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
and Testimony but rather to them then to Witches of whom he had immediately forbidden vs to enquire T. B. I answere that our Iesuite maketh no conscience how hee interpret the Scripture so he may any way make it seeme to serue his turne For hee desperately heere affirmeth without all reason and authority that by Testimony is vnderstood the vnwritten Word Whereas indeede it is the written Lawe added onely for explication sake as if he had sayde Ye must not seeke helpe at the dead which is the illusion of Sathan but yee must seeke remedie in the word of God where his will is reuealed ye must in all doubtes and difficulties haue recourse to the Law of God which is the testification of Gods will towards man In it ye shall find whatsoeuer is necessary for you to know Breefely as if he had sayde Ye must euer haue recourse to the Law as to the Testimony of Gods holy will Saint Hierom yeeldeth the same exposition of this place in these words Si vultis noscere quae dubia sunt magis vos legi Testimoniis tradite Scripturarum If ye will know the thinges that are doubtfull yee must haue recourse to the Law and to the Testimony of the Scriptures Loe hee ioyneth the Testimony with the Law not as a thing distinct from it but as an explication of the same This reason is confirmed by the coronation of King Ioas who receiued at his coronation these three things Vnction the Testimony or the Law and the Diademe or Crowne Where the Latin Vulgata editio to which the Pope hath tyed all Papists expoundeth the Testimony to be the Law Which glosse striketh our Iesuites exposition dead So then by the Popes own approbation the Testimony is taken for the written word of Gods Law and his Iesuite hath here proued himselfe to be a very Daw. And where our Iesuite weeneth to find some helpe in the word Rather It seemeth to mee that it doth him hinder For if his sence bee admitted it will bee lawfull in some cases and times to haue recourse vnto Witches But I will leaue him to himselfe as a carelesse and fond Disputer S. R. Esay indeede bids vs go to Gods written word which we refuse not to do in all doubts wherein it resolueth vs but forbids vs not to go to any other which is as he saith agreeable to this word Wherfore either must Bell proue that the Churches Traditions are not agreeable to Gods written Word or he must know that God not onely not forbids vs but rather commands vs to seeke after them T. B. Heere our Iesuite seemes to correct himselfe and to grant that the Prophet speakes of the Written Word But he addes of his owne head that the Scripture will not resolue them in all thinges and that therefore they must haue recourse to their Vnwritten Traditions withall Yet like a good Fellowe hee makes one exception which is this Vnlesse I prooue their traditions not to be agreeable to Gods word Which thing God bee thanked is already done in the Downefall it selfe Touching the time when Saint Iohn the Apostle dyed seauen famous Chronologers will contest with me that he liued an hundred years after Christs sacred incarnation though the Printer negligently put downe Ascension amisse as many other things viz Eusebius Caesariensis Iohannes Nauclerus Rhegino Prumiensis Marianus Scotus Martinus Polonus Pontacus Burdegalensis and Hermannus Contractus that Saint Iohn the Apostle was liuing almost 32. yeares after that our Iesuite saith hee was dead Now whether our Fryer bee skilfull in Chronology or no that will not I define let the Reader iudge Hee himselfe boasteth of his skill what hee hath perfourmed we see But whatsoeuer his skill be his lying is in the highest degree S. R. But omitting these errours as Testimonies of Bels ignorance in Histories which I regard not to his Argument I answere T. B. They are not mine errors but your owne lies You are full of boasting and bragging but truth haue ye none all good conscience from you is quite gone Let vs heare your graue answer S. R. I answer that those words These are written are meant onely of Miracles done by Christ and written by Saint Iohn to moue vs to beleeue that Christ was God T. B. It troubleth our Iesuite more then a little that I affirme Saint Iohn to haue written his Gospell about 100. yeares after Christs ascension into Heauen And for that end as we haue heard he hath addicted himselfe wholy to cogging falshood and lying in so much as he would needs haue Saint Iohn dead while hee was liuing and wherefore is al this huge Masse of lying forsooth because these wordes of Saint Iohn These aâ—e written are thereby proued to bee meant of the whole corps of the holy Bible For Saint Iohn writing after all when the Cannon of the scripture was compleate perfect fully accomplished must needes meane of all and that for two respects First because all the rest of the Scriptures tend to one and the same end which Saint Iohn aymeth at viz that wee may beleeue That Iesus is the Sonne of GOD. Secondly because Miracles alone without Doctrine are not able to worke the effect whereof Saint Iohn speaketh For Fayth is not grounded in Miracles but in the promises and word of God Mâ—racles cannot beget Faith they onely are helpes and meanes to confir me it in vs. Therefore saith Saint Luke The Apostles went forth and preached the word of God and the Lord wrought with their preaching and confirmed it with Miracles following And so do Saint Austen and Saint Cyrill vnderstand these words of Saint Iohn affirming all thinges necessary for saluation to be conteyned in the holy scriptures Theyr words are set downe in The Downefall of Popery S. R. We confesse scripture to be an infallible rule but not the totall rule but as Bellarmine saith the partiall rule T. B. What is this but to confesse Christ an vnperfect workman But to confesse Christ to haue set downe an vnperfect rule of Faith But to confesse that the Scripture containeth not all things necessary for saluation Which for all that you haue confessed again and againe As before like a Pelagian you said Eternall life was not meer grace nor the meere guift of God but dependeth partly to mans merit So now you say heere That the Scripture is not a totall rule of Fayth but must haue some helpe from mens Traditions But I will confound you with your owne wordes which before came from your owne Pen. Thus doe you write For surely the Prophets and Euangelistes writing their doctrine for our better remembrance would omit no one point which was necessarie to bee actually knowne of euery one especially seeing they haue written some thinges which are not so necessary Againe in another place you haue these expresse wordes All such points of Christian Faith as are
vnderstood properly as Cardinall Caietane telleth vs then doubtlesse farewell the Popish reall presence then downe with the Pope then downe with Popish Masse and at all Secondly Cardinall Caietane telleth vs plainely that it is not the scripture but the authority of the Pope or Church which is all one in effect that causeth vs so to vnderstande these words this is my body If this Cardinall durst haue sayde all he thought against the Popes doctrine it seemeth he would haue tolde vs more Now let the Reader Iudge whether I haue wronged Caietan and Angles or the Iesuit hath wronged me S. R. Aquinas saith Bell affirmeth constantly corpus christi non esse in pluribus locis simul secundum proprias dimensiones That Christs body is not in many places at once according to the proper dimensions thereof Whose assertion sayeth Bell is my flat position T. B. It is most true that both Aquinas teacheth so that Bel flatly holdeth the same Doctrine And it is also true that Aquinas elsewhere contradicteth himselfe as God willing shall by and by appeare S. R. But Bell herein 1. contradicteth himselfe 2. belyeth S. Thomas 3. vnderstandeth him not T. B. Let vs heare his dispute And marke it well S. R. He contradicteth himselfe For before he said Aquinas holde constantly as an Article of the Christian fayth that the true body of Christ is truely and really in the Sacrifice of the masse and now he saith that he affirmeth constantly an assertion which is Bels flat position to the contrarie Howe can Aquinas holde constantlie two contradictorie points T. B. Marke gentle Reader for Christes sake and then shalt thou see that our Iesuit hath nothing in him but falshood lying and Hypocrisie The Iesuite will needs haue me to contradict my selfe because Aquinas contradicteth himselfe What equity What charity What reason is in this man I charge them in my Motiues and elsewhere with manifold dissentions and contradictions plainely telling them that if they would be consonant to their writinges then we and they should soone agree But our Iesuite cannot endure to heare himselfe and his fellowes confounded by their owne writings Now let vs see who vnderstandeth Aquinas aright Aquinas holdeth that Christs body is in the popish cake and withal that one body cannot be in two places at once Our Iesuite would reconcile this apparant contradiction thus Aquinas meaning saith he is plaine and euident For hee thinketh Christs owne dimensions to bee the cause of his being in that place where he is naturally and the dimensions of the bodie which is Transubstantiated the cause of his being where he is Sacramentally Here our Iesuite first taketh vppon him to tell what men thinke which is proper to God alone Then he feyneth a distinction of a double being of Christes body For if we once take away feyning Popery will soone come to mourning Christes owne dimensions sayth our Iesuite are the cause of Christs naturall being but the dimensions of the bread changed and Transubstantiated into Christs body O horrible blasphemy are the cause of Christes sacramentall being The Papists hold generally that the accidents of bread in their consecrated host or cake remaine there without a subiect But heere we haue another tale viz. That they are in Christs body Most miserable is that Doctrine which must be maintained with such beggerly shifts Well I will prooue with one insoluble argument that Christs body cannot be in many places at once Vnum est indiuisum in se diuisum à quocunque alio One as all lerned men do grant is that which is vndiuided in it selfe and diuided from euery other thing But if Christs body can be in many places at once it is both diuided in it selfe and vndiuided from other things Ergo it neither is nor can be in many places at once When our Iesuite shall truly answere to this argument he will deserue a Cardinalles hat and I verily thinke that the Pope for the time being will willingly bestowe it on him Marry withall I adde this that I would not for the Popedome be bounde too fast till that time Here for the better clearing of this controuersie I will propound an Obiection which seemeth to make for the Papists at least in Popish sence and meaning The Obiection Two adequate bodies may be in one place at once and yet neither the place be deuided into two places nor yet the bodies transformed or confounded into one body Ergo à simili one body may be in two places at once as Christs body in many thousand Altars at popish Masse and yet neyther the body deuided into two places neyther the two places contracted into one T. B. When you O Iesuite shall be able to proue the Antecedent which will be ad Calendas Graecas when men vse to clip Pigges and Rats I will yeeld vnto you S. R. First in Christs natiuity two bodies were in one place at once because Christes body opened not his mothers wombe 2 Againe Christ arose out of the sepulchre the stone not being roled away 3. Christ came to his disciples when the doores were shut and so both his body and the wood of the doore were in one place at once Ergo two bodies may bee in one place at once and consequently one body may be in two places at once T. B. Concerning the opening of the Virgins wombe I haue answered sufficiently already For the rolling away of the stone from the Sepulchre I answere that the Angell of God had done it away before Christs resurrection and had brought it to the mouth of the sepulchre againe What need many wordes the answere of the Angell to the women doth fully determine this question He is not here saieth the Angell for he is risen as he saide Loe Christs body was not in the Sepulchre because Christ was risen so doeth the Angell reason But Gods Angell must goe to the schoole againe to learne to frame his argument in better manner if one body can bee in two places at once And why for the women might haue said to the Angel What if he be risen Yet may his body be heere stil in the graue For one body may be in two places at once But the Angel reasoned thus He is risen therfore he cānot be here Or he not heere because he is risen These are the words of the Ang. oukestin oode egerthe gar kathoos eipe He is not heer for hee is risen as he said Where I obserue first the assertion simply in it selfe Secondly the cause and reason of the same assertion The assertion is this Christ is not in the Sepulchre The reason heereof is this because Christ is risen Now then since Christ cannot be in the sepulchre because he is risen it followeth of necessity that eyther the Angell of God inspired with Gods holy spirit made a very foolish and friuolous argument which to affirme is void of all Christianity or else that Christs body cannot be
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
religious Fryer Alphonsus de Castro shall be the vmpire in this mystery These are his words At papam solum absque congregatione concilij posse in ijs quae ad fidem spectant errare multi non contemnendae authoritatis theologi asseruerunt imò aliquos pontifices summos in fide errasse comperâ—uns est Deinde si tanta esset solius Papae authoritas quanta totius concilij plene recte congregati frustra tantus labor pro conciliorum congregatione sumeretur That the Pope alone without the assembly of a Councell may erre in thinges pertayning to the Faith many Diuines of high esteeme doe hold and affirme yea it is most certain that some Popes haue erred in the Faith Againe if the Popes authority alone were as sure sound as the whole Councell fully and lawfully assembled then doubtlesse in vain should such paines bee taken in calling a Councell together Thus writeth this learned Popish Fryer affirming stoutly and resolutely mine illation against the Rhemists For this which I haue often tolde the Papistes will in the ende be found an vndoubted and inuincible truth viz that I defend no point of Doctrine against the Papists which the best learned Papists doe not approoue in their printed Bookes And heere by the way I note out of this Popish Doctor that many great learned Papistes doe constantly affrim that the Pope may erre in matters of faith as also that sundry Popes haue De facto erred already Now in Gods name let vs proceed to the mighty Traedition viz of the Bible it selfe S. R. Whence haue we the Apostles Creede but by Tradition as testifie Saint Hierome Saint Austen and Ruffinus VVhence the perpetuall virginity of our blessed Lady VVhence the lawfull transferring of the Sabbaoth day from Saterday to Sunday Whence many other thinges as testifie S. Hierome S. Cyprian and others but by Tradition But especially whence haue we the Bible it selfe Whence haue we that euery Booke Chapter and verse of it is Gods word and no one sentence therein corrupted in all these 1600. yeares T. B. This is nothing else but ridiculous and irkesome Tantologie It is answered againe and againe The Apostles Creede wee haue by Tradition in compendious manner but it is conteyned in the written Word As the Fathers admit many Traditions so doe I with the Church of England For we reiect no Tradition vnlesse it bee either repugnant to holy Writ or else obtruded as a necessary point of Saluation Which if the Reader marke seriously hee shall finde the Iesuite at a Non plus Concerning the Bible that it hath not beene corrupted for these 1600. yeares I aunswere that this blessing commeth not from the late Romish Church but from the GOD of Heauen who preserued the old Testament from corruption wheÌ„ it was longer in the handes of the wicked Iewes Howe we know it to be the word of GOD I haue shewed at large in the Downefall and thinke it needlesse heere to iterate the same Yet as our Iesuite shall giue occasion some more shall be added by way of reply S. R. Bels first aunswere is that there is great difference betwixt the primatiue Church the Church of late daies For the Apostles heard Christes Doctrine saw his Miracles and were replenished with the Holy-Ghost and consequently they were fit witnesses of all that Christ did and taught which adiunctes the Church of Rome hath not Here Bell blasphemeth Christes Church of late dayes auouching her neither to be replenished with the Holy-Ghost contrary to our creede professing her to be holy and Christs promise that the Holy-Ghost should remaine with her for euer Nor to be a fit Witnesse of his truth contrary to Saint Paule calling her the Pillar of Truth T. B. The blasphemy proceedeth from your selues from your pope to whom you ascribe such a prerogatiue as is proper to God alone when you tell vs he cannot erre I therefore answere that the true Church of God is holy hath the assistance of the Holy-Ghost and is a constant witnesse of Christs truth But these promises pertaine not to the church of Rome but to the whole congregation of the faithfull This Congregation is the pillar of Truth this Congregation hath the Holy-Ghost this Congregation is holy this Congregation cannot erâ—e in things necessâ—â—y to eternall life This proposition is prooued at large in my Suruey of Popery It is now enough to admonish the Reader thereof For I haue prooued it both by the Testimony of the holy Fathers and of the best approued Popish Writers One or two shall now suffice Alphonsus that famous Popish Fryer hath these wordes Ecclesiamilâ—tans est fidelium omnium congregatio quae corpus vnum est cuius caput est Christus The Church militant is the Congregation of all the faithfull which is one body whereof Christ is the head Thus writeth our religious Fryer VVho would haue thought that a Popish Fryer should or would thus haue defined the Church The Iesuites will not thus define it Heere is no mention of the pope and yet of the Popish Church he is the head He that opened the mouth of Balaams Asse opened now the mouth of our Fryer Alphonsus The truth must and will in time preuaile Panormitanus a Popish Abbot a Popish Arch-â—ishop and a Popish Cardinall hath these expresse wordes Licet concilium generale representet totamecclesiam uniuersalem tamen in veritate iâ—i non est vera ecclesia vn uersalis sed reprâ—sentatiuè quia vniuer salis ecclesia constituilur excollectione omnium sidelium vnde omnes sideles orbis constitunt istam ecclesiam vniuersaleÌ„ cuius capâ—t sponsus est Christus Sequ tur ista est illa ecclesia que errare non potest Although a generall Councell represent the whole vniuersall Church yet in truth there is not the true vniuersall Church but representatinely for the Vniuersall Church consisteth of the collection of all the faithfull Wherefore all the faithfull in the world make this Vniuersall Church whose head and Spouse is Christ. And this Church is it that cannot erre yea the Popes owne glosse vpon his owne Decrees dooth most liuely describe that Church which cannot erre to bee the congregation of the faithfull Thus is it there written in expresse wordes Quaero de qua ecclesia intelligas quod hic dicitur quod non possit errare Siipso papa certum est quod papa errare potest Respondeo ipsa congregatio sidelium hic dicitur ecclesia talis ecclesia non potest nonesse I aske thee O pope Luci of what Church thou vnderstands that which thou tellest vs in this place To wit that the church cannot erre For if thou vnderstandest it of the pope himself it is very certaine that the pope may erre I answere therfore that the church is here taken for the congregation of the faithfull such a church can neuer erre indeed Out of these words of these great
Papistes I note First that the Church is the Vnïuersall Congregation of the faithfull throughout the whole VVorlde whereof the head is not the Pope but Christ Iesus our Lord. Secondly that this is that Church which cannot erre Thirdly that when the Pope saith the Church cannot erre then his owne deare and faithfull interpreter telleth him that that priuiledge is not graunted to the Pope but to the whole congregation of the faithfull And the sayd Glosse prooueth the same by many Canons of the popes owne Decrees Fourthly that the church in which the truth alwayes abideth is the congregation of the faithfull and therefore truly said Durandus that the late popish church is not comparable to the primatiue Church which heard Christs Doctrine saw his Miracles and was replenished with the Holy-ghost S. R. But suppose that the present Church could not bee a fit witnes as the Primatiue was What is this to the Argument that proueth necessity of Tradition because without Testimony of the Church wee cannot discerne true Scripture from false T. B. The visible externall church is only an externall mean Instrument or outward help whereby we are induced to giue humaine credite to one Scripture rather then to another But the formall cause why we beleeue any Scripture to be Gods word is God himselfe and the inspiration of his holy spirit Hereof occasion will be offered to speake hereafter more at large S. R. Bels second answere is that as Papistes admit the Iewes Tradition of the old Testament for Gods word and withall refuse many other Traditions of theirs so Protestantes admit this Tradition of the Bible and reiect all other We contend against Protestants that Scripture is not sufficient to proue all points of Christian faith but that Tradition is necessary for some and Bell heere confesseth it Where is now the Downefall of Popery Methinkes it is become the Downefall of protestantry VVhere is now Bels first exposition That Scripture containeth in it euery Doctrine necessary to mans Saluation VVhere is now that wee must not adde to Gods word if this Tradition must needs be added thereunto Where is now that this present church can be no fit witnesse if by her testimony wee come to know the truth VVhere is now the curse which S. Paule pronounceth against him that preacheth any Doctrine not contained in the Scripture Where is now that Scripture is the sole and onely rule of faith T. B. Here our Iesuite in all brauery tryumphing before the victory exclaimeth six seuerall times where is now this and where is now that And when all is done his exclamation is not woorth a dead Rat. Whosoeuer shall duely peruse the Downefall will easily perceiue therein that all which our Iesuite hath brought in all this his great glory was soundly confuted before it came to light Neuerthelesse for the better contentation of the Christian Reader I thus reply vpon our Lordly Fryer First with their owne deare Fryer Alphonsus à Castro in the words Hocn habemus ex ecclesia vt sciamus quae sit scriptura diuina at cum Scripturam â—sse diuinam nobis constiterit iam ex seipsa habet vt ei per omnia credere teneamur It commeth from the Church that we know which is holy Scripture but after we know it to be the holy Scripture henceforth it hath of it selfe that wee are bound to beleeue it in euery point Thus writeth this famous Papist and he doth illustrate his assertion by a similitude drawn from a Creditor and a Debtor As if saith he witnesses should bee brought for the proofe of an Instrument in which Peter standeth bound to pay to Iohn 100. crownes the witnesses do not make Peter to be bound to Iohn For although Peter should deny it and no Witnesses could prooue it Peter for all that should owe the debt But the Witnesses effect so much that hee may be conuicted to owe the debt Much more to this effect hath Alphonsus but I desire to bee briefe This I inferre out of his words that though we grant the Scriptures to be known by the Testimony of the Church yet after that notification it deserueth credite of it selfe for euery iote contained in the same Secondly that seeing the Scripture acknowledged for Gods word of all Christians containeth by the Iesuites confession as is already prooued all thinges necessary for christian beliefe vnto Saluation it followeth of necessity that no vnwritten Tradition is necessary to Saluation For doubtlesse if euery Article and all thinges necessary to salution be written then can nothing at all be necessary that remaineth vnwritten Thirdly I constantly auouch and christianly affirme mark gentle Reader attentiuely that the holy Scripture dow shew it selfe to be Gods word euen as the Sun and the Candle by their light do shew themselues what they are I proue it First because the Prophet cals the Scripture a Lanthorne Thy word O Lord saith holy Dauid is a Lanthorne to my feet and a light vnto my pathes And the Apostle confirmeth the same when hee saith Wee haue a right sure word of prophesie whereunto if ye take heede as vnto a light that shineth in a darke place ye doe well vntill the day dawne and the day-starâ—e arise in your hearts Secondly because Christ himselfe telleth vs that his Sheepe do heare his voyce My Sheepe saith he heare my voyce and I know them and they follow me Againe thus I am the good Sheepheard I know my Sheepe and they know me But Câ—rtes if it bee true as it is most true because the truth it selfe hath spoken it that Christes Sheepe heare Christ and know Christs voyce then must it needes be true in like manner that when they eyther read the scriptures or heare them read then they know Christ speaking in the same and heare his voyce Toletus a Iesuite Cardinall of Rome hath these expresse wordes Electi praedestinati dei infallibiâ—er cognoscunt pastorem Christum quae 〈◊〉 ad tempus errent tamen tandem suum verum agnoscent pastorem Sequitur at Christum necesse est agnoscere Est autem haec nota effectus prioris propterea u. oues cognoscunt me quia ego cognâ—sco eas Gods elect and predestinate Children do know Christ their Pastor infallibly because albeit they erre for a time yet in the ende they will know their true Sheepheard for of necessity they must knovv Christ. For therefore do my Sheepe know me because I know them Thus writeth our Iesuite out of wose words I note first that all Gods children are not effectually called at one time but erre and wander as sheepe without a sâ—epheard but euer in the end they acknowledge Christ their true Shepheard â—â—condly that Christs Sheepe know Christ not beecause the Church sheweth Christ to them but because Christ knoweth them This point must bee well marked that Christs sheep therefore know Christ because Christ first knoweth them not because the church make Christ
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
as it doeth and may appeare to the indifferent Reader in his learned Epistle to Vincentius the third because for the better successe and more free passage of the late Romish Religion the laicall people are commanded by Popish Canon-law vnder paine of Excommunication not to reason at all in matters of Faith and Religion and the learned semblably not to examine or discusse how farre the Popes power doeth extend whatsoeuer or howsoeuer he command them to beleeue For the Popes law hath made it Sacriledge to dispute of his power or to call it into question so writeth their owne deare Doctor and popish Fryer Franciscus à Victoria the first man that brought the Popish School-doctrine into Spaine yea the Popes owne decrees are consonant to the same these are the expresse wordes Similiter de iudicio summi pontificis alicui disputare non licet In like maner no man may dispute of the iudgment of the Pope or high-priest The fourth because neyther any of the layty nor yet of the Cleargy can vnder paine of Excommunication read eyther the olde or the new Testament translated into the vulgar tongue or any other booke of Controuersie or Diuinity set forth by any not professed Vassall vnto the Pope vnlesse such person or persons be especially licenced of the pope so to doe Aphorisme second The multitude of the vulgar and rude people become Papists vpon this false and sandy foundation supposed of them to be a receiued Theologicall Maxime viz that the late start vp Romish Doctrine is the auncient Catholike faith and the olde Roman religion And therefore when soeucr they speake of any Papist meaning to expresse his sect and profession they tell vs he is one of the old Relion but they are grossely deceiued herein they may haue zeale I grant with the Apostle but not acording to knowledge For the doctrine this day taught and defended by the Pope his Iesuites and Iesuited Papists is indeed the new Religion and farre different from the true catholick and olde Roman religion Would to God all simply seduced Papists would deepely ponder this point and seriously meditate vpon the same I doe with all my heart reuerently receiue and admit the old Roman religion preached by Saint Paule and S. Peter in their daies at Rome but withall I vtterly abhorre and detest that Doctrine which the late Popes and Byshops of Rome deliuer for the same In regard hereof I neuer in any one of my Bookes oppugne simply and absolutely the Roman faith and religion but the late Romish faith and doctrine Where I wish the Reader to obserue and marke attentiuely this word Late for it doth significantly declare a cleere difference betweene that doctrine which is novv taught in the church of Rome and that which S. Paule and S. Peter deliuered to the Romans in their life time Which because the common vulgar sort of people cannot distinguish such is their ignorance they are perforce carried away with the sway of the time Marke the next Aphorisme Aphorisme third We know and the Papists knowe that theyr reformed Franciscans now commonly called Capuchenes can tel right well that their other dissolute Franciscans haue swarued from their auncient order albeit they can neither tel wheÌ„ where nor by whom that dissolution first began yet they proue it à posteriori by their auncient rules euidently And euen so do we proue by the holy scriptures the true touch stone of truth that the Papistes haue swarued from Apostolicall doctrine albeit we could not as yet we can assigne the time place and persons when where and by whom such Antechristian alteration first began Let the Reader marke this point well that that Sect of Papistes which is called Franciscans doe boast of their succession continuance and by reason of their antiquity will needes be the true Franciscans but the Capuchens which are nothing but reformed Franciscans tell them that they are the true Franciscans who haue â—ely put away and abolished all superstition and dissolution which by little and litle crept into their order Euen so say we that we are the olde and true Catholickes or Romans who keepe stil that saith and doctrine which saint Paule preached to the Romans and haue only put away and abolished that superstition Idolatry and erroneous doctrine which by little and little crept into the Church They will needes be the true and olde Catholicks as is said of the dissolute Franciscans but we tell them as their Capuchens tel their disordered Franciscans that they are the deformed bastard Catholicks vnworthy of the name of Catholicks And that we are the reformed and legitimate Catholicks who keep still and hold fast all Apostolicall doctrin and haue onely abolished out of the church of God al Superstition Idolatry and errors contrary to the scriptures and the Gospell which the Apostles preached and left in vvriting to all posterities Obserue diligently the next Aphorisme Aphorisme fourth First Popish primacie began in the yeare 607. Secondly Priestes mariage was neuer prohibited till the yeare 385. Thirdly Popes pardons were neuer heard of till the yeare 1300. Fourthly popish Purgatorie tooke no root in the Romish Church till the yeare 250. Fiftly inuocation of Saintes adoration of Reliques was not known till the yeare 370. Sixtly Popish pilgrimage began in the yeare 420. Seuenthly the merite of Workes de condigno was disputeable about the yeare 1081. Eightly the communion vnder both kindes was neuer thought vnlawfull till the yeare 1414. Ninthly the Popes Bulles were not authenticall till the yeare 772. Tenthly Auricular confession was not established till the yeare 1215. Eleuenthly Generall Councels were euer summoned by the Emperours That all these heads of Popish doctrine crept into the Church by little and little in the yeares aboue named I haue proued at large ten yeares agoe in my Booke of the Suruey of Popery as also partly in my Booke of Motiues to which bookes I referre the Reader for better satisfaction therein This creeping of late Romish religion into the Church by little little Victoria a Popish fryer famous school-Doctor witnesseth in these wordes Paulatim ad hanc c. By little and little we are brought to these inordinate dispensations and to this miserable state where we are neyther able to endure our owne griefes nor remedies assigned for the same and therefore must wee perforce inuent some other way for conseruation of the Lawes Giue me Clements Lines Siluester and I will commit all thinges to theyr charge But to speake nothing grieuously against these latter Popes they are doubtlesse inferiours to Popes of old time by many degrees Thus writeth this learned Popish Fryer who if he durst haue spoken plainly would haue told vs mirabilia But it sufficeth that Popes were worse and worse and that errors by little and little crept into the Church Aphorisme fift The vsuall practise of Papists in their Commentaries Bookes and Glosses haue beene such and so intollerable in
wresting the holy scriptures that their owne deere brethren and great Doctors cannot for shame deny or conceale the same Polydorus virgilius a famous Papist hath these wordes Non secus isti c. These Popish Legists and Canonists doe now and then so wrest and wrieth the holy Scriptures to that sence which themselues like best euen as Coblers doe gnaw with theyr teeth and stretch out their filthy skinnes This is that which the famous Papist Doctor Fisher the late bishop of Rochester did freely confesse in his answere to the Articles of maist Luther which he could not in truth withstand or gain-say These are his expresse wordes Contendentibus itaque nobiscum haereticis nos alio subsidio nostram oportet tuâ—re causam quam scriptura sacra Therefore when hereticks contend with vs we must defend our cause by other meanes then by the holy Scripture These are the expresse wordes I neyther adde any thing nor take any thing away of their famous popish Byshop of their holy saint of their glorious martyr a learned man indeed who laboured with might maine for the Popes vsurped soueraignty and defended the same in the best manner he was able and to the vttermost of his skill and yet for all that he hath bolted out vnawares against his will such is the force of truth so much in plain tearmes as is enough to ouerthrow all Poperie for euer and to cause all people that haue any care of their saluation to renounce the Pope and his abhominable Doctrine to their liues end For our learned Popish bishoppe being put to his best Trurmpe telleth vs very plainely and without all dissimulation his mouth being now opaned by him whoe caused Balaams Asse to speake that they must not because forsooth they cannot defend and maintaine their popery by the authority of the Scripture but by some other way and meanes viz by mans forged inuentions and popish vnwritten vanities which they terme the Churches Traditions Now gentle Reader how can any Papist who is not giuen vppe in reprobum sensu for his former sinnes and iust deserts read sueh testimonies against Popery freely confessed and plainly published to the world and that by the pennes of most learned and renowned Papists euen while they bestir themselues busily to defend their Pope and his popish doctrine and for all that continue Papists still and carryed away headlong into perdition beleeuing and obeying that doctrine which as themselues confesse can not be defended by the holy Scripture Methinkes they should be ashamed to hold and beleeue that doctrine in defence whereof they can yeeld no better reason Covorruvius a famous Canonist and reuerend Popishe Byshop hath these wordes Nec me latet c. Neither am I ignorant that Saint Thomas affirmeth after great deliberation that the byshop of Rome cannot with his dispensation take away from Monkes their solemne vow of chastity this notwithstanding we must defend the first opinion least those things which are practised euerie where be vtterly ouerthrowne Behold here gentle Reader that howsoeuer the popes opinion be the same we must defend of necessity and the reason is added because otherwise popery cannot consist Fie vpon that Religion which must haue such poore and beggerly shiftes for the maintenance thereof Much like stuffe I might recount of Popish pardons and Purgatorie c. but for those matters I referre the Reader to my Booke Intituled The wofull cry of Rome CHAP. 2. ¶ Conteining a sound confutation of the Iesuites answere framed to my argumentes against the Popes primacy THe Iesuite S. R. in the first Chapter against my first Article is so troubled to answer my reasons grounds and authorities that one while hee affirmeth otherwhiles denyeth the selfe-same thing so mightily confounding both himselfe and his Reader In the down-fall of Popery I proued euidently that the Pope taketh vpon him to depose Kings and Emperours from their royall thrones and to translate their Empires and regalities at his good will and pleasure To which S. R. answeareth that I belie the Pope but let vs heare his owne wordes S. R. I must needes tell him that he vntruly auoucheth vs to say that the Pope is spiritually aboue all powers and Potentates on earth T. B. I must needes tell you Maist. Iesuite that you vntruly charge me with vntruth yea that you roundly controule your selfe and giue your selfe the lye I proue it first because your selfe confesse the wordes which I alledged out of Bellarmine that Popish and Iesuiticall Cardinall to be truly fathered vpon him viz that when any Prince of a sheepe is made an hereticke or swarueth from the Romish religion which is all one with you Papists then the pope may driue him away by excommunication and withal coÌ„maund the people not to obey him and therefore depriue him of his dominion ouer his Subiects Secondly because you M. Iesuite confesse freely that Pope Zachary did iustly depose Childrick King of Fraunce Thirdly because ye likewise grant freely that the Pope deposed king Henry the eight and Queene Elizabeth and for better assurance hereof you tell vs the same tale in another place But let all indifferent Readers hearken seriously what the Popes owne deare Fryer telleth vs his wordes are set downe in the Down-fall of Popery but S. R. could not see them because he knewe not what to say to them thus doth he write Vt pace omnium c. To speake by the fauour of all good men this sole nouelty I will not say heresie was not yet knowne in the worlde that his priests who maketh an hypocrit to raigne for the sinnes of the people should teach the people that they owe no subiection to wicked Kinges and that although they haue taken the Oath of fealty yet do they owe them no allegiance neyther are periured that thinke ill against the king yea he that obeyeth the king is this day reputed an excommunicate person and he that taketh part against the king is absolued from the crime of Iniustice and periury Thus writeth Sigebertus a Learned popish Fryer so liuely painting out our very case this day in England as if hee were liuing euen now amongst vs. Where we see that the popes own Monks friers haue thought as il of the popes dealings in former times as we think of his proceedings in these latter daies as also that to absolue Subiectes from their allegeance is not onely a Nouelty but euen a flat Heresie Let all popish Recusants marke this point well and defie the Pope and all his absolutions from their allegeance for as the secular popish Priests haue truely written Popery is this day inseparably linked with Treason But what saith S. R. Let vs heare him againe S. R. And much lesse did we euer tell you that the pope hath temporall superiority ouer all Princes on earth but teach the quite contrary Againe if Bell reply that some Cannonists
haue affirmed the pope to be Lord temporall ouer the world let him challenge them not like a wise man strike his next fellowes the English papists who maintaine no such opinion T. B. I proued first out of the Popes owne decrees that pope Nicholas affirmed Christ to haue committed to S. Peter consequently to himselfe the right both of earthly and heauenly Empire Secondly out of the popes glosse that the Popes hath both the Spirituall and Temporall sworde and by right thereof did translate the Empire Thirdly out of the popes decretals that pope Boniface challenged the Royall right and Authority of both swords and made a flat decree for the confirmation thereof Fourthly out of Appendix fuldensis that the same pope Boniface the 8. affirmed himselfe both Spirituall and Temporall Lord of the whole world and thereupon he required of Phillip king of France that he would acknowledge his Kingdome from him which thing the King scorned to do All this notwithstanding our Iesuite S. R. aunswereth roundly that I must challenge them and not strike their fellowes Marry sir this is a short answere indeede but as much to the matter as if you should say your heart doth pant and bleede But let vs be content with this answere seeing the silly Iesuiticall Fryer was not able to afford vs any better S. R. English Papists attribute to the pope no other authority ouer Kings then spirituall but do with tongue heart and with the popes good liking confesse that our Soueraigne Lord King Iames hath no superiour on earth in Temporall matters T. B. What a Masked lying and Trayterous Iesuite is this We haue heard already that the Pope deposed both King Henry the 8. and most Noble Queene Elizabeth and yet heere the lyâ—ng impudent Iesuite telleth vs boldly without blushing for his face is of brasse that King Iames hath no superiour on earth It is true indeede but not in his sence For I pray you Traiterous Iesuites are not earthly Kingdomes and Dominions Temporall matters It cannot bee denied Had not King Henry the 8. and Queene Elizabeth of famous memory the same superiority in their Kingdomes and temporall affayrs which our gratious soueraigne King Iames hath His Maiesty will not denie it But so it is that your Pope deposing them as you haue told vs was their superiour as you holde and teach For doubtlesse no inferiour can depose his superiour and consequently your Pope by your profession is superiour to our King This is but your Hypocritical Cozenage your cogging and lying your Diabolicall Equiuocation If your power were correspondent to your wil his Maiesty might speedily loose his Crowne and dignity GOD saue our Noble King and confound your Antichristian Pope S. R. Because Bellarmine teacheth that the Pope may excommunicate and depose Princes for heresie Bell sayth hee may depose them at his pleasure As if matters of Heresie were the Popes pleasure T. B. Here we haue freely granted once againe that the pope by Popish doctrine may depose Princes for heresie only this is denied that he deposeth them at his pleasure To which I thus reply First that euery heresie is voluntary and consequently seeing many popes haue been heretiks as Pope Adrian himselfe Alphonsus de Castro Melchior Canus Vignerius Nicolaus de Lyra and many others freely grant it followeth of necessity that heresie is the Popes pleasure Secondly that when I say the pope taketh vpon him to depose Princes at his pleasure I meane nothing else but that the pope will depose Princes whensoeuer they refuse to embrace and beleeue his late start vp Romish religion that is to say that doctrine which is added to the olde Roman religion at his pleasure For all that which the Church of England this day reiecteth of the Romish religion is added to the old Romish religion at the Popes pleasure This subiect is proued at large in my Motiues and Suruey But our Iesuite vrgeth further that Bell disproueth himselfe in these wordes Secular Priests saith Bell write plainly and resolutely that the pope hath no power to depriue Kings of their royall sceptars and regalities nor to giue away their kingdomes to another in which opinion likewise the French Papists concurre and iumpe with them Item the Seculars although they acknowledge the popes power supereminent in Spiritualibus yet doe they disclaime from it in Temporalibus when he taketh vpon him to depose Kinges from their Empires and to translate their kingdomes And least we should thinke these few priests who write so were no Papists Bell himselfe testifieth that they are the Popes deare vassals and professe the same Religion with other Papistes By these words our masked Iesuit as we see wold gladly impose vpon me that I haue slandered them and their Pope First because the secular priests deny the Popes power in deposing Kings Secondly because I graunt those seculars to be papists but this slander is easily returned to the Iesuite himselfe For first our Iesuites holde that the Pope may depose Kinges from their Dominions and regalities Againe the secular priests are of a contrary opinion Neyther for all that doth it follow that they are not papistes For it is very vsuall and common to Papists to dissent one from another in matters of Religion This is prooued in my Motiues Our masked Iesuit spendeth the whole chapters following viz the second third and fourth not in answering me and my proofes but in meere impertinent matters of the opinion of Knox and his fellow-ministers in Scotland and such like stuffe wherefore omitting his impertinent verosity in the saide three Chapters I come vnto the fift next following the same CHAP. 3. ¶ Conteining a confutation of S. R. his answere to the proofes of my assumption S. R. POpe Gregory saith Bell writing to the Emperor Mauritius calleth him soueraign Lord and professeth himselfe subiect to his command and to owe him obedience Wherupon Bell inferreth that for 600. years after Christ popes liued in dutifull obedience vnder Emperors T. B. I proued out of Pope Gregories wordes these three speciall points viz that Pope Gregory freely and willingly acknowledged the Emperour to be his soueraigne Lorde That he confesseth himselfe to be the Emperours subiect That he yeelded loyall obedience to the Emperor and for that respect thought himselfe bound in conscience to publish the Emperours law although in some part it seemed to disagree with Gods Law and that forsooth least hee should be found guilty of disloyalty toward his prince S. R. As for the place which Bell citeth he speaketh not there of the subiection duety or obedience of a subiect to his prince but of a seruant to his maister as he had bene to Mauritius whiles they were both pruiate men which himselfe plainely professeth in the beginning of his Letter in these wordes In this suggestion I speake not as Byshop nor as subiect by reason of the common-wealth but by priuate right of my owne because you
not lost by fraction of the signacle but by corruption of the minde and purpose of the will Saint Augustine hath a learned and large discourse concerning this onely point of Doctrine wherein he sheweth grauely that the apertion of the matrice may bee done sundry waies viz either by Arte in the way of medicine or by violence of the corrupter or by other accidentall means and that Virginity this notwithstanding may be free from all corruption Much more might Christes most holy mothers wombe bee opened by his diuine power and neuerthelesse her most sacred wombe still remaine inviolable S. R. God can by his omnipotency bring a Cammell through a Needles eye as well as a rich man into heauen but he can bring a rich man to heauen keeping his riches Ergo a Cammell keeping his greatnes through a Needles eye T. B. I answere first that this sillogisme is vnfitly couched hangeth together as Yorke and fowle Sutton Secondly that the consequence is so against all rules of Logicke as the framer thereof is worthy to be hissed out of all schoooles Thirdly the Gospell saith indeed it is easier for a Cammell to passe through the eye of a Needle then for a rich man to enter into the kingdome of heauen But no Prophet no Apostle no Epistle no Gospell sayth as our Iesuite doth For as these wordes keeping his riches are the Scripture of our sawcie Popeling but not the holy scripture so also are these words keeping his greatnes the inuention of his own brain And therfore I must salute him with these words of the holy Apostle though we or an Angell from heauen preach any other Gospell to you then that which we haue preached to you let him be accursed Fourthly that by the word Camell may be vnderstood a cable rope and not a beast For the Greeke word is indifferent to them both Cauinius obseruerh out of the Thalmudists that it is a prouerbial phrase by which Christ doth insinuate vnto vs that rich men do not without great difficulty enter into heauen Fiftly that a Camell keeping his greatnes still cannot possibly by any power passe through a Needles eye the Needle still keeping the former quantity The reason is euident because it implyeth flat contradiction as is already proued Not for that there is any defect in the omnipotency of God who is able to do more then mans wit can comprehend but because there is repugnance in the thing that should be done Sixtly that God can dilate the eie of a Needle so as a Camell may passe through the same and that without any preiudice to the naturall quantity of his body S. R. GOD made the furnace of Babylon though neuer so hot not to heat yea to refresh the three children Why then can hee not make a great body to occupy but a smal roome For to occupy place is an effect and accident of quantity as to heat is of heate T. B. I thus reply first Scripture is to our Iesuite as a nose of wax He addeth to it and taketh away from it as seemeth good in his owne conceit For that fire did refresh the 3. Haebrewes no Scripture doth affirme Secondly whether to occupy place be an effect and accident of quantity or no because it is diuersly holden of diuers learned men and nothing pertinent to our controuersie transeat for the present For whether occupying of place be intrinsecall or extrinsecall to quantity it skilleth not for this matter and this question nowe in hand The reason is euident because to haue partem extrapartem one part without another is by vniforme assent of al learned Writers as well of Phylosophers as of Diuines so intrinsecall and essentiall vnto quantity as it can by no power neither create nor vncreate be taken away from it And this is the cause not occupation of place why christs body beeing greater cannot bee contained in the Popish round cake This was my former reason and it stands stil vntouched neither can all the Iesuites in the worlde euer yeelde a sound answere to the same For if they could it shoulde now haue beene performed Because our Iesuite hath had the best aduice and helpe that any of them could possibly make him Heere by the way I mâ—st tell our Iesuite of another monster in the Popish host or Cake viz of their accidents without subiects Which their position is against all Phylosophy all reason all learning It is a constant axiome generally receiued in all Schooles Accidentis esse est inesse The essence and being of an accident is the inherence and being in the subiect No Text in the lawe of Moses no sentence in the Prophet no word in the Psalmes no affirmation out of the Gospell no Testimony out of the Epistles of the Apostles no verdict out of the holy Fathers no note out of the Auncient Counsels can euer be found which once maketh mention of accidents without subiects This may suffice for answere to sundry other impertinent bibble babbles which our Iesuite powreth out by ladle fuls in this Chapter CHAP. 2. ¶ Containing a confutation of the Iesuites aunswere to my reasons against the reall presence S. R. CAietane affirmed as Iosephus Angles saith Bell reporteth that there is no Texte that conuinceth the Reader to vnderstand these wordes this is my body properly But Bell greatly wrongeth both Caietan and Angles in changing the word Hereticke into Reader T. B. Let vs heare Iosephus Angles speake for himselfe then shall we know Bels dealing in that behalfe Thus doth he write Exconclusione posita probationibus quae à preÌ„ à Castro affermiter coligiter cantè legendum esse Caietanum dicente non apparere ex euangelio aliquod coactinum quo possimus conuincere haereticos ad intelligenda verba haec hoc est corpus meum proprieÌ„ sed tenenduÌ„ hoc esse solum authoritate Ecclesiae quae ita verba consecrationis declarat We gather out of the conclusion and proofes which father à Castro bringeth that Caietane must be read warily who saith that there appeareth not any coactiue thing in the Gospell by which we may conuince Heretiques to vnderstande these wordes This is my body properly But wee must hold this to be onely of the authority of the Church which so declareth the words of consecration Thus writeth Iosephus Angles out of whose words I note first that Caietane who was a learned man a Domincan Fryer and sometime Cardinal of Rome must be read warily Secondly the cause for which he must be warily read and that consisteth of these two heads First that no Text in the whole Gospel can be produced which conuinceth these words This is my Body to be vnderstood properly Marry sir it is high time indeed to read this Cardinal warily for if his words were wel knowne and marked of all Papists I weene they would forsake the Pope thicke and threefold If these words this is my body be not
etiam involuntarios These thinges are spoken after the minde of Saint Austen who vnderstandeth all the motions euen those which bee involuntary to bee forbidden in some sort by this Commaundement Thou shalt not Lust. VVhere wee see that not onely Bellarmine theyr Cardinall but Saint Austen that woorthy Piller of the Church affirmeth both Originall concupiscence and the involuntary Motions thereof to be forbidden in this precept Where I may not forget to tell the Reader that though Bellarmine to make his matter good if it would addeth to Saint Austens wordes In some sort yet dooth Saint Austen write very simply and sayth flatly that they are prohibited and addeth not Quodam modo In some sort That is Bellarmines addition it is not in Saint Austen Secondly that habituall Originall Lust is not idle but woorketh ill desires in vs continually agaynst our vvill So sayth S. Austen in these words Agit n. Aliquid concupiscentia carnis c. For concupiscence of the flesh worketh somthing euen when there is not giuen vnto it either the consent of the heart where it may raigne or the members as VVeapons which may accomplish what it appointeth And what doth it but the very wicked and filthy desires For if they were good and lawfull the Apostle would not forbid to obey them Marke these wordes gentle Reader for they are of great consequence and giue a deadly blowe to the Papistes Two thinges are cleered by this Testimony of Saint Austen the one that Concupiscence to which consent is not giuen bringeth foorth ill desires the other that the sayde desires are vnlawfull and prohibited by the Law of GOD. And so wee haue euidently prooued that habituall Concupiscence to which the regenerate yeelde no consent but stoutly resist the same is so farre from beeing meritorious as the Papists would haue it that it is sinne formally and properly so called And wee haue further that habituall concupiscence worketh ill desires in vs against our will and therefore that those desires are truely called originall because vvee doe them not but rather suffer them to bee doone in vs. Thirdly that though the Law in saying Thou shalt not lust seemeth by the force of the word which signifyeth action to prohibite onely the voluntary act of concupiscence yet dooth it forbidde the very Originall Concupiscence it selfe withall the braunches effects and involuntary motions thereof as is already prooued at large Yea Saint Austen doth vnderstand it as Bellarmine himselfe doth grant Heere for the help of the Reader I note that a threefold Concupiscence is forbidden by the tenth Commandement The first is meerely called Originall This is that vvhich vve all contracted of Adam and which is the Fountaine of all concupiscences and sins and therefore truely called of the Apostle sin The second is partly Originall and partly Actuall Originall because it yssueth naturally from the Originall prauity of our nature Actuall for that we couet in act albeit against our wil and because it is against our wil it is more properly truly called Originall then actuall The third is meerely actuall because it is voluntary S. R. I must note Bels important vntruths First that Pope Vrban and Pope Innocent confirmed Saint Thomas his doctrine for authenticall Secondly that Pope Vrban gaue it the first place after cannonicall scripture T. B. This Fryer seemeth to bee framed of lying and as hee hath vsually spent his whole dispute so in the end of the article he closeth it vp with leasing Whosoeuer shal pervse The Downfall of Popery wil soon espy how this Fryer loadeth my back with slaunderous speeches and false reports I will heere in regard of breuity onely set downe the Testimony of a famous Papist Augustinus Hunnaeus by name in that Epistle which he sent to Pope Pius the fift These are his words Vrbanus c. Vrbanus that worthy Prelate of the Apostolique sea admiring the excellent doctrine of this man he speaketh of Aquinas beholding it as fallen from heauen to driue away the naturall mist of ignorance from mens minds doth grauely exhort to the study thereof and commaundeth the vniuersity of Tholouse to follow it as the cheefe in all their disputations and aunsweres concerning faith and manners Innocentius the fift of that name esteemed the same mans Doctrine so greatly that hee doubted not to giue it the first place after the Cannonicall scripture Thus writeth Hunnaeus By whose words it may appeare in what reuerence the Doctrine of Aquinas is with the Papists as also that our Iesuite cannot answere me but by lying And thus I will end this article with these words of our Iesuite Habituall cōcupiscence includeth not only pronesse to euill but also difficulty to do good and want of habibituall order in the inferior powers and therefore is both positiue and priuatiue euill Thus writeth our Iesuite who after he hath long wearied himselfe in struggling against the truth doth at the length vnawares confesse the same For doubtlesse when he graunteth that habituall Concupiscence in the regenerate includeth want of habituall order in the inferior powers and therefore is both positiue and priuatiue euill he graunteth in substance in the truth of the matter as much as I desire He denyeth in wordes that Originall concupiscence is formally sinne but in effect and substance hee graunteth the very same Whosoeuer shal seriously ponder both my discourse heere and in the Downefall especially concerning the Nature definition and essence of sinne he will perceiue with all facility that the Iesuite woulde say as I write if hee were not affrayde to displease the Pope The fift Article of the merite of Good workes S. R. BEls first position containeth two partes the first is that good workes neither do nor can goe before Iustification Behold Bell euen where he would proue himselfe a friend to good workes sheweth himselfe to be an enemy and excluding them from any going before or any way concurring to iustification to which they so concurred in Saint Mary Magdalen as our Sauiour saide Many sinnes are forginen her because shee loued much making her loue a kind of cause viz disponent of her Iustification T. B. Our Iesuite wold gladly perswade his reader that I am an enemy to good workes The best mean he hath to defend himselfe and Popery withall is cogging lying and false dealing I must needs be an enimy to Good workes because I will not admit euill workes for good I say with S. Austen Sequuntur iustificatum non precedent iustificandum Good Workes follow him that is iustified but they go not before him that is to be iustified Behold here gentle Reader that S. Austen is the same enemy to Good workes that I am He affirmeth them to follow iustification and so doe I. Hee denyeth them to goe before iustification and so doe I. What a thing is this Our Iesuite dareth not call Saint Austen an enemy to Good Workes and yet doth he call mee so
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
please you I will not feare to say three Hypostases if you bid And hee requested him to giue authority either to affirme or deny three Hypostases and darest thou Bell make no account of the Popes sentence when so great a Doctor so highly esteemed it T. B. I answer first that if we beleeue Fryer Austen de Aneona the Pope in these dayes hath Vniuersal iurisdiction ouer all Kingdomes and Empyres Secondly that as Antoninus saith He hath power ouer all things that haue any being Thirdly that as Aquinas saith Hee hath as much power as Christ himselfe had and can giue as large Pardons as Christ himselfe gaue Fourthly that as Siluester saith One may haue so large a Pardon from the Pope that if he chance to die the same houre he hath it he shall go to heauen out of hand Fiftly that as Gratianus telleth vs Hee beareth the keyes of eternall life the right both of earthly heauenly Empire Sixtly that as the Popish Glosse saith Hee hath both swords the spirituall and the Temporall and by that meanes hee can translate Empires Seauenthly that as Nicolaus de Lyra his owne deare fryer telleth him He may be an Apostata and forsake the faith as many of his predecessors haue done Eightly that as Fryer Caranza saith He may enter into the Popedome as a Fox liue in it as a Wolfe and dye as a Dogge Ninthly that as his owne Decrees tel vs though he be so wicked that he carry many thousands to Hell with him yet may no mortall man Iudge him No maruell therefore if our Iesuite demaund of one how I dare controule his dealing Yet by his fauour I may tell him with humility that Damasus was a Vertuous Wise and Learned Byshop and of great Authority by reason of his place and for that end did S. Hierome thinke it fitte in the troublous state of the Church when the Arrians did euery where molest the Christians to haue his counsell and assistaunce in the cheefest point then in controuersie Like as in these our dayes greater personages and better learned will not sometime disdaine to haue the opinion and Iudgement of meaner men I adde that Sa. Hierome knewe right well that it was a thinge meerely Adiaphoron and therefore was therein resolued to do as Damasus should giue aduise S. R. Bellarmine saith Bell telleth vs that the greater part of voyces must beare the sway in Counsels But Melchior Canus a learned Popish Byshop doth roundly tell vs another tale It is not saith he with vs as it is within humaine assemblies where moe voyces euer preuaile For these matters are not to be iudged by number but by weight And the Counsels receiue their waight from the grauity and authority of the Pope Ergo saith Bell. There is no certainty in Counsels A goodly reason surely as if nothing in counsels were certaine because two Byshops cannot agree of the Popes authority T. B. The reason is strong against you for in these late daies the Pope taketh so much vppon him that wee see the best learned Papistes know not what to thinke of the decree S. R. Bellarmine saith Bell in one place saith that the Consistorie of Bishops in lawful councels is the true assembly of Iudges and that their decrees and Lawes must be obserued of necessity Yet in another place he saith it is all one whether the Pope disanul the Councel expressely or the Councell doe against the Popes minde This is no Contradiction for though he affirme Byshoppes to bee Iudges and theyr iudgement to bee necessarily followed yet must not that bee before it be confirmed by the Pope T. B. Let the Reader giue his censure The case is euident S. R. Bell citeth Mâ—lchior Canus affirming that the Pope cannot communicate his iudiciall power to his Legates whom he sendeth to Counsells and therefore inferreth that the Pope abuseth the World whereas the Pope abuseth the World no more then doth the Prince abuse the Parliament when sending thether the Lord Chancellor to supply his place will neuerthelesse approue nothing what the Peeres doâ— or decree vnlesse himselfe iudgeth it conuenient T. B. The Popes dealing is shamefull and this manner of defending him more shamefull For first humaine thinges and diuine are not alike as your owne Doctor Canus telleth vs. Secondly all Princes I thinke come in their proper persons to all their Parliamentes Thirdly though Princes negatiuely casheire disanul such things as they deeme not conuenient for Gods glory and the good of their people yet do they neuer affirmatiuely establish any Law without the ioynt consent of the Lordes Spirituall Lordes Temporall and the Commons Fourthly there is great disparity in the Persons for the Prince may doe much more in his Kingdome then the Pope in generall Councels First because the Pope of right neither can call councels nor yet confirme the same This is proued in my Suruey of Popery and in my Golden ballance of tryall Secondly because euery King is supreame head ouer all persons in his Kingdomes not so the Pope ouer all Kinges and people in the Christian VVorld Neyther dooth the Pope in person come to Councelles at all of late daies S. R. Bell citeth Bellâ—rmine for the Emperours sitting in Councelles aboue the Pope Ergo the East Church neuer acknowledged his primacy Who seeth not the weaknesse of this reason T. B. Our Iesuite falsifieth my words and then descanteth at his pleasure vppon them These are my wordes as it may appeare in the Downefall The pope was neuer present at the Councelles in the East Churches by himselfe and in his owne person The conclusion is freely confessed by Bellarmine who alleadgeth two reasons for the Popes absence The one forsooth because it was not conuenient that the head should follow the members The other because the Emperour would euer sit in the highest place Out of these wordes I noted two pointes of importance the one that in the Auncient Church the highest place in the Councels was euer reserued to the Emperour The other that the East Churches did neuer acknowledge the Popes prymacie which hee this day challengeth ouer all Kingdomes and Regalities most arrogantly To vvhich twaine this pleasant adiunct perforce must be annexed viz that our humble Father the Pope who hypocritically calleth himselfe Sernus seruorum Dei would neuer come to the Councels because forsooth he could not endure to see the Emperour sitting in the highest place Now the Reader hath the truth let him him giue his censure accordingly S. R. Bell inferreth diuers thinges requisite to be answered T. B. But yee both propound them as is best for your owne aduantage and answere them either with silence or nothing to the purpose But let vs be content with that we can get and make our best commodity thereof Say on good Fryer thou shalt be heard with all fauour S. R. First Bishops before they can be admitted in councels saith Bell
tels vs the same tale in your next wordes which are these Because Byshops must not examine the Doctrine which the Pope deliuereth iudicially out of S. Peters chaire as supreme pastor of Gods Church but onely that wherein hee vttereth his owne priuate Opinion Thus writeth our Iesuite truly telling vs the Popish faith Which Doctrine if any but a Papist had deliuered it few or none woulde haue giuen credite thereunto O sweet Iesus I wonder how any Papist hearing such Doctrine published in print by our Iesuites so deare so neare to the Pope himselfe and duely pondering the vanity thereof and the blasphemy therein contained can still be a Papist and not defie the Pope his damnable doctrine What shal we do with holy scripture Is it the infallible rule of faith Is it superior to the Popes iudiciall sentence No no if the Pope define against it his sentence must bee obeyed neyther may any Byshop much lesse euery priuate man examine the same or else cal it into Question Apage Apage fire faggot for such rotten Popery God will vomit it out of his mouth S. R. As our Sauiour commandeth the Iewes to follow what the Scribes taught out of Moyses chaire but to abstaine from their priuate leuen T. B. You pope sitteth in Cathedra pestilentiae not in Cathedra petri I haue proued it elsewhere at large here I wil adde one point or two for the Readers better satisfaction in this behalfe Iohannes Gerson a famous Papist and chansellor of Paris teacheth so plainely that Popes may erre not only as priuate men but euen as publicke persons in their publick and iudicial decrees of faith and manners as none for very shame can deny the same that shall eyther read or heare his words Thus therefore doth hâ—e write Propter quod insuper apparet falsitas doctrinae papae Iohannis 22. quae damnata fuit cum sâ—no buccinarum coram â—ege Phillippo per Theologos Parisienses credidit potius Theologis Parisiensibus quam â—uriae By reason whereof appeareth further the falshood of the Doctrine of Pope Iohn which was condemned by the sound of Trumpets before king Phillip by the Diuines of Paris the king beleeued rather the diuines then the court of Rome Out of these words I note first that the Doctrine of pope Iohn the 22. of that name was condemned at Paris as false and erroneous Secondly that his Doctrine was condemned with the sound of Trumpets Thirdly that it was condemned in the presence of the king of France Fourthly that the king gaue more credit to the Diuines of Paris then to the Court of Rome that is then to the pope and his Cardinals Fiftly that the great Learned Doctours of the most famous Vniuersity of Paris gaue sentence against the popes Opinion Sixtly that neyther the king nor the learned papistes did in those dayes graunt such authority to the Pope as now adayes the Pope arrogantly challengeth to himself vvhereuppon it followeth consequently that the Pope taught false Doctrine euen in a weighty matter of faith To which is consectary that his Doctrine was publicke as which was publikely condemned at Paris and that in the presence of the King But now kings must not deale in such matters where the Popes holinesse beareth any sway Yet thus dealt the King of France with the Pope almost 300. yeares ago I thinke it not amisse heere to insinuate to the Reader how the kings of France haue vsed the Popes Messengers Boniface the eight falling at variance with King Phillippe the faire woulde needes excommunicate him but there was neuer excommunication cost Pope so deare as that did him for his Nuncios were committed prisoners his Bâ—lâ—es burnt and Bonifâ—ce himselfe being taken by Naueret Chancellor of Fraunce presently after dyed for very sorrow Wherein king Phillippe did nothing but by the Counsell consent of the whole Clergy of France So Bennet the 13. otherwise called peter de Luna interdicted Charles the sixt and his Realm but the king sitting in his Throne of Iustice in the Parliament or high Court of Paris the 21. of May. 1408. gaue sentence that the Bull should be rent in pieces and that Gonsalue and Conseloux the bearers thereof should bee set vpon a pillory and publiquely notified and traduced in the pulpit Which decree was accordingly put in execution in the moneth of August with the greatest scorne that could be deuised the two Nuncioes or Legates hauing this inscription vppon their Miters These men â—re 〈◊〉 to the Church and to the King These words are put downe by the French papists in their book called the Iesuites Catechisme translated into English by the secular priests But because our papists stand so much vppon this â—ond and most foolish distinction of the popes double person and that hee cannot erre in his publique sentence and decrees I will haue once a bout againe to beate it better into the Readers head that the Pope both may erre and hath De facto erred in his iudiciall sentence and publique Decree Marke well my discourse Pope Adrian saith Alphonsus a very learned man and a zealous Papist hath these expresse wordes Nou ssâ—â—e fertur de Iohâ—nne 〈◊〉 qâ—ò◠publice docuit 〈◊〉 ab omnibus teneri mandauit quò◠〈◊〉 purgatae aâ—te fiuale iudicium non habent stolam quae 〈…〉 facialis visio Dei vnâ—uersitatem Parisieasem ad 〈◊〉 duxisse dicitur quod nemo in ea poterat gradum in Theologiâ— adipisci 〈◊〉 primitus hunc errorem iurassâ—tse deâ—ensâ—râ—m porpetuo ei adhaesurum Last of all it is reported of Pope Iohn the 22. that hee publiquely taught declared and commaunded all men to hold that the soules of the iust before the day of iudgment haue not the Stole which is the cleare and faciall vision of God And hee is reported to haue induced the Vniuersity of Paris to this that none should take degree in Theologie but he that did first sweare to defend this error to adhere to it for euer Thus writeth Adrian who himselfe was Byshoppe of Rome And Alphonsus a man of high esteeme in the Church of Rome after he had reckoned vppe fiue Heresies setteth downe this for the sixt That the soules of the iust do not see God till the day of doombe ascribing the said Heresie to the Armâ—nians as to the Authors thereof and to the Greekes together with pope Iohn as to the patrons and Defenders of the same Heere the Gentle Reader must obserue seriously lest he be sedused with the colorable glosse of the Iesuit Bellarmine who seeing the force of this Testimony to ouerthrowe the highest point in popery bestirreth himselfe mightily in defence of the popish faith He telleth vs forsooth if we will beleeue him as none will that haue either any wit or reason that pope Iohn erred in deede as Adrian and Alphonsus witnesse but he did that as a priuate man sayth our Iesuite not as pope of
the iudge thereof No more thē hee who conferring Scripture with Scripture expoundeth one place by another Which kind of exposition S. Austen preferreth before all other S. R. Bell saith canonicall Scripture may bee discerned of it selfe as light from darke He prooueth it because Gods word is called a light and a Lanthorne which shineth to Men. Because spirituall men iudge all things because the vnction teacheth Gods children all things And Christes Sheepe both heare and know his voyce But this is easily refelled First because though Samuell were a faithfull and holy man and God spake thrice to him yet he tooke his word for mans word vntill Hely the high Priest tolde him it was Gods word Gedeon was faithfull and yet knew not at first that it was God that spake vnto him by an Angell and therefore demanded a Miracle in confirmation of it Likewise Saint Peter was faithfull and yet at first he knew not that it was an Angell that spake and deliuered him Secondly Gods word consisteth in the sence and meaning which the faithfull oftentimes doe not vnderstand Thirdly the distinction of Scriptures from not Scriptures is not so euident as the distinction of light from darknesse is for then no man could erre therein T. B. This aunswere of our Fryer is friuolous and childish That which hee obiecteth of Samuell Gedeon and Peter is not to the purpose For as I haue prooued out of Melchior Canus and others euery one of the faithfull knoweth not euery thing but onely so much as is necessary for his saluation to know neyther is such their knowledge at euery houre moment but then onely and in such measure when and in what degree it pleaseth God to giue it Some of Gods children are effectually called at the first hour some at the third some at the sixt some at the last For though al Gods children be elected and predestinate before all time yet are they al called both generally and effectually in time some sooner some later according to the good pleasure of the caller who calleth freely without respect of persons Now where our Fryer denyeth the distinction of Gods word from mans word to be so euident as the distinction of light from darkenes because then none as he saith could erre therein I answere that as he that is blinde corporally cannot discerne colours nor behold the bright beams of the sinne so neither can he that is blind spiritually discerne Gods word frō mans word nor behold the brightnes of eternall truth For as the Apostle teacheth vs. If Christs Gospell be hid it is hidde in them that perish in whom the God of this world hath blinded the minds of them which beleeue not least the light of the gospell of the glory of Christ should shine vnto them And the same Apostle telleth vs else-where That the spirituall man iudgeth all things but the naturall man perceiueth not the things which are of God S. R. Saint Iohn sayth Bell affirmeth that the Vnction teacheth vs all thinges which wee deny not but no where saith he that it alone teacheth vs without the testimony of the Church which is it that wee deny and Bell should proue T. B. I haue proued at large euen out of your owne reuerend Byshop Melchior Canus that as the well affected tast can easily discerne the differences of sauours so can the good affection of the minde discerne the Doctrine of saluation And therfore as the testimony of the church is not necessary to the one no more is it to the other Yea if that sence of our Fryer had beene the truth of the text all the graue expositors of S. Iohn woulde neuer haue omitted the same But our Fryer coulde bring no expositor for himselfe and therefore no reason that we should admitte this bare denyall against the plaine wordes of the Text. S. R. That of the Spiritual man is not to the purpose both because all the faithfull are not spirituall but some carnall and therefore may we better inferre that the Gospell is not euident to all the faithfull as also because Saint Paul explicateth not by what meanes the spirituall man iudgeth all things whether by the euidency of the thinges as Bell woulde haue him to Iudge scripture or by some outward Testimony T. B. I answere first that all the faithfull rightly so tearmed are spirituall and not carnall neyther do the places quoted by our Iesuite proue any thing for his purpose For if he will haue none to bee spirituall that are sinners then must he deny the Apostles of our Lord to haue beene spirituall For as S. Iames granteth freely They all sinned in many thinges Secondly that if the Apostle had not explicated by what meanes the Spirituall man iudgeth all things as he did indeed yet would it not follow thereupon that our Iesuite may expound it to his best liking Thirdly that the Apostle sayth plainly in the words afore going That the spirituall man iudgeth by the spirit of God that is in him Fourthly that our Iesuite belyeth Bell heere as he doth many times else-where For Bell would not haue the spirituall man to Iudge the scripture by the euidency of the things but by the spirit of God which is euer at hand euen within him to teach him all necessary truth S. R. Bell alledgeth the Scripture That Christes Sheepe heare and know his voice which no man doubteth of But the question is whether they heare it of himselfe alone or of his church T. B. This is but irkesome Tautologie it is answered againe and againe First the late Romish Church is not the church that cannot erre this is already proued Secondly I haue proued euen out of their owne Cardinall Tolet That Christes sheepe know him because hee first knoweth them Yea the Text doth plainly yeeld that sence I knowe my sheepe saith Christ and they know mee As if he had said My Sheepe therefore know mee because I first know them Christ therefore not the church maketh his sheep to know and discern his voyce Thirdly the church is an outward help as is the preaching of the word To beget a kind of morral certitude or humane faith in the hearers but neither of them eyther doth or can beget faith Diuine in any man Paule may plant and Apol'o may water but only God can giue the increase Experience may confirme this to be so For no testification of the Romish church can make the Turke or Iew bebeleeue or acknowledge Christs Gospel If it were otherwise 10000. Iews this day in Rome would becom christians I wil say more and it is S. Austens Doctrin Many come to the Church and heare the word of God read and preached vnto thē but beleeue it not as their liues declare for euery good tree bringeth forth good fruits as our master christ telleth
vs. And what is the cause Forsooth saith S. Austen because they onely heare a sound in their outward eares but not the heauenly Preacher sounding in their harts S. R. Well saide S. Austen I would not beleeue the Gospell vnlesse the Authority of the Church did moue me thereto This place so stingeth Bell as he windeth euery way to auoyd it T. B. Howsoeuer in your opinion it stingeth me yet haue I so sufficiently aunswered it in the Downfall as there is no need heere to adde any thing in defence thereof Neuerthelesse some few Annotations I will adde for explication sake First when S. Austen saith I wold not beleeue the Gospel vnlesse the Authority of the Church did moue me thereto He meaneth of himselfe as being a Manichee not as being a christian As if he had said If I this day were not a Christian but a Manichee as I once was I woulde not beleeue this Gospell which I wish thee to embrace vnlesse the Churches Authority did moue me to the same For these are S. Austens own words Si ergo invenirem aliquem qui Euangelio nondum crèdit quid faceres dicenti tibi non credo Ego vero Euangelio noÌ„ crederem nisi me Catholicae Ecclesiae commâ—veret authoritas If therefore I shoulde finde one that yet beleeueth not the Gospel what wouldst thou do to him saying to thee I beleeue it not I doubtlesse would not beleeue the gospell vnlesse the authority of the Catholicke church did mooue mee therâ—unto Loe he speaketh of him that beleeueth not the gospell and of himselfe not being a christian not of himselfe or any other that professeth the gospell Where I am to admonish the Reader that here as in many other places of my Bookes this period last recited is vnperfect in the Downefall For my selfe being absent from the Presse as dwelling farre off many faultes escape the Printer That this is the true meaning of S. Austen I proue it first because in the very same Chapter hee confesseth that the Authority of the Gospell is aboue the authority of the Church Secondly because in the Chapter aforegoing after he hath discoursed of many notable things in the church Consent Miracles Antiquitie and Succession he addeth that the truth of the Scriptures must be preferred before them all These pointes and reasons I cited before out of Saint Austen which because they confound our Iesuite hee impudently denieth them affirming that Saint Austen saith not so These therefore are S. Austens owne words in the first Chapter Quòd si forte in euangelio aliquid apertissimum de Manichaei Apostolatu 〈◊〉 pâ—tueris infirmabis mihi catholicorum anthoritatem qui iubent non credam If happily thou canst finde in the Gospell any manifest thing of the Apostle-ship of Manichaeus thou shalt discredite the authority of Catholiques to mee who commaund mee not to beleeue thee Againe in the fourth Chapter he hath these wordes Apud vos sola personaâ— veritatis pollicitatio quae quidem si tam manifesta monstratur vt in dubium venire non possit praeponenda est omnibus illis rebus quibus in Catholica teneor With you onely soundeth the promise of truth which if it bee prooued so manifest that it cannot be doubted of it is to be preferred before al those thinges that hold me in the catholique church Loe in the former place Saint Austen graunteth freely that the authority of the Scripture is aboue the authority of the church And in the latter that the truth of the Scripture must be preferred before all other things whatsoeuer Away therefore with our lying Fryer and giue hearing to his fables no longer Secondly the faith that proceedeth from the Church for TestificatioÌ„ is but humaine and not diuine For none saue God onely can beget faith diuine in vs. It pleaseth GOD to vse externall meanes and Ceremonies for the confirmation of our Faith but the grace power vertue is from himselfe alone The Law was giuen by Moyses but grace and truth came by Iesus Christ. I prooue it First because a supernaturall effect must needes bee produced of a supernaturall cause and consequently diuine faith beeing a supernaturall effect cannot proceede from the Romish Church Secondly a corporall agent cannot ascend and penetrate a spirituall obiect as a materiall Sword cannot penetrate an immateriall Spirit and consequently neither produce an immateriall effect as is faith diuine Thirdly no immateriall and spirituall accident can bee receyued into any corporall subiect and consequently no corporall subiect is apt to produce a spirituall effect Fourthly Saint Austen saith plainly that it is a greater woorke to iustifie a man then to create the VVorlde but no power saith the Popish Angelicall Doctor Aquinas which is vpon earth can concurre to creation Ergo neither to iustification and consequently neither to the producing of Faith diuine Thirdly when saith is wrought and begotten in vs we may not diuide the worke giuing part to God and part to the Church but we must ascribe the whole to GOD the true Author of the whole Therfore after S. Paule had tolde the Corinthians that he had laboured more aboundantly then all the Apostles hee forthwith added these wordes Yet not I but the grace of God which is with me For though maÌ„ be not in his actions as a brute beast or block but free from all coaction and constraint yet hath he no power but from aboue neither hath he any part more or lesse in producing Grace Faith or the supernatuall effects For though it be Gods pleasure to vse mans externall acts and operations for the exercise of his faith wheÌ„ he meaneth to produce supernaturall effectes yet dooth hee himselfe solely and wholy of himselfe produce the same effectes And heere I must tell the Reader of a great defect in the Latine Vulgata editio which the late Councell of Trent extolleth to the Heauens and withall Papists are bound to vse and beleeue It saith thus Yet not I but the grace of God with mee as if forsooth part were imputed to grace and part to the act and woorke of Saint Paule Whereas indeed the Apostle ascribeth the whole to God and vtterly refuseth to take any part to himselfe Which the Article â— in the Greeke left out in the Latine Vulgata editio maketh plaine and euident For after Saint Paule had saide That hee had laboured more then all the Aopostles he by and by addeth this correction Yet not I but the grace of God which is with me And heere because sensible things worke most in sensile persons let vs take an example of the Napkins and Partlets which were brought from Saint Paules body vnto the sicke for the Napkins by touching Saint Paules body receiued no inherent vertue to worke Miracles The Text saith plainely that God wrought the Miracles by the hand of Paule The Napkins and Handkerchiefes were but outward tokens to confirme the faith of
is done is forgiuen But this is easily refuted for Saint Iohn spake in respect of vs assisted by Gods Grace when he saide This is the Law of God that we keepe his Commaundements and his Commaundementes are not heauy He saith not Christ but We must keep Gods Commaundements T. B. I answere First that whosoeuer readeth and marketh the Downefall will soone perceiue that our Iesuite is at a Non plus for there were these his silly Obiections solued and refuted before they came to light Secondly that our Iesuite belyeth me after his wonted manner when he saith that I affirme the wordes to be meant in respect of Christ and not of our selues For after I had proued by many arguments drawn out of holy Writ that the yoke of Christ is sweet to the faithfull I added these words This being so we may truely say that in Christ we fulfill the Law Because he is our righteousnes our sanctification and our Redemption because hee hath ouercome death because he hath clothed vs with his righteousnes because he hath couered our nakednes with his garments because in him we haue gotten the victory ouer hell death and damnation Thus I answered in the Downfall Now I referre my selfe to the censure of the indifferent Reader how sufficiently I haue refuted the Iesuite and how vniustly he hath slandered me For it is one thing to say we fulfill the Commaundements in Christ another thing to say the wordes are spoken in respect of Christ not in respect of our selues The latter are his the former are mine viz that in Christ we fulfill the law and I learned them of Christs holy Apostle and chosen vessell S. Paule Omnia possum in eo qui me confortat I can do all thinges saith he in Christ that strengthneth me Againe in another place the same Apostle telleth vs That as by the disobedience of Adam many becam sinners so by the obedience of Christ many shall be made righteous Againe in another place thus That I may be found in him not hauing mine owne righteousnes which is of the Law but that which is through the saith of Christ the righteousnes which is of God throgh faith Again in another place thus They being ignorant of Gods righteousnes and seeking to establish their owne were not subiect to the righteousnesse of God Againe thus Hee made him sinne for vs which knewe no sinne that we might be the righteousnes of God in him Herevpon S. Austen that worthy pillar of Christs church giueth this glosse and true meaning of these words of Saint Paule Christum pro nobis peccatum fecit Deus cuireconciliandi sumus hoe est sacrificium pro peccatis per quod reconciliari valeremus Ipse ergo peccatum vt nos iustitia nec nostra sed dei nec in nobis sed in ipso sicut ipse peccatum non sâ—um sed nostram nec in se sed in nobis constititutum similitudine carnis peccati in qua crucifixus est demonstrauit God made Christ sinne for vs to whom we are to be reconciled that is a sacrifice for sinnes by which we might be reconciled He therefore was made sinne that we might be made Iustice not our Iustice but Gods Iustice neither in vs but in him as hee declared sinne not to bee his but ours not placed in him but in vs by the similitude of sinfull flesh in which he was crucified Thus writeth this ancient holy and learned Father Out of whose graue Testimony together with the Texts of holy scripture produced already I obserue these memorable documentes for the comfort of the well affected Reader First that albeit wee are not able of our selues nor in our selues to fulfill the Law of God and to keepe his commandements yet are we able to keepe them and to fulfill the Law in our Lord Iesus Christ. Secondly that as we were made sinners by the disobedience of one euen Adam so are we made righteous by the obedience of one euen Christ Iesus Thirdly that our formall righteousnes is not inherent in our selues but in God for the obedience of Iesus Christ his onely sonne and our onely sauiour Fourthly that as the sinne for which Christ suffered was ours not his in vs not in him euen so that iustice by which we are made righteous is not ours but Gods not in vs but in him I therefore conclude that we fulfill the Lawe in Christ not in our selues And I adde with S. Austen to the euerlasting confusion of our Iesuite and al Iesuited Papists in the world that that Iustice by which and with which wee are formally iustified in Gods sight is not inherent in our selues but in God not ours but his not in vs but in him and yet ours by imputation as our sinnes by imputation were his So as all the faithfull may ioyfully say with the Prophet Dauid Blessed are they vvhose iniquities are forgiuen and whose sinnes are couered Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sinne And with the Apostle Paul As many by the disobedience of Adam were made sinners so many by the obedience of Christ are made righteous And heere I wish the reader to marke well that to be iustified by imputation is to bee made iust truely and indeed though not by Iustice inherent in our selues but by the Iustice of Christ. For as our sinnes were truely and indeed imputed to him so is his Iustice truely and indeed imputed to vs. I also admonish the Reader to remember well these words of S. Austen Ipse ergo peccatum vt nos iustitia c. He was made sinne that we might be made iustice not our Iustice but Gods iustice neither in vs but in him To remember well I say these words beecause they are words of great consequence For they proue euidently that our formal iustice is not inhereÌ„t in our selues but in God which confoundeth the Papists and striketh them dead They conuince mans inherent Iustice to be imperfect and their supposed condigne merit of Workes to be plaine Hypocriticall S. R. S. Iohn giueth vs a signe to try if we know God viz if we keepe his commandements and verse 3. affirmeth That who keepeth not his Commaundements knoweth not God Wherefore eyther Bell keepeth the Commandements or he knoweth not God T. B. I answere first that Bell humbly acknowledgeth himselfe a great sinner and desireth pardon for his sins with the poore Publican Howsoeuer our Iesuite like the Pharisee glory in his condigne merites and Workes of Supererogation Secondly that as we know God vnperfectly so do we keep his commandements vnperfectly If our Iesuite say that hee knoweth God perfectly S. Paule condemneth him for an arrogant fellow If hee say hee keepeth Gods Commandements perfectly S. Iames reproueth him as a proud Pharisaicall Fryer S. R. As for S. Austen he said our defectuous keeping is counted a full