnto the pope all power ouer all that hath any being in as ample and large manner as Christ himselfe hath it Yea that Omnia genna al knees must bow to the pope And the vsuall practise of papists do confirme the same euen to the popes good liking For he must be carried vpon mens shoulders and men kneeling must kisse the shoo of his foot or else not be thought to loue Christ or S. Peter This my selfe being an eye-witnesse thereof am able to testifie When Gregory the thirteenth of that name came to the English Colledge in Rome all the Students vvere appointed by the Iesuite then maister of the Colledge to come two after two before him sitting in a â—haire and to kneele downe on both knees in a great chamber three seueral times before they offred to kisse his foot And while they kissed his foot or the shoo of his foot one after another the rest followed as it wer in procession falling down three times as is already said But let vs heare the Verdict of Fryer Austen de Ancona The Pope saith he as he that is the Vicar of the sonne of the heauenly Emperor hath Vniuersal iurisdiction ouer al kingdomes and Empires And is not this power ouer both swordes Is not this to challenge power proper to God alone I weene it is let others iudge S. R. But the words which Bell most vrgeth are that the Pope can make something of nothing For saith he it is a thing propper to God alone to make something of nothing in all cases and at all times T. B. I say so good Iesuite neither are you able with the help of all your Iesuiticall broode whom for all that I confesse to be very learned to proue the contrarie while the world stands S. R. But besides that the glosse neither saith that the pope can make De nihilo aliquid but de nullo aliquid neyther yet in al cases and at al times as Bell addeth the foresaid words are taken our of Iustinian C. de rei vxor act lib. 1. where the Emperor saith that because he can make to be accounted a stipulation where none is much more he can an insufficient stipulation to be sufficient And the like authority in humane contractes touching spirituall matters the glosse attributeth to the Pope And this hee meant when he said the Pope can de nullo facere aliquid of no contract make one Which Bell would apply to creation and making creatures of nothing as God made the world T. B. For Christs sake gentle Reader be heere an indifferent iudge betweene our Iesuite and mee Which if thou shalt truely affirme thou canst not but cleerly behold that our Iesuite is at his wits end what to say or write
duly and truely all affection and partialitie set apart read both The Downefall of Popery and the Iesuites answere to it I perswade my selfe hee will detest both the Pope and popery vntill his liues end S. R. Saint Austen saith Bell telleth vs that the bread which the Apostles ate was our Lord. I would Bell had marked this himselfe for it is the vpshot of this Controuersie and vnanswerable by any Protestant For if as Bell noteth out of Saint Austen the bread which the Apostles are was our Lord How can Protestantes deny it and say it was bare bread Or if as S. Austen speaketh they are bread our Lord how can Bell say they are not our Lord but bare bread T. B. Here our Iesuite triumpheth before the victorie and boasteth that that which I saide was the vpshot on my side is the vpshot on his side but how truely hee saith he will declare Saint Austen saith the Apostles are Panem Dominum The bread our Lord but that Iudas ate Panem Domini the bread of our Lord. Marke well the words gentle Reader Saint Austen putteth a cleere difference betweene that which the Apostles are and that which Iudas ate The Apostles saith hee are the Bread which is our lord but Iudas the bread of our lord This assertion of this holy father say I confoundeth the Papists for if our Lord maker be present really in flesh bloud bone vnder the accidents of bread and that so long as the same accidents remaine vncorrupt as the popish faith holdeth the doubtles Iudas should haue receiued his redeemer theÌ„ perforce Iudas should also haue receiued PaneÌ„ dominuÌ„ theÌ„ Iudas could not by any possibility haue barely receiued PaneÌ„ Domini which yet S. Austen affirmeth most constantly For first if it were true as it is not that after Popish supposed consecration the substance of bread were transubstantiated into Christes body naturall as it truely consisteth of flesh bloud and bone And again if it were also true that the self-same body remained vnder the forme of bread vntill it were corrupted as Popish Doctrine telleth vs then say I and it will bee prooued an vndoubted truth that all the Papistes in Europe and else-where are neuer able to shew me how Iudas did not receiue Panem Dominum the bread which is the Lord but Panem Domini The bread of our Lord. That is to say how Iudas could receiue the forme of bread with the Flesh bloud and bones of Christs Organicall and naturall body hidden vnder the same and for all that not receiue Christ himselfe and Panem dominum as the other Apostles did This indeed is the vpshot of this Question and striketh the Papistes starke dead they can neuer answere it truely while the world standes Now where our fond Iesuite asketh mee how I can say the Apostles are bare bread seeing they are the bread which Saint Austen saith is the Lord I answer that though perhaps he haue a great head yet seemeth he to haue but little wit For I willingly graunt with the same Saint Austen that Iudas ate the price of our Redemption with Saint Cyprian that the bread which Christ gaue to his disciples was his true flesh with Saint Chrysostome that Christ offered to Iudas the bloud which he had sold but al this sacramentally mystically figuratiuely and significantly For his sacred true and organicall body was is and must be really in Heauen vntill his second Aduent yet is it Sacramentally in the holy Eucharist Alasse alasse must Berengarius be enforced with fire and Fagot to sweare that Christes body was truely broken and truely torne with mens teeth and that onely because the figure of his body is broken and torne and we for all that and the holy fathers may not once say that christs body bloud is in the holy Eucharist Sacramentally Yea the holy Fathers do often call it the vnbloudy sacrifice and the bloud that issued out of Christs side whatsoeuer else is truely verified of his naturall and organicall body indeede and this they do because it is the sacrament and representation of that most sacred body and Sacrifice which was offered for our sins vppon the Altar of the crosse All that possibly can be obiected in these cases is fully and soundly answered in my Suruey of Popery CHAP. 6. Conteining the confutation of the Iesuites sixt Chapter touching coâ—radictions in the Masse S. R. THe Papists say that Christes body is the same in the Masse which was on the crosse and yet confesse it to be a figure thereof This Bell proueth to be a contradiction because Bellarmine saith a figure must needs be inferior to the thing figured But I deny euery figure to be inferior to the thing figured For God the Son is the figure of the substance of his Father and yet true God And Seth an Image of Adam and yet true man and such a figure of Christ is the Eucharist T. B. Our Iesuite may learne in the Schooles that Nullum simile est idem no similitude is the same with the thing whereof it is a similitude Which if it bee true as true it must bee graunted or else farewell Schoole-Doctrine then doubtlesse Christes body beeing the same in the Masse as Papists tell vs which was on the crosse cannot possibly bee a figure thereof But our Iesuite obiecteth that the Sonne of GOD is the figure of GOD and yet true God withall Likewise that Seth was the Image of man and yet true man withall I answer to the former with the auncient Father and reuerend Bishoppe Haymo Halberstatensis whose expresse wordes are these Quantum ad hominâ—s pertinet aliud est figura aliud est substantia quia dum pingitur imago figura alicuius hominis in pariete non est illud figura quod est substantia Apostolus autem figuraÌ„ in hoc loco pro ipsa substantia pro aequalitate essentiae posuit Concerning men a figure is one thing and substaunce another thing because whiles an image and figure is painted in the Wall the figure is not that which the substance is But the Apostle in this place put the figure for the substance and for the equality of Essence And the Popes owne deare Doctor Nicolaus de Lyra teacheth the selfe-same Doctrine These are his wordes Dicitur imago vel figura substantiae 1. Eiusdem substantiae cum patre Hee is called the Image or figure of his substance that is to say He is of the same substance with his father By which doctrine thus deliuered by these two learned writers we see euidently that the Apostle vnderstandeth by figure Substance so as this is the sence he is of the same substance with the Father For as the same Haymo saith in the same place as in the fire three things are inseparable the fire the heate and the brightnesse and in the brightnes is shewed to vs the fire and heat though humaine things may
not be compared with things diuine euen so the nature of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Ghost is vnited inseperably and by his word as by brightnes hee hath vouchsafed to shew himselfe vnto vs. Fondly therefore doth our Iesuite dispute when he would proue Christs body to be both the figure and the thing figured out of the apostles words wherfore by the word Figure vnderstandeth the Essence and equality of God Hee vseth a Metaphoricall speech for the dulnes of our capacities who can vnderstand nothing in the admirable diuine mysteries but by similitudes drawne from Creatures To our Iesuites second Obiection that Seth was both a true man and withall the figure of a true man I make this answere viz That it maketh against himselfe The reason is euident because as I haue prooued out of Haymo the figure of the thing figured in humaine Creatures are different and the one distinguished from the other And the Iesuite must needes graunt so much or else say as I think he will not for shame that Seth was Adam and his owne Father But in Christes body the case is otherwise for the Papistes hold that Christes body in the Eucharist is Idem corpus numero the same body in number with his body on the crosse and his body now in heauen If they shall say otherwise then perforce must they say that which they dare not that Christ hath moe bodies then one S. R. I returne Bels Argument vppon himselfe because if figures must needes be inferior to things figured the Eucharist is some nobler thing then bread T. B. Our Iesuite careth not what he say so hee seeme to say somewhat so gladly would he and his fellowes haue the vulgar sort to think that they haue answered The Downfall of Popery But God be thanked they still fall downe that striue against it I aunswere First that albeit all figures were not inferior to the things figured yet should my manner of disputation bee good against Bellarmine because my argument is deduced out of his own ground and therefore called after their vse Argumentum ad hominem Secondly that our holy Eucharist is far nobler then bare Bakers bread viz Christs true and reall body sacramentally euen that very body which was nayled on the crosse that very bloud which with the spear issued out of Christs side All which I haue prooued at large in my Suruey of Popery and there haue answered al that possibly can be said for the Popish reall presence S. R. Neither Christs whole body nor part thereof is in the Eucharist before the pronuncication of the last word yet are not the former words superfluous For the last worketh the transmutation not by his owne vertue alone but with the vertue of them also or rather God worketh all when the last word is pronounced T. B. Behold here gentle Reader what vncertaintie is in popish faith and Doctrine For first our Iesuite telleth vs that either the last word in their supposed consecration worketh transubstantiation alone or with the help of the rest or else God worketh all when the last word is spoken Marry which of these is the truth that hee cannot tell vs. Secondly their Angelicall Doctor and Saint Aquinas saith that this conuersion is not like to naturall conuersions but is altogether supernaturall wrought by the onely power of God Thirdly the same Saint Aquinas telleth vs that this conuersion is doone in an instant Fourthly if either fit matter want or any word of consecration or the intention of the Priest nothing is changed it still remaineth bread Now then on the one side euery action that God doth is done in an instant the reason is euident because God is of infinite power to whose action no resistance can be made All learned papists graunt this to be so On the other side euery action that man doth is successiue in time because man is of finite and limited power the words therefore of consecration either worke nothing at all and so they are ciphers which to hold is absurd in popish doctrine or else transubstantiation is effected in time which is repugnant to Gods infinite power Heere I must tell our Iesuite that he passeth ouer with silence two most notable contradictions whereof he speaketh not one word for feare of biting I told him in the Downefall that Berengarius was compelled to confesse and beleeue that Christes body is broken with hands and yet doth Bellarmine graunt that it is not brokē with hands Ergo it is broken with hands and not broken with hands What can be a plainer contradiction None at all S. R. Catholiques thinke indeed that when the Priest wanteth both actuall and virtuall intention or omitteth any essentiall worde that there is no Consecration and the priest sinneth therein greeuously but the people worshipping erroneously vpon inuincible ignorance offend no more then did Saint Iohn when hee worshipped an Angel as God or as did Iacob when he lay with Lia who was not his wife thinking verily she had beene his wife Rachell T. B. This is horrible impiety that by Popish Religion men women are compelled to adore that with diuine worship as the euerliuing God whith perhaps euen by the Popes owne faith and beleefe is nothing else but a piece of bread Yet is it farre greater impiety and slat blasphemy against the sonne of God to excuse the people from sinne which commit openly such palpable and grosse Idolatry But inuincible ignorance saith our Iesuite doth excuse them as it did S. Iohn and Iacob Howsoeuer the case stand with S. Iohn and the Patriarke Iacob whereof I am not now to dispute ignorance can neuer excuse Idolatry Hee saith Christ that knoweth the will of God and doth it not shal be beaten with many stripes He that knoweth not the will of God and yet doth things worthy of stripes shal be beaten with few stripes And we are taught in Ezechiel that the wicked shall die in his iniquity though the watchman gaue him no warning The man of God which beleeued the old Prophet that lyed vnto him sinned greeuously as appeared by his punishment because he transgressed the word of the Lord albeit hee offended ignorantly thinking hee had done the will of God S. R. What maketh it against the masse that three or foure Catholiques did in a difficult matter before it was defined by the Church dissent from the rest Let Bell if hee can shew this diuersity now since the Councell T. B. In the Downefall of Popery I proued out of Durand that onely the forme of Bread is changed in the Eucharist that the matter of Bread remaineth stil. Out of Rupertus the Popish Abbot that the bread is vnited Hypostatically to the sonne of God That Caietanus Henrieus Capreolus are of another opinion That Iohannes Parisiensis helde also that the bread was assumpted but in a different maner from the opinion of Rupertus That
in his drunkennesse is worthy of double punishment First for his drunkennesse then for the sinne that followeth vppon the same For though the sinne consequent be not voluntary in the act and deed done yet is it voluntary in the cause S. R. Bell noteth the Romish Religion of mutability confessing that the olde Romaine Religion was Catholique sound pure with which he will not contend But seeing you haue granted the old Roman Religion to be pure and Catholique and slander the late I bring an action of slaunder against you and charge you to bring good witnesse when wherein and by whom the late Romaine Religion corrupted the purity of the old T. B. This is the point indeede that seduceth the silly ignorant sort throughout the ChristiaÌ„ world For the Pope his flattering Parasites beare them in hand that the late start vp Romish doctrin is the old Roman religion which S. Peter and Saint Paule preached to the Romanies in their life time But my life and saluation I gage for the triall it is not so No no It is a New Religion crept by little and little into the Church of Rome To which doctrine if the vulgar people would once hearken all partiality and sinister affection set apart they would vndoubtedly vtterly forsake the Pope and detest from their hearts all Popish faction Here our Fryer Iesuite threatneth me to bring an action of the case against mee for that as hee saith I slander their Religion He would haue me to tell him and his Pope when wherein and by whom the late Romish Religion corrupted the purity of the old I answer first that I desire to know our Iesuites name because we may perhaps agree without suite in Law Secondly that I haue in a printed Booke published many yeares ago to the view and iudgment of all the Christian world shewed in plaine and expresse tearmes at what times in what points by what persons the old Roman Religion taught by Saint Paule as holy Writ telleth vs and by Saint Peter as Histories Ecclesiasticall doe relate was successiuely corrupted errours embraced superstition nourirished ignorance countenanced and false Doctrine decreed for the truth This Booke is intituled the Suruey of Popery published about tenne yeares agoe in the yeare of our Lord God 1596. I haue challenged all Iesuites and Iesuited Papists ioyntly and seuerally to answere it and all my other Bookes They haue oftentimes in many of theyr slaundrous Libels made mention both of the Suruey and of my other Bookes and promised aunswers to the same but while the Grasse growes the Horse dyes This is the first answer that euer I receiued to this day Which how silly it is let others iudge For their late forerunner did but snatch here and there and aunswered directly nothing at all Our Iesuite heere insinuateth something which hee cannot well tell how to shuffle vp I also alleadged out of Iosephus Angles a famous Popish Schoole-Doctor and Byshop that the Popish Doctrine daily altereth in their Schooles S. Thomas sayth he and his followers hold That a Venâ—all sin is not so much against the Law as besides the Law But Durand and many others impugne this opinion and auouch Veniall sinnes to bee against the Commaundements And this opinion sayth hee seemeth now adaies to be more common in the schooles Here I wished the Reader to note by the way out of the word Modo Now adayes the mutability of the Romish Religion S. R. Angles insinuateth Schoole opinions to be mutable Bell applyeth it to the Romaine Religion as if it consisted of Schoole opinions which may be held Pro contra with vnity of Faith T. B. If Schoole opinions be mutable then Popish Religion is mutable of necessity For how dare the Schoole-Doctours teach publiquely contrary to the Popes minde VVas not your famous Doctour Michael at Louain threatned to frame his opinion to the Popes liking or else yee wâ—â—e what would haue followed Did not the Pope send Toledo the Iesuite to conferre with him and tell him what the Pope thought and therefore he must and so forth You know it was so Be not grieued I pray you to heare Beatus Rhenanus one of your deare friends speake a truth of your Schooles and Schoole-Doctouâ—s These are his wordes Thomas Aquinas Scotus c. Thomas Aquinas and Scotus men too much delighted with subtilties haue brought confession this day to such a pâ—sse that Ioannes Geilerius a Graue and reuerend Diuiâ—e and a Preacher a long time at Argentoraium sayd many a time to his friendes that it was impossible for a man to make his confessioÌ„ according to their Traditions Thus writeth Rhenanus Out of whose words I note First that the vain curious destinctions of the Schole-doctors haue brought much mischeefe into the Church of GOD. Which thing if a Papist had not spoken it would seeme incredible to the world Secondly that it is impossible for a Papist to make his confession acording to the Popish law and consequently that all Papists by Popish doctrine must perish euerlastingly Marke well my words Gentle Reader the Papists teach vs to hold for an article of our beleefe that we are bound to make our confessions as the Popish law prescribeth that is as Aquinas and Scotus haue set downe the same And for all that Gielerius a Papist himselfe a great diuine complained often to his frends that no man could possibly performe the same Now then since on the one side Popish confession must be made vnder pain of damnation and since on the other side none possibly can make the same as it is required it followeth of necessity by Popish Doctrine that all Papistes must be damned eternally O miserabie Popery coufounded by thy selfe O late start-vp Religion patched like a Beggers cloke Thine own Doctors O Popery such force hath the truth haue bewrayed thy treachery to the world Thirdly that many likewise among the Papists do externally obey the Popish Law who for all that in their hearts detest the late hatched Romish Religion This is euident by the secret complaint of the learned man Gielerius who tolde that to his trusty frends which he durst not tell the pope S. R. Their canonized Martyr Byshop Fisher sayth he and their Popish Byshop Gerson wrote that Veniall sinnes were such onely by the mercy of God Heere Bell for one truth vttereth two vntruths True it is that Byshop Fisher Gerson were in that errour but that was both before it was condemned in the church as it was since by Pius the v. Gregorius 13. Neyther did they account involuntary motions of Concupiscence for Veniall sinnes as Bell doth but such as Catholickes account Veniall But vntrue it is that eyther Byshop Fisher is cannonized or Gerson was a Byshop T. B. Heere our Iesuite graunteth freely that both the famous learned Byshop Fisher and that excellent Doctour Gerson of high esteem in the Counsell of Constance helde
Church vnlesse Bell will impute the fault of some few to the whole And by this is aunswered vvhat he bringeth out of Socrates touching the diuersity of time and meate vsed in the fast of Lent Albeit what Socrates sayth of the Romane Church fasting but three weekes before Easter and not on Saterday is an vntruth See the eight distinction of the Popes decrees and note it well T. B. I prooued in the Downefall out of Eusebius Caesariensis the vncertainty of Popish vnwritten Traditions by the great diuersity about the keeping of Lent Because some thought they ought only to fast one day some two daies others more daies and some forty I prooued semblably out of Socrates that the people did differ no lesse in theyr manner of eating then they did in their daies of abstayning For some saith he would eate no liuing thing othersome of liuing things eat onely Fish some together with fish did ate also Birdes but some ate onely Bread and others at night eate all kind of meats without difference yea hee telleth vs in the same place that the Romans fast three weekes before Easter besides the Sabbaoth and the Lords day And that the Illirians and Alexandrians doe fast sixe weekes and yet doe they all tearm their fast Lent Here I inferred in the Downefall the vncertainty of Popish vnwritten Traditions Now our Fryer thinketh to answere all this though a Bulwarke inuincible with his onely bare Word viz in telling his Reader that Bell sheweth his want of iudgement in bringing a place cleerely against himselfe Mary Sir this is a ready answere indeede If such answeres will serue in vaine is all disputation But our Fryer would seeme to yeelde a reason of this his answere And what is that Forsooth that in the beginning all obserued one manner of Fast though some afterward either of ignorance or negligence he cannot tell whether did breake it To my Testimony out of Socrates he saith it is an vntruth because the Romains fasted the Saterdaies But I answere thus First that the vncertainety of Traditions is heereby so apparant as it is great impudency to deny the same For how can there bee any certainty where not onely the time of fasting but also the meats that must be eaten is vncertaine Both which happen is this case Secondly that the ancient Cannons of the Apostles cōfirme Socrates his affirmation for there is it thus written Si quis dominicū diem aut Sabbathū vno solo dempto ieiunare deprehendatur deponitor If any shal be conuicted to fast the Sunday or Sabbaoth one onely excepted let him bee depriued So then either our Fryer must graunt that Socrates spake the truth that he hath falsly accused him or else if hee like this better that the Pope contemned the cannon Apostolicall Yea the sixt Synod generall of Constantinople affirmeth it to bee against the Tradition of the Church to fast on Saterdaie Behold here the comely certainety of Popish Traditions The Tradition of the church saith We must not fast on Saterday the Pope holdeth the contrary and yet saith our Iesuite Traditions are most certaine S. R. Popish Traditions saith Bell tell vs that all the Bishops of Rome one after another haue taught successiuely the same Doctrine with Saint Peter howbeit theyr owne deere Fryer and learned Doctor Nicholaus de Lyra auoucheth plainely roundly and boldly to the whole Christian world that many Byshoppes of Rome haue falne away from the faith and become fit Apostataes But well may one bee an Apostata and yet teach the Doctrine of his Predecessor As S. Peter denyed his Maister and yet taught no contrary Doctrine Saint Marcellin offered sacrifice to Idols and yet taught no Idolatry Caiphas murdered Christ and yet prophesied T. B. Marke Gentle Reader the case is so plaine that Popes haue swarued from the right faith of Christ that our Frier cannot deny the same They may saith he be flat Apostataes forsake the Faith yet neuer preach a false faith They may sacrifice to Idolles yet neuer preach Idolatry They may deny Christ yet neuer preach against Christ. And indeed for preaching it may be true in an vsual Popish sense meaning For since they came to their Lordly primacy they haue abandoned preaching with solemnity Well hee that list to know what your Popes haue beene and what Faith they held I refer him to my book of Suruey and to my Motiues For I desire to be breefe especially since our Iesuite bringeth nothing to be aunswered which was not in effect confuted before it came to light S. R. Bell telleth vs of Constantius baptisme but it is a meere Historicall Tradition concernes no matter of saluation it is vnawares contested by Bel himself when he saith that he hath seene at Rome the Font and that Constantine is worthily called great T. B. I wrote in the Downfall that by Popish Tradition the Emperor Constantine was baptized at Rome in a Font remaining there to this day that my selfe haue seen the Fons in which as they say hee was baptized Howbeit Hyeronymus Eusebius Socrates Theodoretus Sozomenus Cassiodorus and Pompontus doe all affirme very constantly that he was baptized at Nichomedia But our Iesuite thinkes it enough to say that it concerns no matter of faith that my selfe confesse vnawares that I haue seene the Font in which they say Constantine was Baptized I aunswere to the former that if a man shall go to Rome and there reprooue any Tradition which the Pope holdeth or practiseth he shal be burnt as an Heretique To the latter that I onely report what I haue seene I neyther say Constantine was christned in it nor deny the same This I cōstantly affirme that since so many learned menne deny it it must needes argue great vncertainty in Popish vnwritten Traditions S. R. The Papists saith Bell by their Popish Traditions make some to honour Heretiques for Saintes For both theyr owne deare friende Platina and their famous Byshoppe Martinus Polonus doe tell vs that the dead corps of Hermannus were worshipped for a Saints Reliques at Ferrara the space of twenty yeares together who for all that Oh impious Idolatry and Idolatrous impiety was a knowne Heretick as the same Platina auoucheth Is not this a strange thing to make the error of common people a Popish tradition Besides Platina affirmeth no such thing himselfe but onely that some others write so T. B. Platina writeth as other Historiographers do that which he hath learned by credible report And he addeth that he verily deemed that Hermannus to bee one è fraticellis whose sect at that time abounded But their Bishop Martinus Polonus or whosoeuer was the Authour of the appendix ioyned to his Chronicle telleth vs plainely that the Maisters of the Inquisition sought out the truth of the matter and caused Harmannus his body to be digged out of the Graue and to bee burnt as an Heretique and his sumptuous shrine to bee
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
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
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
Fooleries and Contradictions the Papistes fall while they busie themselues to fight against the truth S. R. Bell Obiecteth out of Theodoretus that the Haebrewe Bookes were Translated into all Languages This is nothing against vs who deny not but Scripture hath bin and may bee vpon iust and vrgent causes translated into all languages so it be not vulgarly vsed and common to all kind of vulgar people T. B. You say you deny not but Scripture hath beene and also may bee Translated into the vulgar Languages yet you adde two restrictions by which you in effect vnsay that which you had saide before First you say it may be in the Vulgar languages so it bee not vulgarly vsed What is this Fast and loose your Legierdemaine To what end I pray you shall it and may it bee turned into the vulgar Languages That the vulgar people may Read it or no If you say yea then may it be vulgarly vsed For that is to bee vulgarly vsed to be read vulgarly If you say no then in vaine do you graunt it to be Translated into the vulgar tongue Secondly you say it may also be Translated so it be doone vppon iust and vrgent causes You should haue doone well to haue named those iust and vrgent causes But Sir seeing the thing may bee doone and seeing also there may bee iust and vrgent causes why it should bee doone how commeth it to passe that none may doe it vnlesse the Pope licence him thereunto How happeneth it that none may read it when it is translated vnlesse hee haue the Popes licence so to doe How chanceth it that it was neuer done since the Bishop of Rome aspired to his vsurped prymacy This would I learne S. R. The Holy Fathers affirme that there are vnwritten Apostolicall Traditions Bell and some few start-vp Heretiques deny it Whether beleeue ye Christians T. B. Bell denyeth not simply that there bee no vnwritten Apostolicall Traditions It is a notorious calumny sor I willingly admit vnwritten Traditions as is apparant by my Bookes published to the World But I constantly reiect all vnwritten Traditions whatsoeuer which are obtruded as necessary to saluation or as necessary parts of doctrin because al such things are contained in the written Word Other Traditions not contrary to Gods Word which the Church obserueth I am so farre from condemning them that I both willingly admit them and highly reuerence the same And if you were constant to your own writings you would subscribe to this my doctrine For you graunt in many places that all thinges necessary for saluation are contained in the holy Scripture Which being granted you contradict your selfe when yee vrge vnwritten Traditions as necessary points of Christian Faith S. R. There are certaine and vndoubted Apostolicall Tradions This is against Bell. T. B. It is not against Bell for Bell admitteth as we haue seen already such vnwritten Traditions as are repugnant to the holy Scripture and haue euer beene approued of the whole Church But such neither are Articles of the Chrian faith neither necessary to Saluation S. R. But I prooue it because the Traditions of the Bible to be Gods word of the perpetuall virginity of our blessed Lady of the transferring of the Sabboath and such like are certaine and vndoubted T. B. Crambe bis posita mors est saith the Prouerbe This Cuckow song soundeth often in our eares This irkesome Tautology of yours doth you good seruice The perpetuall virginity of the most blessed Virgin I admit with all reuerence and semblably I approoue the translation of the Sabboath As this is not the first time ye vrged thē so neither the first time I answere them But neither are they repugnāt to the holy Scripture nor necessary points of Doctrine To the Tradition of the Bible which is euer your last and best trump aunswere shall bee made God willing in the ende of this Article It is the most colourable thing you can alleadge and the onely foundation vppon which you continually relie I therefore reserue it for the vpshot and to entertaine you with such a collation as may be to your best liking S. R. Bels conclusion is that Traditions are so vncertain as the learnedst Papists contend about them and hee prooueth it because S. Victor contended with the Byshop of Asia Saint Policarpe with Saint Anicetus Surely he meaneth that these men were Papists or else his conclusion is vnprooued and consequently Papistes and Popery were 1400. yeares agoe T. B. Two thinges our Fryer vrgeth neither of which vvill do him any seruice viz my meaning and the proofe of my conclusion My meaning is cleerely vttered when in the Downefall I affirmed Saint Policarpus Saint Policrates and other holy Fathers to bee so farre from acknowledging the Byshop of Rome to bee the supreme head of the Church and that he could not erre that they all reputed themselues his equals touching gouernment Ecclesiasticall that they all reprooued him very sharpely that they all with vniforme assent affirmed him to defend a grosse errour to hold a false opinion and therefore they with might and maine withstand his proceedings Whereas this day if any Bishops Magestrates or other Potentates in the World where Popery beareth the sway should doe the like they might all roundly be excommunicated and not onely deposed from their iurisdiction but also to be burnt with fire and Fagot for their pains Thus I then wrote so as our Fryer could not doubt of my meaning but that malice carryeth him away to lying Well but how is my conclusion proued Thus forsooth I alleaged this great contention among the holy Fathers to proue the vncertainty of obtruded vnwritten Traditions in these our dayes My Argument was A maiori ad minus as the Scooles tearm it viz that if the Fathers of the most ancient Church when she was in good estate and stained with very few or no corruptions at all could finde no certaintie in vnwritten Traditions much lesse can wee trust to vnwritten Traditions in these dayes when the Pope and his Iesuited Popelinges employ all their care study industry to bury the truth of Christs Gospell vnder the ground And so haue I both prooued my conclusion and also our Fryer to be either full of malice or a very foole S. R. Bell denyeth the keeping of Lent to be Apostolicall because Saint Crysostome writeth That Christ did not bid vs imitate his fast but be humble and to bee certaine because Eusebius out of Ieremy writeth That in his time some thought wee ought to fast one day some two daies others more and some fortie Here Bell sheweth his lacke of iudgment in citing a place clearely against himselfe For here Saint Ireney Eusebius affirme cleerely that at the beginning there was one manner of fasting Lent appointed though some afterward either of ignorance or negligence did breake it Which prooueth not the said Tradition to be vncertain in the whole