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
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
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
The Jesuites Antepast CONTEINING A Reply against a pretensed aun swere to the DOWNE-FALL OF POPERIE lately published by a masked Iesuite Robert Parsons by name though he hide himselfe couertly vnder the letters of S. R. which may fitly be interpreted A SAWCY REBELL Esay 38 verse 1. Put thine house in order for thou shalt die and not liue AT LONDON Printed by William Iaggard dwelling in Barbican 1608. To the Right Honorable my very good Lord Thomas Earle of Dorset Lord high Treasurer of England and one of his Maiesties most Honourable priuy Counsell â‚ IT is a constant and vndoubted truth approoued by all Canonicall Scriptures ancient Councels holy Fathers Ecclesiasticall Histories and Right reason it selfe that as there is but one onely GOD so but one Faith and one Religion Hence commeth it Right Honorable that the Pope and his Iesuites with other his Popish Vassals employ their whole wits learning study care industry and diligence to instill into the cares and harts of the multitude and common people that the Religion which this day they professe is the old Roman Religion which Saint Peter and S. Paule first planted in the Church of Rome And for this end they indeauâ—ur with might and maine yea euen with fire and Fagot to perswade or rather to enforce all Christians to call it the Old Religion and to professe and beleeue it to bee the Catholique and Apostolique Faith whereas the truth is farre otherwise as God willing shortly will appeare Which if the Vulgar sort did once vnderstand they would no doubt stand at defiance with the Pope and from their hearts detest his late start-vppe Romish Doctrine There is a Sect of Fryers at Rome called the Franciscanes who haue by little and little swarued from their first institution and become so licentious and dissolute that another sort of Fryers commonly called the Capucheues haue accused them to haue departed from their Ancient and Primitiue order and therefore do the Capucheues tearme themselues the reformed and true Franciscanes indeede This is this day our case in the Church of Noble England and in many other Churches within the Christian World The Capucheues hold fast keep still and constanty defend all the Ancient Orders of the first Franciscanes they onely reiect and abandon that which by litle and little crept into their Order viz superstition abuses and neglect of Discipline Euen so is it this day with our Church of England she holdeth-fast keepeth still and constantly defendeth all and euery iote of the old Romane Religion reuerencing it as Catholique and Apopostolique Doctrine she onely reiecteth and abandoneth Heresies Errours superstition and intollerable abuses by little and little brought into the Church For neither did most Noble Queene Elizabeth in her time neyther doth our most gratious Soueraigne King IAMES who this day most happily raigneth ouer vs set vp or bring into the Church any new Religion but onely reformeth the Church by the example of King Iosaphat King Ezechias King Iosias and other godly Kinges in their dayes and reduceth it to the Primitiue order and purity of the old Romaine Religion This to be so none can in conscience deny that will with a single and vpright eye this day behold the godly setled Canons of this Church of England For the late Bishops of Rome haue in many points of great importance swarued and departed from the Doctrine of their Ancestors whereof no doubt many Papists euen at about Rome it selfe would this day if they durst for fear of fire and Fagot accuse the Pope himself What shall I say of Hieronymus Sauonarola that famous Preacher and Dominican Fryer Was not be burnt with Fire and Fagot because he preached openly in the famous Citty of Florence against the licencious liues of the Pope and his Clergy and against superstition and abuses crept into the Church I wote it was so it cannot be denyed What Did not Iohannes Geilerius a famous Popish Preacher at Argentorate oftentimes complain to his trusty friends not daring to acquaint otheres therewith that the Thomists and Scotists had brought auricular confession to such a miserable point as none possibly could performe the same He did so their owne good friend Beatus Rhenanus doth contest the same with me What Did not Franciscus à Victoria that â—amous Popish Schoole-doctor complaine grieuously in his time of Popish intollerable dispensations Did he not publish to the view of the world that the Church was brought to such a miserable state as none were able to endure the same Did hee not cry out against the late Bishops of Rome and desire Clements Lines Siluesters His own Book is extant in print the world knoweth it to be so What shall I say of the Popes errors in Faith and Doctrine Was not Pope Liberius an Arrian Heretike Was not Pope Anastasius a Silestorian Hereretique Was not Pope Celestine condemned for erronious doctrin did not Pope Iohn the 22. of that name teach publikely a most notorious heresie Did he not commaund the vniuersity of Paris that none should be admitted to any degree in Theologie but such as would sweare to defend that heresie perpetually Did not the King of France with the aduise consent of the whole vniuersity for that end cause his daÌ„nable opinion to be coÌ„demned with the sound of Trumpets Adrianus who was B of Rome himselfe Alphonsus à Castro Melchior Canus and Viguerius all foure being very learned and famous Papists are constant witnesses of this truth Doth not Nicholaus de Lyra a famous and learned Popish Writer boldly and constantly affirme in his learned Commentaries that many Popes haue swarued from the Faith and become flâ—t Apostaâ—aes in their Romish seates He doth so it cannot bee gaine-said What shall I say of the Popes liues conuersation Was not Pope Iohn the eight of that name belying her sexe and clad in Mans attire with great admiration of her sharpe wit and singuler learning chosen to bee the Bishop or Pope of Rome Did she not shortly after by the familiar helpe of her beloued Companion bring forth the homely and shamefull fruites of her Popedome Is this true Is it possible Then farewell Popish Succession the chiefe Bulwarke of Romish Faith and Religion For seeing no Woman is or can be made capable of holy orders that succession which is deryued froÌ„ our holy Mistris Iohn Pope cannot possibly be of force Yet is this story confirmed to be true by the vniforme assent of many Papistes of great esteeme euen in the Church of Rome viz of Sigebertus Gemblacensis Marianus Scotus Matheus Palmerius Martinus Polonus Philippus Bergoniensis Baptista Platina Bartholomeus Carranza and others Was not Pope Iohn the twelft made Pope by violent meanes Did not his Father Albericus being a man of great power and might enforce the Nobles to take an oth that after the death of Pope Agapitus they would promote his Son
I say our Iesuite remaine aliue and be not killed I will subscribe to this his doctrine And yet is it cleere that in this case his body bloud shold be put apart where they were not before But our Iesuite seemeth to ayme at a farther mark What is that at the creating of Christs body and bloud Is it so indeed Is it possible so to thinke It is very so For these are his words as you heare else God should kill a man if hee created a Soule and body apart Well now I remember an old said saw which doubtles is as foolish as it is old that the priest in the popish masse can create his God God so blesse me and all good Christians that we neuer harken to such Theology CHAP. 4. Containing the confutation of the lesuites fourth Chapter of the second Article IN this fourth Chapter our Iesuite rehearseth sundry absurdities which are found in the Popish Masse But the more hee busieth himselfe to discharge their Masse thereof the more the same absurdities do increase Let vs take a tast of one for all Bell saith he inferreth that either Christs Sacrifice was vnperfect in his last Supper or else that it was needles in his bitter passion on the crosse To which he answereth that neyther of both dooth follow For saith he Christs Sacrifice at his Supper was a most perfect vnbloudy Sacrifice and yet his Sacrifice on the Crosse was needfull as the peculiar price which GOD exacted at his handes for the redemption of the World Loe he granteth freely that Christs Sacrifice at his Supper was most perfect and yet the heathen Philosopher can tell him that Perfecto nihil addi potest To that which is perfect nothing can bee added This notwithstanding he affirmeth these three things First that the Sacrifice on the Crosse was needfull Secondly that it was the peculier price which GOD exacted Thirdly that it was for the redemption of the world Which three points being as truely marked and remembred as they are truely granted all but such as are Sensus communis inopes men without all both sense reason will plainely perceiue and constantly hold that Christs Sacrifice at his last Supper was either imperfect vvhich our Iesuite denieth or else no real sacrifice at al which I defend All the rest of the chapter is full of the like vanity for consideration whereof it is enough to peruse The Downefall of Popery CHAP. 5. Containing the Iesuites confutation touching Berengarius VVHere in The downefall of Popery I related truely the cruell dealing of the Pope and his Popish councell with Berengarius our Iesuite would gladly excuse the Pope and his Sinod but it will not be S. R. Bell exclaimeth mightily because Berengarius was compelled to beleeue that Christ in the Eucharist is sensibly touched broken with the hands of Priests torne with the teeth of the faithfull T. B. Bell doth so Idque merito He hath iust cause so to do R. S. Neuerthelesse Christes body is said to be toucht broken and chewed in the Eucharist because the signe of bread in which it really is is so vsed As GOD is said to haue beene crucified because the humanity in which hee was was so handled and Christ touched when his garment was touched T. B. Heere is all that confessed which I intended for to prooue viz That the bread of the Eucharist is called Christs body because it is the signe and Sacrament of his body And therefore that Berengarius was most cruelly and villanously dealt withall when he was enforced eyther to bee burnt with fire and Fagot or else to sweare that he beleeued in his hart that Christs body was truely touched and broken with the hands of Priests and truely torne with the teeth of the faithfull When for all that many learned Papists Bellarmine Melchior Canus and others with this our Iesuite who would and dooth say the best he can for the Popes defence do freely graunt and plainely confesse that Christes body can neither bee broken with hands nor yet torne or chewed with teeth Loe Berengarius was compelled to beleeue as an article of his faith that Christes body was truely in veritate broken with the hands of Priests and torne with teeth and yet the truth is farre otherwise as both Bellarmine Canus and our Iesuite do confesse Fie on such religion hang vp such Popish Faith accursed be such doctrine S. R. The holy Fathers Saint Cyprian Saint Chrysostome and others do teach vs plainlie that Christs body is broken with hands and chewed with teeth yea Christ himselfe saith This is my body which is broken VVill Bell now condemne Christ and these holy Fathers of wickednesse villany blasphemy and horrible impiety Nay will he condemne both English many forraine Protestants whose doctrine saith he is that Christs body is broken torne and consumed with mouth and teeth Behold good Reader For Papists to say Christs body is touched broken and torne is villany and horrible impiety but for Protestants to say the same and adde consuming too is good doctrine T. B. I prooued out of Cardinall Bellarmine that famous Iesuiticall Fryer that Christs body cannot bee broken and torne saue only in a figure or Sacrament And that by his doctrine it may be sayd to bee broken and torne when the signe thereof is broken and torne Out of whose doctrine I inferred this golden Colorrary viz that if it be true to say Christs body is broken and torne because the signe of his body is broken torne then truely may we say and truely do we say that Christes body is in the Eucharist because the signe of his body is there because the Sacrament of his bodye is there because the representation of his body is there And much more truely might Christ himselfe say This is my body when he gaue the signe and Sacrament of his body I then added that it is the constant doctrine of the church of England which also many other reformed Churches approoue therein that Christs body is receiued broken torne and consumed with mouth teeth figuratiuely significantly mystycally sacramentally And consequently if the Papistes would be iudged by this doctrine which by the pen of the Iesuite Bellarmine they heere deliuer the controuersie would soone bee at an end Now I referre my self to the indifferent Reader whosoeuer he be whether the Iesuite S. R. bee an honest man or no. For first hee beareth the Reader in hand that I condemne Christ and the holy Fathers Secondly that I condemne both the English Churche and many forraine Christians Thirdly he chargeth mee to hold the same Doctrine which I vtterly condemne in Popery Fourthly he iustifieth the condemnation of Berengarius whose doctrine for all that both Bellarmine and Melchior Canus do iustify and himselfe vnawares in this chapter If I should deale with the Papists in this manner all the world would exclaime against me If any indifferent Reader shall
not be compared with things diuine euen so the nature of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Ghost is vnited inseperably and by his word as by brightnes hee hath vouchsafed to shew himselfe vnto vs. Fondly therefore doth our Iesuite dispute when he would proue Christs body to be both the figure and the thing figured out of the apostles words wherfore by the word Figure vnderstandeth the Essence and equality of God Hee vseth a Metaphoricall speech for the dulnes of our capacities who can vnderstand nothing in the admirable diuine mysteries but by similitudes drawne from Creatures To our Iesuites second Obiection that Seth was both a true man and withall the figure of a true man I make this answere viz That it maketh against himselfe The reason is euident because as I haue prooued out of Haymo the figure of the thing figured in humaine Creatures are different and the one distinguished from the other And the Iesuite must needes graunt so much or else say as I think he will not for shame that Seth was Adam and his owne Father But in Christes body the case is otherwise for the Papistes hold that Christes body in the Eucharist is Idem corpus numero the same body in number with his body on the crosse and his body now in heauen If they shall say otherwise then perforce must they say that which they dare not that Christ hath moe bodies then one S. R. I returne Bels Argument vppon himselfe because if figures must needes be inferior to things figured the Eucharist is some nobler thing then bread T. B. Our Iesuite careth not what he say so hee seeme to say somewhat so gladly would he and his fellowes haue the vulgar sort to think that they haue answered The Downfall of Popery But God be thanked they still fall downe that striue against it I aunswere First that albeit all figures were not inferior to the things figured yet should my manner of disputation bee good against Bellarmine because my argument is deduced out of his own ground and therefore called after their vse Argumentum ad hominem Secondly that our holy Eucharist is far nobler then bare Bakers bread viz Christs true and reall body sacramentally euen that very body which was nayled on the crosse that very bloud which with the spear issued out of Christs side All which I haue prooued at large in my Suruey of Popery and there haue answered al that possibly can be said for the Popish reall presence S. R. Neither Christs whole body nor part thereof is in the Eucharist before the pronuncication of the last word yet are not the former words superfluous For the last worketh the transmutation not by his owne vertue alone but with the vertue of them also or rather God worketh all when the last word is pronounced T. B. Behold here gentle Reader what vncertaintie is in popish faith and Doctrine For first our Iesuite telleth vs that either the last word in their supposed consecration worketh transubstantiation alone or with the help of the rest or else God worketh all when the last word is spoken Marry which of these is the truth that hee cannot tell vs. Secondly their Angelicall Doctor and Saint Aquinas saith that this conuersion is not like to naturall conuersions but is altogether supernaturall wrought by the onely power of God Thirdly the same Saint Aquinas telleth vs that this conuersion is doone in an instant Fourthly if either fit matter want or any word of consecration or the intention of the Priest nothing is changed it still remaineth bread Now then on the one side euery action that God doth is done in an instant the reason is euident because God is of infinite power to whose action no resistance can be made All learned papists graunt this to be so On the other side euery action that man doth is successiue in time because man is of finite and limited power the words therefore of consecration either worke nothing at all and so they are ciphers which to hold is absurd in popish doctrine or else transubstantiation is effected in time which is repugnant to Gods infinite power Heere I must tell our Iesuite that he passeth ouer with silence two most notable contradictions whereof he speaketh not one word for feare of biting I told him in the Downefall that Berengarius was compelled to confesse and beleeue that Christes body is broken with hands and yet doth Bellarmine graunt that it is not brokē with hands Ergo it is broken with hands and not broken with hands What can be a plainer contradiction None at all S. R. Catholiques thinke indeed that when the Priest wanteth both actuall and virtuall intention or omitteth any essentiall worde that there is no Consecration and the priest sinneth therein greeuously but the people worshipping erroneously vpon inuincible ignorance offend no more then did Saint Iohn when hee worshipped an Angel as God or as did Iacob when he lay with Lia who was not his wife thinking verily she had beene his wife Rachell T. B. This is horrible impiety that by Popish Religion men women are compelled to adore that with diuine worship as the euerliuing God whith perhaps euen by the Popes owne faith and beleefe is nothing else but a piece of bread Yet is it farre greater impiety and slat blasphemy against the sonne of God to excuse the people from sinne which commit openly such palpable and grosse Idolatry But inuincible ignorance saith our Iesuite doth excuse them as it did S. Iohn and Iacob Howsoeuer the case stand with S. Iohn and the Patriarke Iacob whereof I am not now to dispute ignorance can neuer excuse Idolatry Hee saith Christ that knoweth the will of God and doth it not shal be beaten with many stripes He that knoweth not the will of God and yet doth things worthy of stripes shal be beaten with few stripes And we are taught in Ezechiel that the wicked shall die in his iniquity though the watchman gaue him no warning The man of God which beleeued the old Prophet that lyed vnto him sinned greeuously as appeared by his punishment because he transgressed the word of the Lord albeit hee offended ignorantly thinking hee had done the will of God S. R. What maketh it against the masse that three or foure Catholiques did in a difficult matter before it was defined by the Church dissent from the rest Let Bell if hee can shew this diuersity now since the Councell T. B. In the Downefall of Popery I proued out of Durand that onely the forme of Bread is changed in the Eucharist that the matter of Bread remaineth stil. Out of Rupertus the Popish Abbot that the bread is vnited Hypostatically to the sonne of God That Caietanus Henrieus Capreolus are of another opinion That Iohannes Parisiensis helde also that the bread was assumpted but in a different maner from the opinion of Rupertus That
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
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
Dionisius and Aquinas wee may learne sufficiently if nothing else were saide that howsoeuer Paule plant or Apollo water yet will no increase followe vnlesse God giue the same I therefore conclude that we do not beleeue this book or that Booke to be Cannonical because this man or that man or the church saith so but because the Scripture is ' axiopistos because it hath in it selfe that dignity that verity and that Maiesty which is woorthy of credite in it selfe The declaration of the church doth make vs know and beleeue the scripture but is onely an externall help to bring vs thereunto We indeed beleeue the Scripture this or that Booke to be canonicall because God doth inwardly teach vs and perswade our harts so to beleeue For Certes if we should beleeue this or that booke to be canonicall because the Church saith so then should the formall obiect of our faith and the last resolution therof be man and not God himselfe as Areopagna Aquinas the truth it selfe teacheth vs. Sixtly because we cannot be assured that the Church telleth vs the truth For how can the Church perswade vs that she knoweth it to be Gods word If aunswere be made that shee knoweth it of another Church then I demaund againe how that other Church can performe it And so either contrary to all Diuinity Phylosophy and right reason Dabitur processus in infinitum Or else they must say they receiued it by Tradition from the Apostles and thē are they where they began For first they cannot make vs know that assuredly Againe our Iesuite confuteth that answer when he liberally telleth vs that many partes of the Bible were long after the daies of the Apostles doubted of and consequently their Apostolicall so supposed Tradition is of no effect If answere be made that the Church knoweth it by Reuelation then their famous Bishop Melchior Canus telleth them plainely and roundly that it cannot bee so These are his expresse wordes Nec vllas in fide nouas reuelationes ecclesia habet For the Church hath no new Reuelations in matters of Faith If answere be made that the Scripture saith the Church cannot erre and so her testification is an infallible rule thereof we admit the answer we hold the same the controuersie is at an end the victory is our own Onely we must adde this which is already proued that that Church which cannot erre is not the late Romish church but the congregation of the faithfull Lastly the Scripture it selfe in many places telleth vs expresly that it is the word of God First wee haue in the foure Euangelistes these vvordes expressely set downe The Holy-Ghost of Iesus Christ according to Matthew Marke Luke and Iohn Secondly Saint Luke affirmeth in the beginning of the Actes of the Apostles that he made a Book of al those thinges which Iesus both did and taught meaning that gospell which is the third in number Thirdly wee are taught by Saint Peter that no prophesie of Scripture is made by any priuate motion but that holy men of God spake as they were mooued by the Holy-Ghost Fourthly S. Paule telleth vs That he receiued that of our Lord God which he deliuered in the Scripture Fiftly the same Apostle affirmeth that That Gospell of God 〈◊〉 written which was promised by his Prophets in the holy Scriptures Sixtly S. Iohn receiued his Reuelation from Christ which he was commaunded to write Lastly and this striketh dead When the rich Glutton tormented in Hell desired of our holy Father Abraham that one might be sent from the dead to his Bretheren then liuing Abraham answered that they had Moses and the Prophets whom ther ought to heare and beleeue And Christ himselfe told his Apostles that all thinges must needes bee fulfilled which were written of him in the Law of Moses in the Prophets and in the Psalmes Yea Christ tolde the two Disciples going toward Emmaus that they ought to beleeue all thinges which the Prophets spake and therefore beginning at Moses and all the Prophets hee did interpret to them in all the Scriptures the thinges which were written of himselfe And consequently the Scripture it selfe doth plainely tell vs that it is the word of GOD. For out of these wordes of the holy Scripture wee haue these points of Doctrine most cleerely deliuered First that our Sauiour Christ spake them Secondly that all things must be beleeued which are written in the Law in the Prophets and in the Psalmes Thirdly that all things foretold of Christ in the Law the Prophets and the Psalmes were fulfilled indeed Fourthly that Christ did interprete the chiefest partes of all the Law the Prophets and the Psalmes I therefore conclude that it is the word of GOD. As also that the dignity the excellency and the Maiesty thereof dooth insinuate no lesse vnto vs. S. R. Neither is Bels comparison true For wee beleeue not the Olde Testament to bee Gods word for any Tradition which the Iewes haue but which the Catholique church hath from the Apostles and their successors Who deliuered to the church and she to vs as well the Old as the New Testament for Gods word T. B. You contradict your selfe good Maister Fryer as who tels vs right plainely in another place that many parts of the Bible were doubted of a long time after the Apostles For if you had receiued by Tradition from the Apostles all the Scriptures both of the Old and New Testament ye could neuer so long after the Apostles haue bin in doubt of many partes thereof For by your supposed Tradition you had the same assurance for the whole as for the parts And consequently seeing you graunt your vncertainty for many parts you must perforce graunt the same vncertainty for the whole And so you confesse vnawares and against your wils so much in effect and true meaning as I contend to proue viz that your vnwritten supposed Apostolicall Traditions are as vncertaine as the winde and not an infallible rule of faith S. R. Bels third solution is that the New Testament is but an exposition of the Old and therefore may be tryed and discerned by the same But Sir Will you indeed try the New Testament Will you take vpon you to iudge Gods word And if you will try Gods word by what will you try the Old Testament Surely by Tradition or by nothing T. B. I answere that I admit both the Old Testament and the New because I beleeue God speaking in the same This is prooued already Againe seeing the Law and the Prophets and the Psalmes are approoued by Christes owne Testimony as we haue heard already and seeing withall that the New Testament is but an exposition of the Old as I haue prooued in the Downefall it followeth of necessity that the Old being receiued the New cannot be reiected Neither is he Iudge of Gods word that discerneth one Scripture by another◠because hee maketh not himselfe but Gods word
vs. And what is the cause Forsooth saith S. Austen because they onely heare a sound in their outward eares but not the heauenly Preacher sounding in their harts S. R. Well saide S. Austen I would not beleeue the Gospell vnlesse the Authority of the Church did moue me thereto This place so stingeth Bell as he windeth euery way to auoyd it T. B. Howsoeuer in your opinion it stingeth me yet haue I so sufficiently aunswered it in the Downfall as there is no need heere to adde any thing in defence thereof Neuerthelesse some few Annotations I will adde for explication sake First when S. Austen saith I wold not beleeue the Gospel vnlesse the Authority of the Church did moue me thereto He meaneth of himselfe as being a Manichee not as being a christian As if he had said If I this day were not a Christian but a Manichee as I once was I woulde not beleeue this Gospell which I wish thee to embrace vnlesse the Churches Authority did moue me to the same For these are S. Austens own words Si ergo invenirem aliquem qui Euangelio nondum crèdit quid faceres dicenti tibi non credo Ego vero Euangelio noÌ„ crederem nisi me Catholicae Ecclesiae commâ—veret authoritas If therefore I shoulde finde one that yet beleeueth not the Gospel what wouldst thou do to him saying to thee I beleeue it not I doubtlesse would not beleeue the gospell vnlesse the authority of the Catholicke church did mooue mee therâ—unto Loe he speaketh of him that beleeueth not the gospell and of himselfe not being a christian not of himselfe or any other that professeth the gospell Where I am to admonish the Reader that here as in many other places of my Bookes this period last recited is vnperfect in the Downefall For my selfe being absent from the Presse as dwelling farre off many faultes escape the Printer That this is the true meaning of S. Austen I proue it first because in the very same Chapter hee confesseth that the Authority of the Gospell is aboue the authority of the Church Secondly because in the Chapter aforegoing after he hath discoursed of many notable things in the church Consent Miracles Antiquitie and Succession he addeth that the truth of the Scriptures must be preferred before them all These pointes and reasons I cited before out of Saint Austen which because they confound our Iesuite hee impudently denieth them affirming that Saint Austen saith not so These therefore are S. Austens owne words in the first Chapter Quòd si forte in euangelio aliquid apertissimum de Manichaei Apostolatu 〈◊〉 pâ—tueris infirmabis mihi catholicorum anthoritatem qui iubent non credam If happily thou canst finde in the Gospell any manifest thing of the Apostle-ship of Manichaeus thou shalt discredite the authority of Catholiques to mee who commaund mee not to beleeue thee Againe in the fourth Chapter he hath these wordes Apud vos sola personaâ— veritatis pollicitatio quae quidem si tam manifesta monstratur vt in dubium venire non possit praeponenda est omnibus illis rebus quibus in Catholica teneor With you onely soundeth the promise of truth which if it bee prooued so manifest that it cannot be doubted of it is to be preferred before al those thinges that hold me in the catholique church Loe in the former place Saint Austen graunteth freely that the authority of the Scripture is aboue the authority of the church And in the latter that the truth of the Scripture must be preferred before all other things whatsoeuer Away therefore with our lying Fryer and giue hearing to his fables no longer Secondly the faith that proceedeth from the Church for TestificatioÌ„ is but humaine and not diuine For none saue God onely can beget faith diuine in vs. It pleaseth GOD to vse externall meanes and Ceremonies for the confirmation of our Faith but the grace power vertue is from himselfe alone The Law was giuen by Moyses but grace and truth came by Iesus Christ. I prooue it First because a supernaturall effect must needes bee produced of a supernaturall cause and consequently diuine faith beeing a supernaturall effect cannot proceede from the Romish Church Secondly a corporall agent cannot ascend and penetrate a spirituall obiect as a materiall Sword cannot penetrate an immateriall Spirit and consequently neither produce an immateriall effect as is faith diuine Thirdly no immateriall and spirituall accident can bee receyued into any corporall subiect and consequently no corporall subiect is apt to produce a spirituall effect Fourthly Saint Austen saith plainly that it is a greater woorke to iustifie a man then to create the VVorlde but no power saith the Popish Angelicall Doctor Aquinas which is vpon earth can concurre to creation Ergo neither to iustification and consequently neither to the producing of Faith diuine Thirdly when saith is wrought and begotten in vs we may not diuide the worke giuing part to God and part to the Church but we must ascribe the whole to GOD the true Author of the whole Therfore after S. Paule had tolde the Corinthians that he had laboured more aboundantly then all the Apostles hee forthwith added these wordes Yet not I but the grace of God which is with me For though maÌ„ be not in his actions as a brute beast or block but free from all coaction and constraint yet hath he no power but from aboue neither hath he any part more or lesse in producing Grace Faith or the supernatuall effects For though it be Gods pleasure to vse mans externall acts and operations for the exercise of his faith wheÌ„ he meaneth to produce supernaturall effectes yet dooth hee himselfe solely and wholy of himselfe produce the same effectes And heere I must tell the Reader of a great defect in the Latine Vulgata editio which the late Councell of Trent extolleth to the Heauens and withall Papists are bound to vse and beleeue It saith thus Yet not I but the grace of God with mee as if forsooth part were imputed to grace and part to the act and woorke of Saint Paule Whereas indeed the Apostle ascribeth the whole to God and vtterly refuseth to take any part to himselfe Which the Article â— in the Greeke left out in the Latine Vulgata editio maketh plaine and euident For after Saint Paule had saide That hee had laboured more then all the Aopostles he by and by addeth this correction Yet not I but the grace of God which is with me And heere because sensible things worke most in sensile persons let vs take an example of the Napkins and Partlets which were brought from Saint Paules body vnto the sicke for the Napkins by touching Saint Paules body receiued no inherent vertue to worke Miracles The Text saith plainely that God wrought the Miracles by the hand of Paule The Napkins and Handkerchiefes were but outward tokens to confirme the faith of
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