pulled downe O holy Worshippers of Deuils But this was but the errour of the common people and no Tradition from the Pope Alasse alasse could such a publique concourse of people bee in such a famous place as Ferrara and flock together to adore and worshippe an Idoll in the Church and the Gouernors of the Church be ignorant thereof Nay would the people haue yeelded any such worship and adoration if theyr Pastors or the Popes Catch-poles had not induced them so to do It is vnpossible they receiued it by Tradition And whosoeuer shall enquire such matters of them shall find that their ready answer viz that their ancestors haue beene taught to do so S. R. The Scriptures saith Bell are called Canonical because they are the rule of Faith therefore all things are to bee examined by them And for this cause saith he Esay sent vs to the Law and to the Testimony to try the truth c. Aunswere The Bible alone is called Canonicall Scripture because it alone of all Scriptures the Church followeth as an infallible rule in beleeuing or defyning any thing But it neither is nor is called the onely Cannon of Faith T. B. First our Iesuite granteth that the Scripture is the onely rule Cannon which we must follow in beleeuing defining any thing That done he by by telleth vs that it neither is nor is cald the onely Cannon of Faith This is a wonderment doubtles The Scripture is an infallible rule to be folowed in beleeuing or defining any thing This is true hold thee here good Fryer But what followeth The Fryer will haue one foot further though it cost him dear But it neither is nor is called the onely Cannon of Faith Loe first hee graunteth the Scripture to bee an infallible rule of Faith and then he denieth it to be the onely rule of Faith Is not that worthy to be the onely rule of Faith which is the infallible rule thereof Shall we forsake the infallible rule betake our selues to a fallible rule Ther is no remedy the Pope will haue it so The Scripture therefore by Popish grant GOD reward them for their kindnes is the infallible rule of our faith but not the only rule of the same for vnwritten Traditions must bee a ioynt-rule of Faith with it The scripture is an infallible rule yet not the totall but partiall rule of the Christian faithâ— Well let vs holde fast that which our Iesuite hath graunted afore viz that all things necessary for our saluation are contained in the Scripture And let vs thereupon conclude that Popish faith is as vnconstant as the wind and let vs adde withal that it is execrable blasphemy against the sonne of God to make mans Traditions a partiall rule of our faith For as Christ teacheth vs they worshippe him in vaine that for doctrines deliuer the Precepts of men Read the Downfal Saint Paule telleth vs That the Scriptures are able to make vs vvise vnto saluation Which being so we stand in need of no more it is enough Let vs reply vppon the written truth and let the Papistes keepe their vnwritten vanities to themselues Nay let vs remember what our Iesuit hath told vs already euen in these expresse wordes For surely the Prophets Euangelists writing their Doctrine for our better remembrance would omit no one point which was necessary to be actually knowne of euery one especially seeing they haue written many thinges not so necessary These are the Iesuites owne words in the Page quoted in the Margent And yet they containe fully as much as I desire and the whole trueth now in Controuersie whereby the Reader may perswade himselfe that it is the truth that I defend and which the Papistes oppugne maliciously confessing the same vnawares S. R. Bell saith Saint Iohn bids vs Try the spirites but he speaks not of Apostolicall spirits nor of Traditious Besides hee bids vs not try them onely by scripture and therefore hee maketh nothing for Bels purpose T. B. What an aunswere is this Saint Iohn saith our Iesuite speakes not of Apostolicall spirits nor of Traditions Saint Iohn speaketh of doubtfull spirits and consequently of al spirits all Doctrines not grounded contained in the holy scriptures Againe our Iesuite sayth Hee bids not trie them by the scripture Saint Iohn indefinitely bids try the spirits and seeing he nameth not the way though after he giueth some generall markes thereof we haue to follow the infalliable rule of Iudging aad defining euery thing which Rule or Canon as our Iesuite hath freely granted is the scripture S. R. Bell saith the Berhaeans examined the truth of S. Pauls Doctrine I aske of him whether they were faithful whilst they examined it or faithlesse If faithlesse why proposeth hee them to vs an example to imitate If faithfull How coulde they examine whether that were true or no which they assuredly beleeued to be Diuine truth Wherfore they examined not the truth of S. Pauls Doctrine but searched the scriptures for confirmation and encrease of their faith And this kinde of examining which disallow not T. B. I answere that the faithfull though they beleeue the Articles of the Christian faith yet may they without doubting or staggering examine vnwritten Traditions and what Doctrine els soeuer not expressed in the Holy scripture Take heed of false Prophets which come to you in sheeps clothing Search the scriptures try al things hold fast thaet which is good Beleeue not euery spirit but try the spirits if they bee of God The spirituall man Iudgeth all things By these Textes of holy writ it is very cleere that we are not bound rashly to beleeue all preaching and much lesse all vnwritten popish Traditions If wee do we shall vnawares adore the deuill in Hermannus as is already proued Neither did the Berhaeans search the scriptures onely for the confirmation of their faith but for the Tryall of the trueth as the Texte auoucheth And they searched the scriptures daily if those things were so Loe they examined the Doctrine if it were consonant to the scripture But heere it may bee obiected that if euery one be a Iudge confusion will abound in the Church To this Obiection I haue answered at large in my Booke Intituled the Golden Ballance To which place I referre the Reader which shall desire satisfaction in that behalfe S. R. Bell faith that in S. Cyprians dayes neyther tradition was a sufficient proofe of Doctrine nor the Popes definitiue sentence a rule of fayth These be both vntruths For he onely thought that humane and mistaken tradition was no sufficient rule as hath bin shewed before T. B. S. Cyprian was resolute that all traditions must be exactly tryed by the Holy scripture as is proued at large in the Downfall and partly in this reply already It is needlesse heere to iterate the same S. R. S. Hierom writing to Damasus saith thus Decree I pray you if it
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
necessary to be actually beleeued of euery one that hath vse of reason are actually contained in the Scripture Now out of these wordes I note First that the Scriptures were written for our remembrance and good Secondly that nothing is omitted in the Scripture which is necessary for our saluation Thirdly that the Prophets and Euangelists wrote many things not so necessary for vs and therefore would in no case omit those thinges which were necessary for our soules health Fourthly that all thinges which euery one is bound to beleeue actually are actually set downe in the Scripture This being true as it is most true indeed I am content to stand to the censure of euery indifferent Reader whether by the Iesuites confession and free graunt the Scripture be a totall rule of our Faith or no. For doubtlesse that which containeth all necessary points of Christian Faith cannot be a partiall rule but a total and consummate rule of our faith S. R. The most that Bell hath out of S. Cyprian is That what is no true Tradition must be prooued by Scripture which I willingly graunt Saint Cyprian thought the Pope onely to erâ—e in a Commandement to be done Bell condemneth him in his iudiciall sentences of Faith Whereas S. Cyprian professeth that false Faith can haue no accesse to S. Peters Chaire T. B. I haue prooued in the Downefall that though our Papists of late daies do impudently affirme that their Pope cannot erre when hee defineth iudicially yet this notwithwithstanding Saint Cyprian teacheth and telleth vs plainly and roundly that in his time the Byshop of Rome had no such authority as this day he proudly Antichristianly taketh vpon him For he roundly withstood the decree of Pope Stephanus who was then the Bishop of Rome and both sharpely reprooued him and stoutly contemned his falsely pretended authority And for all that Saint Cyprian was euer reputed a very holy Byshoppe in his life time and a glorious Martyr beeing dead But if the Byshop of Rome had beene Christs Vicar and so priuiledged as our Papists beare the World in hand hee is then doublesse Saint Cyprian must needes haue beene an Heretique and so reputed and esteemed in the Church of GOD For if any Christian shall this day do or affirme as Saint Cyprian did in his time or publiquely deny the Popes falsely pretended prymacy in any place Country Territories or Dominions where Popery beareth the sway then without all peraduenture he must bee burnt at a stake with fire and Fagot for his paines Now what doth our Iesuite answere to this discourse Forsooth that whatsoeuer is no true Tradition the same must be tryed by the Scripture Alasse alasse Who seeth not that our Iesuite and consequently all Papistes seeing hee hath the aduise of all the learned among them is at a Non plus I contend that Traditions ought to bee tryed by the Scripture whether they bee true and sound or no Our Fryer answereth that false Traditions and such as bee not true must be so tryed What a iest is this The Scripture is the Touch-stone by which wee must try false and true Traditions and so we cannot know them to be true Traditions before we try them by the Scripture How fondly therefore aunswereth our Fryer that if they bee not true they must be tryed by the Scripture We deny these and these Traditions to bee true and therefore appeale to the Scripture for the tryall thereof No no saith our Iesuite these may not bee tryed by the Scripture because they are true Traditions Marry Sir this is indeed an aunswere answerlesse For ye take all the tryall to your selfe and leaue none at all to the Scripture You will first set down in your iudgements which be true Traditions and which be false and that done we must goe try those to be false by the Scripture which you hold for false but with the other we must not deale at all By this kind of dealing I must needes say the Scripture is but a partiall rule of Faith indeed And what shal be the total rule of our saith Our Iesuite here tels vs that it is the Popes iudiciall sentence whose faith cannot faile For false Faith saith he can haue no accesse to Saint Peters chaire as though forsooth Saint Cyprian did thinke that the Byshop of Romes Faith could not faile where hee meaneth nothing lesse then to ascribe such a priuiledge to the Church of Rome For if he had beene of that minde he would neuer haue vrged Pope Stephanus to be tryed by the Scriptures No no Saint Cyprian speaketh not of errour in Faith or Doctrine but of neglect of discipline and false dealing of Schismatiques to whose false tales and reportes the Romaines would neuer yeelde their consent As if he hadde said The Schismatickes which wee haue driuen out of Affrica seeke intertainement at Rome but the Romans whose Faith the Apostle praised will neuer hearken vnto them or giue credite to their reportes He speaketh of one Felicissimus and other bad fellowes his Companions whose naughty dealing Saint Cyprian thought Cornelius and the godly Romaines would neuer fauour But such beggerly shifts as these be are good enough for Popish falsly pretended prymacy Of which subiect I haue written at large in the Hunting of the Romish Foxe S. R. Bell citeth Saint Ambrose who biddeth vs not beleeue Argument and disputations but to aske the Scriptures Apostles Prophets and Christ. But it maketh for vs because it alloweth enquiring of others besides the Scriptures namely of Apostles from whom the churches Traditions came T. B. Our Iesuite is a notable couetous Fellow he will haue all to make for him though it bee neuer so much against him Because Saint Ambrose after hee hath willed vs to haue recourse to the Scriptures and there to know the resolution of all doubts doth forthwith name the Apopostles Prophets and Christ he will haue S. Ambrose Will he Nil he to send vs to others besides the scriptures vvhereas Saint Ambrose dooth onely explicate himselfe telling vs vvhat Scriptures wee shall search viz not Oâ—ids Metamorphosis nor Tullies Offices but of the Prophets of the Apostles of Christ himselfe S. R. Bell citeth S. Chrysostome who saith that if any thing be spoken without Scripture the hearers mind wauereth somtimes doubting somtimes assenting otherwhiles denying But maruell it is that he would touch Saint Chrysostome who Hom. 42. Thessal Vpon these wordes Hold Traditions saith Hence it appeareth that the Apostles deliuered not all things by Letters that one aswell as the other are worthy of the same credite Wherefore we thinke the Churches Traditions to deserue beleefe It is a Tradition aske no more T. B. Here I might tell our Iesuite that Saint Chrysostome hath but fiue Homelies in all to the second of the Thessalonians though he name it the 42. Our Fryer would exclaime if he could â—ind such a fault in my writings True it is that Saint Chrysostome and other of
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
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
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 beene my Lord since that time when as yet you were not Lord of all And therefore by the foresayde words he meaneth no otherwise then a louing seruant doeth when vpon curtesie to his old maister though he haue left him yet he still calleth him maister and offereth himselfe and his seruice at his command T. B. My reply standeth thus First that Pope Gregory or Gregory then Byshop of Rome spake of that obedience which a subiect oweth to his prince I proue it first because hee saith he rendred his obedience to the Emperor and concealed not what he thought on Gods behalfe Secondly because a few lines afore hee telleth the Emperour vvhat preferment Christ had bestovved on him and what honor he had done vnto him among which this was one that he had committed his priestes to his charge Sacerdotes meos tâ—aemanui commisi tu à meo seruitio milites tuos subtrahis Christ will say vnto you saith Gregory I haue committed my priests vnto your hands and do you vvithdrawe your souldiors from my seruice By vvhich words it is apparant that Gregory yeelded his obedience as he vvas a Byshop or priest and it skilleth not that he saith in the beginning of the Epistle I speake not as Byshoppe but in mine ovvne priuate right the reason is euident because the publishing of a vvicked Lavv did not pertaine to him as hee vvas a Byshop whose office is to preach Gods word and to administer his Sacraments but as a priuate man subiect vnto his prince And therefore he answered in his ovvn priuate right that it was not agreeable to Gods vvill yet did hee publish the same to shevv his allegeance to his soueraign S. R. Moreouer Bell writeth that Barbarians possessed all Italy from the yeere 471. vntill Charles the great 801. how then saith he heere that Popes liued vnder Emperors vntill the yeare 603. T. B. First our Popes liue not alwaies at Rome for they haue many times beene driuen from thence liued els where and shall we thereupon conclude that therefore they ceased to be Popes no papist will admit it Secondly though the Aliens and Barbarians did a long time possesse all Italy yet did the Byshops of Rome euer acknowledge their duety and allegeance vnto the Emperour Thirdly when the Pope is deade in the Interim while another is chosen doe not the papistes acknowledge the Popes supremacy I weene they do If S. R. shall denie it I vvill vse another argument against him Euen so when the Emperors were not at Rome yea when there was no Christian Emperour at all the Byshops acknowledged the right of his soueraignty Fourthly vvhen I say that Popes or Byshops of Rome liued in duetifull subiection to the Emperours of Rome more then six hundred yeares after Christs sacred incarnation euery childe knovveth the meaning viz. that no Bishop during that time denyed the Emperours supereminent power ouer him Lastly the Iesuite to further his lying hath falsifyed both my words and my meaning Now where I cited S. Ambrose Euthymius Hugo Cardinalis Lyra Aquinas and the popish glosse our masked Iesuite ansvvereth roundly though impudently and vnclerkly that all the said writers speake of superiority in Temporall matters but hee can bring for himselfe neither Scripture Counsell Father nor reason We must accept and be content with his bare word For to the Pope and his Iesuites no man may say Curitafacis Why dost thou so The Popes owne decrees tell vs plainly that though the Pope be neuer so vvicked though he carry thousands of soules with himselfe head-long into hell yet for all that may no man take vpon him to iudge the Pope vnlesse he be an Hereticke the reason is yeelded by their own deare Doctor Gerson because forsooth Christ hath written in his thing the King of Kinges and Lorde of Lords to whom no man may say why dooest thou so Of whose power it is sacrilege to reasoÌ„ or dispute To thee alone saieth Cardinall Hugo haue I sinned beecause there is not any aboue mee but thy selfe alone that hath power to punish me For I am a King and so besides thee O God there is none aboue me Al the aforenamed writers teach the felfesame Doctrine viz. that the Pope or Byshop of Rome is so farre from hauing power to depose Kings and Emperors that hee himselfe ought to bee subiect to them hath no authority at al to punish them What can be more plainely spoken What Testimonies can be more manifest What Doctrine can be clearer for if none but God be superior to the king if none but God can iudge the King if none but GOD can punnish the King all which both Auncient Fathers and the Popes owne deere Doctors affirme as I haue often proued at large in the Downfall of Popery then doubtles can not the Pope depose the king then can he not absolue his subiects from their allegeance then can hee not translate Empires and Kingdomes and bestowe the same at his owne pleasure This notwithstanding the popes parasites to his good liking tell vs another tale in these wordes Sicut non est potestas nisi à Deo sic nec aliqua temporalis vel ecclesiastica imperialis vel regalis nisi à papa As there is no power but of God so is there neither any temporall nor Ecclesiasticall neyther imperiall nor Regal but of the Pope S. R. ONly I say that Iosue was no king nor the Scripture affordeth any colour of saying that any High-priest was deposed by any of the saide Kinges except Abiathâ—r by Salomon and yet as it is gathered out of the fourth ch where he is accounted priest in Salomons raigne Salomon deposed him not but only for a time confined him to his house for his conspiracy with Adonias and so debarred him for executing his priestly function And though hee had deposed him he had not done it as King but as Prophet fulfilling as the scripture testifieth the prophesie against the house of Hely from whence Abiathar discended T. B. AFter I had proued at large by many authorities that Kinges haue supereminent power ouer Byshops not Byshops ouer Kinges I added for a confirmation thereof that the good Kinges Iosue Dauid Salomon Iehosophat Ezechias and Iosias knew â—ight well that they had authority aboue all the priestes and therefore they tooke vpon them not only to command and controll the priestes but also to depose them from theyr places and functions yea euen the High-priests themselues when their desertes did so require Which point I auouched to be proued at large in my Golden ballance of tryall To this discourse S. R. answereth foure thinges First that Iosue was no king Secondly that no High-priest was deposed by any of the saide Kinges Thirdly that Abiathar the High-priest was not deposed by king Salomon but onely confined to his house Fourthly that if king Salomon had deposed Abiathar yet had he not done it as king but as Prophet My
reply is this First that to deny Iosue to be king is a vaine cauill and argueth lacke of matter in our Iesuites answere for Iosue had the thing though not the name he was the Ciuil independent Magistrate and had the chiefe and supereminent power ouer the Isralites his Subiects as Moses whom he succeeded had and the other Kings Dauid Salomon Iosaphat Ezekias and Iosias In regard whereof he was and may bee truely reckoned with and among the other kings But when good reasons cannot bee had such Beggerly cauils must supply the want Secondly that it is a most notorious slander against the holy Scripture and consequently á notable blasphemy against God himselfe to say and desperately to avouch in a printed Booke that no High-priest was deposed by any of the said Kinges These are the expresse wordes of holie writ Eiecit ergo Salomon Abiathar vt non esset sacerdos domini Therefore Salomon cast out or deposed Abiathar the high Priest that he should not be the Priest of the Lord. Again holy writ hath these expresse wordes Et Sadoc sacerdote posuit pro Abiathar and the King put Sadoc the Priest in the roome of Abiathar Loe the holy scripture telleth vs two things most plainly and expressely and that is done euen in that Latin Vulgaâ—a editio to which the Pope hath tyed all his Iesuites and Iesuited Popelings The one that King Salomon deposed Abiathar the High-priest The other that hee placed Sadoc the priest in Abiathars roome Thirdly that it is most absurdly auouched of our Iesuit that Salomon onely confined Abiathar to his house for a time Concerning this deposition and casting out of Abiathar from his place and putting Sadoc the priest in his roome our Iesuite is at his wits end what to say and why I pray you For this end doubtles because hence it is proued euidently and by a necessary consecution that Kings both haue and may depose priests euen the hie priests and greatest priests of all But it can neuer be proued out of the holy scriptures that any Priest deposed any King no not the meanest king in all the world The Iesuite contradicteth himselfe mightily For first hee saith that none of the Kings deposed any priest Secondly that Salomon deposed Abiathar Thirdly that Abiathar was not deposed but onely for a time confined to his owne house What horsâ—e would not breake his necke to heare this sweet melodie The scripture telleth vs that king Salomon deposed Abiathar and for confirmation heereof the same scripture addeth that Sadoc the priest was set in his roome Fourthly to say as the Iesuite doeth that Salomon deposed Abiathar not as King but as prophet is to speake at randon and to make of scripture a nose of wax for no one Text from the first of Genesis to the last of the Apocalipse doth iustifie this fond and sottish answer of the masked Iesuite albeit I know this to bee true that he wanted not the aduise and counsell of his best learned Brethren Whosoeuer desireth further in sight into this subiect and of the soueraignty of kings ouer priests and Byshops which are their subiects if he peruse my Golden ballance of tryall I hope in God it will satisfie his desire CHAP. 4. ¶ Containing a confutation of the sixt Chapter of the masked Iesuite THe Iesuite in his sixt Chapter and first article is wholly occupied in impertinent matters and foolish demaunds not once touching directly ought that I haue written but let vs heare him once againe and so proceed to another Chapter S. R. Because the question is not vpon what cause Kings and Emperors humbled themselues to the Popes but whether they did or no And because they haue so done as Bell confesseth Catholicks infer the Pope to be their superior Vnlesse perhaps Bell thinke blinde zeale to disanul euery fact or guift and so say the Iewes persecuted not the Church because they did it vpon blind zeale nor our Catholique ancestors gaue any liuings to Churches because they did it vpon blind zeale as Bell must thinke for maintainance of Papistry T. B. O shamelesse and impudent Iesuite Is the question only what was done Where is thy wit Where is thy faith Where is thy Religion Doth not your Angellicall Doctor Aquinas teach you that all morall Acts haue their specification of the end and finall cause Doth not Scotus Ockamus Gabriel Iosephus Durandus and all the rest approue the same Doctrine How sayest thou then O blind Iesuit that the question is not vpon what cause kinges humbled themselues to the Popes but whether they did or no ô Tempora ô Mores Doth not alms otherwise a commendable act degenerate into sinne when it is giuen for vaine glory And this onely because the ende and cause for which it is giuen is nought and vnlawfull Dooeth not Christs Apostle tell thee that whatsoeuer is not of fayth is sinne That whatsoeuer is done ought to bee done to to the glory of God Alas alas euery childe that hath but learned the rudiments of Christianity can roundly tel our Iesuite that we must not so much respect what is done as what ought of right to be done We may not reason as our Iesuite Parsons doth for he is the man the thing was don therefore lawfully done Kings yeelded supreame authority to the Pope therefore they did it lawfuly By that kind of Logicke or rather Legierdemain all theftes all robberies all Rebellions all mischiefes vnder heauen may bee iustifyed and defended You Iesuites and your Iesuited pope-lings do take part with the Pope against your annointed Soueraigne and so by this new no Diuinity the pope is our King and Superiour For thus you reason beecause Kings haue so done the Pope is their Superiour For the question is not vpon whose grounde they did so but whether they did so or no. For by your Theology if the thing be done it is lawfully done but what Bell perhaps thinkes that blinde zeale dissanulleth euery fact and so neither the Iewes persecuted the Church nor our papistes gaue any liuing to the Church because they did it as Bell must thinke vpon blind zeale O monster of al Monsters ô Child of perdition ô sonne of the Deuill Bell saith not that blind zeale disanulleth any act Bell saith not that papists gaue no liuings to the Church Bell saith not that the Iewes did not persecute the Church No no it is the deuill in our Iesuite that mooues him thus falsly to slaunder Bell. It is one thing to say the papists gaue liuinges to the Church vpon a blinde zeale another thing to say they gaue nothing at all The former I say the latter I denie therefore when you papists labour to proue the popes soueraignty ouer Kings because some Kings haue acknowledged it vpon a blind zeale I answer that your proofe is of no force not for that such thinges haue not bin done but because they were not done as they should ought to
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
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
it is that the Ataxia disorder and concupiscence in the regenerate is repugnant and disagreable to the will of God and consequently it must be sinne indeed And as for the opinion of Saint Austen I haue proued at large in the Downfall out of fiue seuerall places of his workes that it is both the punnishment of sinne the cause of sinne and sinne it selfe S. R. As blindnes of hart saith Bell out of Austen is sinne punnishment of sinne and cause of sinne so concupisence of the flesh is sinne punnishment and cause of sin But I aunswere that Saint Austen compareth concupisence with blindnesse of heart in the materiall disorder of sinne T. B. I answere that I know not whether I should pitty the ignorance of our Iesuite or exclaime against his mallice For first Saint Austen cannot bee expounded as Maister Fryer saith though Bellarmine his Brother hath lent him his solution For if Saint Austen had meant materially not formally he would neuer haue called it sin the thirde time after hee named it twice sinne matterially before viz when he called it the cause of sinne and the punnishment of sinne Yet after both these he addeth that it is sinne formally For else he had saide no new thing Secondly because our Iesuite confuteth himselfe vnawares when he writeth thus Saint Austen prooueth by the blindnesse of hart that it was not onely punishment and cause of sinne but also sinne that is naught cuill and disorderly because it is against the rule of reason which is to be sinne materially though it want the form of sinne which is voluntarines This is his answer Now I pray you Gentle Reader iudge indifferently between mee and this Fryer First hee graunteth that Originall concupisence is naught euill and disorderly Secondly that it is against the rule of reason and all that he can say for himselfe is this that it is indeede sinne materially but not formally Where if I may finde an indifferent Reader the victory is mine own GOD is my iudge I speake as I thinke For to be against the rule of reason is formally sinne Which Saint Austen as is already proued declareth euidently when he defineth the eternall law to be nothing else but the reason or will of God The reason is confirmed because Saint Austen compareth it with the blindnes of hart which as euery good Christian knoweth is sinne most formally For if master Fryer Parsons shall deny blindnesse of heart thorough which man beleeueth not in God to bee sinne formally he will be hissed out of all good schools howsoeuer our holy Father the Pope sitting in his chaire vppon men◠shoulders giue him ten hundred thousand yeares pardon for the same Nay I will yet say more to our holy Fryer maister Robert Parsons the Author of this fond presensed answere to the Downfall of Popery viz that in the last precept of the Decalogue or Ten commaundementes Thou shalt not lust is prohibited not onely actuall and voluntary concupiscence but the very Originall and Fountaine of all concupiscences with all her involuntary branches I prooue it first because that concupiscence actuall wherewith wee couet that that is another mans and not our own is forbidden by all the sixt seuenth and eight precepts of the second Table This doeth our maister Christ teach vs when hee saith That whosoeuer shall see a woman to lust after her hath already committed adultery with hi◠in his hart The same doctrine teacheth S. Iohn when hee sheweth the hatred of our brother to be agaiust this precept Thou shall not kill Secondly because if no other thing were prohibited in this commandement but actuall concupiscence there shoulde bee but nine precepts in the Decalogue seeing the last shoulde bee no newe Commaundement but only a bare recitall or repetition of the nine former precepts Thirdly because S. Paul granteth himselfe to be carnally sold vnder sin by reason of original concupiscence and not actuall against which he fought stoutly and neuer gaue consent vnto it Fourthly because that which the Saints of God detest call sin by the iudgement of the holy ghost must needs be sin properly But so it is that S. Paul in the name of all the Saints of God detesteth this Original cōcupiscence calleth it sin and mourning tearmeth himselfe vnhappy for it and desireth to be deliuered from it Ergo it must needs be sin properly Fiftly to say that it is called sin figuratiuely and vnproperly is against that generall rule which all Diuines haue deliuered when the scriptures must bee vnderstood properly and when figuratiuely viz that then they are taken figuratiuely whē the sence which the words in their proper signification yeeld do not agree with other scriptures and the Analogy of faith but are repugnant vnto the same Now no scripture can bee produced which denyeth that Originall concupisence with the involuntary motions thereof is properly sin Nay the Apostle aboue twelue times in one Chapter plainely and simply calleth it sin neither will it helpe to say that the scripture freeth Gods children from sinne For as saint Austen sayth they are not deliuered from sinne so that it is not in them but that it is not imputed to them And the Prophet teacheth the same doctrine when he pronounceth The man blessed not who hath no sin but to whom the Lorde imputeth no sinne And the Papists must either recall their doctrine in this point or else cry fire and faggot for their chiefe maister Petrus Lombardus sur-named the Maister of sentences whose Booke to this day is publikely Read in the schoole of Diuinity for thus doth he write Secundum animas vero iam redempti sumus c. But touching our soules wee are redeemed in part not wholly from the sinne not from the paine neyther wholly from the sinne or fault For we are not so redeemed from it that it be not in vs but that it rule not ouer vs. Lo Maister Lombard that famous Writer graunteth first that we are redeemed in part but not in the whole Secondly that wee are not wholly redeemed from sinne Thirdly he telleth vs how we are redeemed from sin viz that albeit sin shall remain in vs yet hath it not such dominion ouer vs that it can enforce vs to consent therevnto Lo the greatest and best learned Papists teach the same doctrine that I do Sixtly Saint Austen affirmeth plainely that Originall Concupiscence is prohibited by this Precept Thou shalt not Lust and not onely the habituall concupiscence it selfe but also all the actuall involuntary motions thereof Thus doeth hee write as the Iesuire Bellarmine alleadgeth him These thinges saith Bellarmine are spoken after Saint Austens mind who by this precept Thou shalt not Lust vnderstandeth all the motions of concupiscence euen the involuntary to bee prohibited in some sort and that the consent to these motions forbidden by that other precept follow not thy concupiscence Thus writeth our Iesuiticall
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
Iustice. Thirdly seeing Good Workes cannot so merite heauen as ill workes merite hell Fourthly seeing the best merits are nothing else but the meere giftes of GOD I must needes conclude that Workes are not condignely meritorious of eternal life S. R. Bell citeth Theophilact because he sayth Saint Paule called eternall life Grace and not a Reward as though he had sayd It is not the reward of our labors But this is nothing against vs who willingly confesse erernall life to be grace and not to proceede of our owne labours done by our selues but done and wrought also by the grace of Christ. T. B. Our Iesuite is so pinched and nipped by my Authorities and reasons that he had rather say any thing then acknowledge the truth that I defend Here as we see hee is become a Semi-pelagian Heretique for he affirmeth eternall life to bee wrought and doone of our selues yet not wholly of our selues but partly also of the holy Ghost And after such a silly manner he is enforced to answer all the rest viz euer against himselfe S. R. True it is that Augles as a follower of Scotus seemeth to thinke that the condignity of Good Workes riseth not of any equality which is in them vnto glory but of Gods promise to reward them T. B. It is well that ye wil once seeme to graunt a truth The truth is this that both Iosephus Angles and your Cardinall Bellarmine do freely grant being ouercome with the force of trueth that Good workes can merite nothing but by reason of GODS promise freely made vnto men I haue prooued the Controuersie so euidently that our Iesuite doth nothing else but weary both himselfe and his Reader in writing most friuolously against the same I referre the Reader to The Downfall it selfe where hee shall find euery Argument and peece of reason soundly answered before our Iesuite had published the same And therefore for mee to vse any further reply therein were but Actum agere For doubtlesse whosoeuer shall duly all partiality set aside peruse The Downfall as it came from my penne and lay downe this Iesuites aunswere to it in euery place and compare them together he will I am fully perswaded freely confesse that no further reply is necessary in that behalfe The sixt Article of the destinction of mortall and veniall sinnes S. R. ALl his proofes may be reduced to this Syllogisme What is against Gods Law is mortal sin all sin is against Gods law Ergo all sinne is mortall Beholde Bell here absolutely concludeth all sinne to be mortal and after calleth our veniall sinnes cursed and deformed which argueth that he thinketh all sin to be indeed mortal notwithstanding Gods mercy The propositioÌ„ he supposeth the assumption he prooueth out of scripture fathers and schoolemen T. B. This controuersie consisteth wholy in this viz whether euery sin be of it own nature moâ—al or no. I hold the Affirmatiue our Iesuite the Negatiue And for all that hee freely granteth vnawares as you see that I haue prooued mine opinion and doctrin both out of the holy scripture and also out of the fathers and schoole-Doctors S. R. Christ saith Bell telleth vs that we must giue account for euery ydle word and S. Iohn saith that euery sinne is Anomia that is Transgression of the law Saint Ambrose also defineth sin in generall to be transgression of Gods law and S. Austen describeth it to be euery word deed or desire against Gods law Yea Bellarmine arffimeth euery sin to be against Gods law The Rhemists also confesse that euery sin is a swaruing from the Law Likewise Iosephus Angles and Durandus teach venial sins to be against the law To this argument Catholicks answer differeÌ„tly some by denial of the proposition others by denial of the assumption Some say that euery sin which is against the Law is not mortall but onely that which is perfectly against it Others say that veniall sinnes are not against the Law but besides the Law T. B. Heere is an answere aunswerelesse For first our Fryer graunteth that I haue prooued by the Scripture by Saint Ambrose by S. Austen by Bellarmine their famous Cardinall by the Rhemists their learned bretheren by Iosephus Angles their religious Fryer and reuerend Byshop and by Durandus their famous Schoole-Doctor that euery sin more and lesse is against the Law of God and consequently mortall of it owne nature Secondly our Fryer freely confesseth that this argument of mine doth so trouble the Papists that they cannot agree among themselues how to answere the same Some sayth he deny the proposition some deny the assumption other some say they cannot tell what and our Iesuite himselfe standes amazed whether it is better to yeeld to the truth or to face it out desperately and impudently with Legierdemain iugling falshood and deceitfull dealing S. R. Yet better it is to say that veniall sinnes are beside the Law then against the Lawe T. B. Our Iesuite being in perplexity like as Buridanus his Asse what to answere to my argument resolueth to take the best way as he supposeth for he thinketh as felons Traytors standing at the barre in their arraigment that it is the best to plead not guilty But I must tell him two things The one that to be beside the Law and against the Law is al one in effect For as our master Christ saith Hee that is not with him is against him and consequently if he do besides Christs commaundement hee doth against the same The other that Durandus and many Popish Schoole-Doctors confesse resolutely that euery sinne is against Gods law And Iosephus Angles affirmeth constantly that Dwrands opinion is now adaies the Doctrine of theyr Schooles Where I wish the Reader to note by the way the mutability of late start vp Romish Religion Read the Downefall where this point is set downe at large S. R. Therefore if Bell graunt indeede as he doth in words that by Gods mercy some sins are made veniall he must also confesse that by Gods mercy they are not against his charity and friendship T. B. I graunt that as all sinnes is mortall of their owne nature which I haue prooued copiously in The Downefall euen by the testimony of very famous Papists so are all sins veniall by Gods mercy for the merits of his sonne Iesus to the regenerate his elect children and consequently though all sins bee against Gods friendship who hateth and detesteth all sinne in their owne nature yet are all the sins of Gods elect reputed not onely as veniall but none at all in Christ Iesus they receiued into Gods fauour for Christs sake S. R. Bell prooueth out of Saint Ambrose that sin is defined the transgression of the law And out of S. Austen that it is diuine reason or the will of God commaunding the order of nature to be kept and forbidding it to bee broken But these Fathers define onely mortall sin T. B. Mark
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
the Fathers and my selfe with them doe willingly admit and greatly reuerence many vnwritten Tradâ—tions beeing consonant to the Holy Scriptures but neither as matters of Faith nor as partes of necessary doctrine but as thinges tending to order comelinesse in the worship of God and administration of his sacraments In this kind of Traditions I willingly agree with Saint Chrisostome Saint Basil S. Ambrose and other fathers Neither would I wish any to bee too curious in this kind of Traditions It is enough to heare of theÌ„ to whom the chiefe care of the church is committed that it is a Tradition of the Elders and so haue I answered enough to all friuolous obiections of our Iesuite especially if The Downefall be well marked The rest which I let passe is sufficiently confuted there Saint Chrisostoms meaning is plainely as I haue said Hence it may apeare because in the former part of this Obiection he will admit nothing without the scripture In thinges concerning faith and Doctrine euer vnder stande in the latter part of the Obiection he admitteth vnwritten Traditions and wil not haue vs too curious in receiuing them In thinge which are indifferent euer vnderstand S. R. Bell citeth Byshop Fisher because in one place hee calleth the Scripture the store-house of all truths necessarie to be knowne of Christians and in another sayeth that vvhen Heretiques contend with vs wee must defend our cause with other help theÌ„ by the holy scripture His meaning is that when we dispute with Heretiques we ought to haue other helpes beside scripture T. B. His meaning is as you say and I approue the same But why doth he require other helpe then the scripture seeing the scripture as he graunteth is the store-house of all necessary truths Shall I tell you You will not thanke me for my paines I haue set downe at large in my Booke of Motiues what this your holy Byshoppe hath written of Purgatory and Pardons I will now recount the argument onely referring the Reader to the place First Maister Fisher telleth vs that the Greeke church neuer bel eeued Purgatory Secondly that the Latine Church and Church of Rome did not beleeue the sayd Purgatory for many hundered of yeares after S. Peters death whose successor for al that the Pope boasteth himselfe to be Thirdly that this Purgatory was not beleeued of all the Latine Church at one and the same time but by litle little Where I wish the Reader to note by the way that Popery crept into the Church by little and little and not all at one time which is a point that galleth the papistes more then a little I weene Fourthly that Purgatory was beleeued in these latter dayes by speciall reuelation of the holy Ghost Fiftly that Pardons came not vp till Purgatory was found out for in Purgatory resteth the life of Pardons as which if ther be no Purgatory are not worth a straw Sixtly that Purgatory was a loug time vnknowne Seauenthly that Purgatory could not be found in the Scripture of a very long time Eightly that it was not wholly found out by the scriptures but partly by Reuelations And heere wee see that verified which our Iesuite out of Bellarmine telleth vs viz that the holy Scripture is but a partial rule of faith For if it be a totall rule of fayth the Pope as Maister Fisher affirmeth must both want his Purgatory and be bereaued of his pardons Ninthly that pardons were not heard of or knowne to the Primatiue Church Tenthly that then Pardons began when men began to feare the paines of Purgatory This is the summe of that worthy Doctrine which Byshop Fisher hath published to the world euen at that time when he defended the Pope and Popery after the best manner he could He that shall read his words in my Motiues at large cannot but detest the Pope and all popish faction Hence it is most apparant why the Byshop sayd that they must vse other helpes then the holy Scripture for the maintenance of their Religion for the Scripture is but a partiall rule of popish faith as wee haue heard alreadie S. R. Bell citeth S. Thomas that whatsoeuer Christ woulde haue vs to read of his doings and sayings he commanded the Apostles to write as with his own hands But this maketh nothing against vs both because S. Thomas saith not what Christ would haue vs beleeue but what hee would haue vs read and Traditions be such as Christ would haue vs beleeue though we read them not As also because S. Thomas speaketh not of all points of beleefe but onely of Christs sayings doings besides which the very sayings and dooinges of the Apostles recorded in their Acts and Epistles or testified by Tradition are to be beleeued T. B. I answere First that Popery is this day a most miserable Religion and woe vnto them that do beleeue and obey the same This is or may bee euident to euery one throughout this whole discourse Secondly that Aquinas auoucheth very plainely as I sayde in the Downefall that all things necessary to our saluation are contained in the Scriptures For in Christs deeds are contained his myracles his life his conuersation in his sayinges Semblably are contained his preaching his teaching his doctrine and consequently whatsoeuer is necessary for vs to know If then this be true as it is most true for the papists may not deny the doctrine of Aquinas that whatsoeuer Christ would haue vs to know of his myracles of his life of his conuersation of his preaching of his teaching of his doctrine the same is written in the Scriptures then doubtlesse none but such as will Cum ratione in sanires can deny all thinges necessary for our saluation to be contained in the holy scriptures Yea if our Iesuite will stand to his owne doctrine plainly auouched in this present Pamphlet this Controuersie is at an end for we agree therein These are his expresse words For surely the Prophets and Euangelists writing their Doctrine for our better remembrance would omit no one point which was necessary to bee actually knowne of euery one especially seeing they haue written many things which are not so necessary And this teacheth S. Austen when he sayth that those things are written which seemed sufficient for the saluation of the faithfull Thus writeth our Fryer Iesuite Out of whose words I note first that the Prophets and Apostles wrote their doctrine for our good Secondly that they left no point vnwritten which was necessary for vs to know Thirdly that he yeeldeth a reason why all thinges necessary are written viz because the Prophets Euangelists haue written many things which were not so necessary for vs to know Fourthly that S. Austen teacheth vs the same doctrin viz that all things necessary for our saluation are committed to writing and set downe in the Scripture yea the Iesuite affirmeth in another place out of the same Saint Austen that all things are plainly set downe
in the Scripture which concerne either faith or manners Fiftly that our Iesuite granteth al things to be written of Christs both sayings and doings which Christ would haue vs to read Marry hee addeth three worthy exceptions First that though all Christs sayings and dooings be written which Christ would haue vs to read yet not all which he would haue vs to beleeue As thogh forsooth Christ would haue vs beleeue something which we may not read What a fond saying is this Nay what a fond Religion is Popery All things necessary for vs are written saith our Iesuite and yet he telleth vs withall that we must beleeue things which are not written And consequently we must beleeue thinges which are necessarie for vs. Nay which is more that Articles of the Christian fayth are not necessary for vs. Loe Popery is a very strange Religion Secondly that we must beleeue Traditions which Christ would not haue vs to read and consequently that Christ would not haue vs to read our beliefe Lord haue mercy vpon vs and keepe vs from this doctrine Thirdly that we must beleeue many vnwritten Traditions of the Apostles which are neither contained in Christs sayings nor in his dooinges But the holy Ghost came downe from Heauen not to teach the Apostles new Reuelations saue those thinges onely which Christ had foretold them and which they did not perfectly vnderstand But the comforter the holy Ghost saith Christ whom the Father will send in my name he shall teach you all things and bring all thinges to your remembrance whatsoeuer I haue saide vnto you so is the Originall in Greeke Panta ha eipon humin But the Latine Vulgata editio to which the Pope hath tyed all Papists readeth thus Whatsoeuer I shall say vnto you And hence it is that they would establish their vnwritten Traditions But the truth is as we haue seene viz that Christ hath commanded his Apostles to writâ— all things both of his myracles and of his Doctrin which he would haue vs know and beleeue as also that Christs Apostles receiued no new Reuelations of the holy ghost but the perfect vnderstanding of those thinges which Christ afore had taught them and heere we may note by the way that Aquinas vnderstandeth Saint Iohns words These thinges are written aswell of Christes Doctrine as of his Myracles S. R. Bell citeth an Apocryphall sentence out of Esdras 3. 4. vnder the name of the wise man as if it were Salomons T. B. If our Iesuite were not at a Non plus he would neuer be so friuolously occupied I name the wise man of whome I spake euen Esdras as our Iesuite graunteth If our Fryer denie all men to bee wise Salomon only excepted then doubtles not onely himselfe is a foole as it well seemeth by his Writing but his Pope also for he is not Salomon and so all Papists must bee ruled by a Foole and beleeue that a foole cannot erre And in the end they shaâ—l haue a fooles Bable and a Foxe taile for their paines S. R. Bell citeth Victoria thus I am not certaine of it sayth Victoria though all Writers affirme it which is not contayned in the scripture But Vistoria meaneth of thinges spoken not by Tradition but by propable Opinion as the conception of our Lady without Originall sinne and such like or he meaneth of thinges neyther actually nor virtually contained in Scripture as Traditions bee according to our second conclusion T. B. If I should answere fully to all our Iesuites fonde sentences my reply would grow to a bigger booke then is the great Bible For our Iesuite thinketh himselfe a verie wise man though before hee would haue none wise but Salomon First our Fryer telleth vs that Victoria meaneth not of Traditions but of probable opinions yet secondly hee graunteth that hee cannot tell what Victoria meaneth But perhaps sayth hee he meaneth of thinges neyther actually nor virtually contained in scripture Loâ— heere Gentle Reader Popish Traditions be neyther virtually nor actually contained in the Scripture Ergo say I they are no points of Christian fayth And I prooue it by our Iesuites owne expresse words All points sayth our Fryer of Christian faith are virtually contained in scripture Thus I nowe frame an Argument against Popish vnwritten Traditions to which when our Iesuite shall aunswere soundly I will thinke him woorthy to bee Pope of Rome All pointes of Christian fayth are virtually contained in the Scripture but Popish vnwritten Traditions are not contained virtually in the Scripture Ergo Popish vnwritten Traditions are no pointes of Christian fayth The consequence is good and cannot bee denyed It is in the second figure and moode called Baroco The assumption is the Iesuites owne in the Page quoted in the Margent viz 329. The proposition also is the Iesuites in another place viz Page 290. and so I inferre this Golden and ineuitable Corollary viz that Popisâ— vnwritten Traditions are no pointes of Christian fayth Well therefore may they bee partes of Turcisme of Iudaisme of Atheisme but partes of Christianity they cannot be Apage Apage they smell of Infidelity S. R. Bell againe citeth Victoria who sayth That for Opinions we no way ought to depart from the rule of scriptures What is this to the purpose Let Bell prooue that wee eyther for Opinions or any thing else depart from Scripture T. B. Bell hath proued your departure from the holy scripture in many of his Bookes many yeares ago published to the view of the world yet to this day this is the first answer the last and al that euer came from your pens But to satisfie your itching eares a little I must put you in minde what lately you haue heard in this short reply First that the Greekes neuer beleeued your Popish Purgatorie as which cannot bee prooued out of the Scriptures Secondly that the Byshoppe of Rome to challenge power to depose Kings is against the holie Scripture Thirdly that to acknowledge sinnes Veniall of their owne Nature is to depart from the scripture Fourthly that to giue Pardons as the Pope doeth is to depart from the scripture Fiftly that to establish Workes of condigne merite is to depart from the Scripture And so in the rest as I haue both heere and else where prooued at large For the Reading of Holy Scripture and the facilitie thereof touching thinges necessary for saluation our Iesuite bestirreth himselfe more then a little but the bare pervse of the Downefall will bee a sufficient reply to the same Once let vs heare him in this point S. R. The first point is not against vs who graunt that in Reading the Scripture wee may find all things necessary T. B. You told vs euen now Good Sir Fryer that your popish vnwritten Traditions are neyther actually nor virtually contained in the Scripture Ergo by your Doctrine now deliuered they are not necessarie Beholde heere Gentle Reader howe vncertaine Popish Doctrine is and into what
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
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
imperfect Out of this discourse of this holy and learned Father I obserue these worthy documents First that all men euen the best liuers vpon earth haue committed not a few but many sins Secondly that wee neuer read of any man who neuer had done any sin Thirdly that it is not possible for any man to lead his life without sin Fourthly that no man can be saued by his free will holy life but by the mercy of God Fiftly that no man fulfilleth the Law nor keepeth the Commaundements contained therein This is a point of great consequence it would be remembred Sixtly that though all men bee Sinners in respect of themselues yet are the faithfull iust in respect of Gods mercy who imputeth not their sins vnto them Seuenthly that man is thē iustified when he acknowledgeth himselfe to be a Sinner and then perfect when he acknowledgeth his own imperfection This is a most excellent and golden Lesson For here we see how Sinners are iust and perfect in Gods sight Marke well gentle Reader None saith Saint Hierom can fulfill the law none can keepe the Commaundementes none can liue without sinne and yet the greater Sinner the more iust man if hee with the lowly Publican doe humbly confesse his sinnes For as Saint Hierome telleth vs to acknovvledge our imperfection is our perfection before GOD and to confesse our selues sinners is our iustification before him in Christ Iesus Away then with all Popish inherent iustification away with al Popish falsly supposed satisfaction away with all Popish Condigne merits away with all Popish supererogations S. R. Saint Iohn saith This is the loue of GOD that we keepe his Commaundements and his Commaundements are not heauy He saith not Christ but We must keep Gods Commandements and to animate vs thereto he addeth that they are not heauy Viz to vs. T. B. This is answered already where I prooued out of Saint Austen that all the Commaundements are then reputed done when whatsoeuer is not done is Of mercy forgiuen Neuerthelesse it shall not be amisse to adde Saint Hieroms censure to the latter member for explication sake These are his wordes Vis audire facilitatem preceptorum dei Ausculta quod dicitur quam arcta via Angusta est quae ducit ad vitam pauci sunt qui inveniunt eam Non dixit quigradiuntur per eam hoc n. difficillimum est sed qui inveniunt eam Pauci n. inveniunt multò pauciores ingrediuntur per eam Sequitur hac dico iterum iterumque ac per singulaingeram vt erubescas ad sententiam tuam facilia esse dei mandata Wilt thou heare how easie Gods Commandements are Hearken what is saide Strait and narrowe is the way which leadeth vnto life and few they are that finde it He said not which go by it for that is a very hard thing but which find it for few doe finde it and farre fewer enter in by it These things I say and will vrge them againe and againe seuerally that thou maist bee ashamed to say that Gods commaundements are easie Thus writeth this holy and most learned Father Out of whose doctrine I note thus much First that the way to heauen that is to say Gods commaundements is very straight and narrow not wide and long or casie Secondly that it is so straight and so narrow that few find it and fewer enter in by it Thirdly that this way of Gods commandements is so very hard that in S. Hieroms opinion and iudgement he may be ashamed that saith it is easie Our Iesuite therfore may be ashamed of his Doctrine and twice ashamed to make S. Hierom a Patron of the same S. R. If Bell say that it is impossible to loue God as wee ought to doe this is reproued because hee loueth God as he should do who loueth him With all his heart all his soule and all his power But Iosue so loued God of whom it is written that hee returned in all his heart in all his soule and all his strength Likewise Dauid sought God in all his heart and followed him in all his hart And God hath some seruants that walk before him in all their hart with whom he keepeth his couenant and mercy and God promiseth to circumcise the Iewes harts that they might loue him in al their hearts and all their soule T. B. Bell saith so and that truely and is already proued in this discourse and more at lage in the Downfall Now to your particulars King Iosias whom our Iesuite falsly nameth Iosue returned to God in al his hart al his soul and al his strength Which is nothing else indeede but that hereturned to God with a sincere heart and vnfainedly not Hypocritically Not that he was pure and free from sin no part of his hart or soul defiled with corruption which our Iesuite might haue perceiued to be implyed in the word Returne For from what did he returne saue only from sinne If he had euer beene with God in all his heart all his soule and all his strength then doubtlesse could he not haue returned to him For hee that is euer with one cannot be truly saide to returne to him But the scripture decideth the Controuersie when it telleth vs that Iosias hearkened not vnto the wordes of Mecho king of Aegipt which were of the mouth of God but came to fight in the valley of Megiddo where hee was slaine for his paines K. Dauid likewise saith our Iesuite sought God in all his hart which must needs be vnderstood as I said of K. Iosias For he was both an adulterer a murderer thogh also the child of God This is already proued plainly cōfirmeth the doctrin which I defend The same may be saide of king Ezechias who was a great sinner and yet is saide to haue serued God with all his heart and to haue kept his commaundements The same answere serueth to the rest that God hath those that wil serue him with their whole heart that is vnfainedly and chearefully For as wee haue heard already out of the scriptures None liuing is without sinne Againe The faithfull are saide to keepe Gods Commandements and to serue him with all their heart Because to such as serue God vnfainedly and chearefully whatsoeuer is left vndone is of mercy pardoned and forgiuen It is the flat doctrine both of S. Austen and of S. Hierom as I haue already proued And heere I may not forget to put our Iesuite in mind that concerning the circumcising of the Iewish hearts it may please him to read the verses following for there shall he find his sillie obiection fully answered euen in the text it selfe These are the words Return thou therefore and obey the voyce of the Lord and doe all his Commaundements which I commaund thee this day Loe the Iewes whose hearts God promiseth to