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
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
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
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
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
the Fathers and my selfe with them doe willingly admit and greatly reuerence many vnwritten Tradâ—tions beeing consonant to the Holy Scriptures but neither as matters of Faith nor as partes of necessary doctrine but as thinges tending to order comelinesse in the worship of God and administration of his sacraments In this kind of Traditions I willingly agree with Saint Chrisostome Saint Basil S. Ambrose and other fathers Neither would I wish any to bee too curious in this kind of Traditions It is enough to heare of theÌ„ to whom the chiefe care of the church is committed that it is a Tradition of the Elders and so haue I answered enough to all friuolous obiections of our Iesuite especially if The Downefall be well marked The rest which I let passe is sufficiently confuted there Saint Chrisostoms meaning is plainely as I haue said Hence it may apeare because in the former part of this Obiection he will admit nothing without the scripture In thinges concerning faith and Doctrine euer vnder stande in the latter part of the Obiection he admitteth vnwritten Traditions and wil not haue vs too curious in receiuing them In thinge which are indifferent euer vnderstand S. R. Bell citeth Byshop Fisher because in one place hee calleth the Scripture the store-house of all truths necessarie to be knowne of Christians and in another sayeth that vvhen Heretiques contend with vs wee must defend our cause with other help theÌ„ by the holy scripture His meaning is that when we dispute with Heretiques we ought to haue other helpes beside scripture T. B. His meaning is as you say and I approue the same But why doth he require other helpe then the scripture seeing the scripture as he graunteth is the store-house of all necessary truths Shall I tell you You will not thanke me for my paines I haue set downe at large in my Booke of Motiues what this your holy Byshoppe hath written of Purgatory and Pardons I will now recount the argument onely referring the Reader to the place First Maister Fisher telleth vs that the Greeke church neuer bel eeued Purgatory Secondly that the Latine Church and Church of Rome did not beleeue the sayd Purgatory for many hundered of yeares after S. Peters death whose successor for al that the Pope boasteth himselfe to be Thirdly that this Purgatory was not beleeued of all the Latine Church at one and the same time but by litle little Where I wish the Reader to note by the way that Popery crept into the Church by little and little and not all at one time which is a point that galleth the papistes more then a little I weene Fourthly that Purgatory was beleeued in these latter dayes by speciall reuelation of the holy Ghost Fiftly that Pardons came not vp till Purgatory was found out for in Purgatory resteth the life of Pardons as which if ther be no Purgatory are not worth a straw Sixtly that Purgatory was a loug time vnknowne Seauenthly that Purgatory could not be found in the Scripture of a very long time Eightly that it was not wholly found out by the scriptures but partly by Reuelations And heere wee see that verified which our Iesuite out of Bellarmine telleth vs viz that the holy Scripture is but a partial rule of faith For if it be a totall rule of fayth the Pope as Maister Fisher affirmeth must both want his Purgatory and be bereaued of his pardons Ninthly that pardons were not heard of or knowne to the Primatiue Church Tenthly that then Pardons began when men began to feare the paines of Purgatory This is the summe of that worthy Doctrine which Byshop Fisher hath published to the world euen at that time when he defended the Pope and Popery after the best manner he could He that shall read his words in my Motiues at large cannot but detest the Pope and all popish faction Hence it is most apparant why the Byshop sayd that they must vse other helpes then the holy Scripture for the maintenance of their Religion for the Scripture is but a partiall rule of popish faith as wee haue heard alreadie S. R. Bell citeth S. Thomas that whatsoeuer Christ woulde haue vs to read of his doings and sayings he commanded the Apostles to write as with his own hands But this maketh nothing against vs both because S. Thomas saith not what Christ would haue vs beleeue but what hee would haue vs read and Traditions be such as Christ would haue vs beleeue though we read them not As also because S. Thomas speaketh not of all points of beleefe but onely of Christs sayings doings besides which the very sayings and dooinges of the Apostles recorded in their Acts and Epistles or testified by Tradition are to be beleeued T. B. I answere First that Popery is this day a most miserable Religion and woe vnto them that do beleeue and obey the same This is or may bee euident to euery one throughout this whole discourse Secondly that Aquinas auoucheth very plainely as I sayde in the Downefall that all things necessary to our saluation are contained in the Scriptures For in Christs deeds are contained his myracles his life his conuersation in his sayinges Semblably are contained his preaching his teaching his doctrine and consequently whatsoeuer is necessary for vs to know If then this be true as it is most true for the papists may not deny the doctrine of Aquinas that whatsoeuer Christ would haue vs to know of his myracles of his life of his conuersation of his preaching of his teaching of his doctrine the same is written in the Scriptures then doubtlesse none but such as will Cum ratione in sanires can deny all thinges necessary for our saluation to be contained in the holy scriptures Yea if our Iesuite will stand to his owne doctrine plainly auouched in this present Pamphlet this Controuersie is at an end for we agree therein These are his expresse words For surely the Prophets and Euangelists writing their Doctrine for our better remembrance would omit no one point which was necessary to bee actually knowne of euery one especially seeing they haue written many things which are not so necessary And this teacheth S. Austen when he sayth that those things are written which seemed sufficient for the saluation of the faithfull Thus writeth our Fryer Iesuite Out of whose words I note first that the Prophets and Apostles wrote their doctrine for our good Secondly that they left no point vnwritten which was necessary for vs to know Thirdly that he yeeldeth a reason why all thinges necessary are written viz because the Prophets Euangelists haue written many things which were not so necessary for vs to know Fourthly that S. Austen teacheth vs the same doctrin viz that all things necessary for our saluation are committed to writing and set downe in the Scripture yea the Iesuite affirmeth in another place out of the same Saint Austen that all things are plainly set downe
the 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
another place thus If thou O Lorde straightly markest iniquities O Lorde who shall abide it But with thee is mercie that thou mayest be feared Againe in another place thus Enter not into iudgement with thy seruant for in thy sight shall none that liueth be iustified So then as wee haue in one Psalme that Dauid did keepe Gods commaundements so haue wee in many other Texts of holy writ both in the Psalmes and else where that neither himselfe nor any liuing can perfectly keep the same What must we now do One scripture is not contrary to another The spirite of God speaking in Dauid saith in one place That he kept Gods Lawe in another place he saith That neither hee nor any other can keepe his Commaundements How stand these two together This is the resolution and true sence of holy writ Dauid as euery childe of God in like maner is truely saide to keepe Gods Commaundements when he hath an inward feruent desire to do the will of God and chearefully applyeth his heart and all his affections to that end so farre foorth as standeth with mans infirmity and the state in which we liue although he be a greeuons sinner indeed and Trangresse Gods law many waies This I prooue to be so by many arguments first because the sinnes of the faithful are not imputed to them for the merits of Christ Iesus Therefore saith the Apostle Being iustified by faith we are at peace with God through our Lord Iesus Christ. Again thus Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiuen and whose sinnes are couered Blessed is the man to whom the Lorde will not impute sin By these places it is cleare that Gods children are said to keepe his Commandements not because they keepe them exactly and perfectly but for that the want and defect is not imputed to them This is it that S. Austen saith in these golden words Omnia ergo mandata facta deputantur quando quicquid non sit ignoscitur All the Commandements are then reputed as done when whatsoeuer is not done Is of mercy forgiuen Again the same S. Austen in another place hath these words Beatus vir cui nō imputauit dominus peccatū Hoc prestant viae domini ac per hoc quoniā ex fide iustus viuit ab ista via domini illa alienat miquitas quae est infidelit as In hac antē via domini id est in fide pia quisquis ambulat aut peccatum non operatur aut si quid à deuiante committitur propter viam non imputatur tanquam non fuerit operatus accipitur Blessed is the man to whome the Lord hath not imputed sinne This the wayes of our Lord performe and by reason heereof because the iust man liueth by faith that iniquity estraungeth from this way which is infidelity For in this way of the Lord that is in a godly faith whosoeuer walketh he either sinneth not or if any thing be done amisse it is not imputed by reason of the way and is so taken as if he had not done it Thus writeth this holy father vppon that very Psalme out of which our Iesuite hath borrowed certaine Textes which as S. Austen sheweth plainely are altogether applyed contrary to the Prophets meaning and to the truth of the matter in hād For therfore as we see by S. Austens Testimony is not only the Prophet Dauid but also al the children of God thoght to keep Gods commandements because they aplying thēselues chearfully with hart voyce and all their power to keepe them the defect and want is not imputed to them Briefely by Gods grace not of our selues we keep his Commandements though not in such perfection as his Iustice requireth yet in such measure as he of his mercy in Christ accepteth Secondly because the sonne of God hath truly appeased the wrath of God by once offering vppon the Altar of the Crosse a perfect sufficient and absolute satisfaction for the sinnes of all the faithfull and elect people of God and as a Creditor hauing receiued the iust and full paiment of that which was due vnto him though by the hands of another yet in behalfe of him who was the debtor cannot with Iustice require the same at the Debtors hands no more can GOD almighty who is not onely iust but iustice it selfe in the abstract iustly require satissaction of his elect for their sinnes for whose transgressions he hath receiued a most perfect absolute and consummate satisfaction and attonement for euer at the handes of his deare Sonne In whom he is euer well pleased This is it that one of the Elders said to Saint Iohn These are they which came out of great tribulation and haue vvashed their long Robes and made them white in the bloud of the Lamb. Thirdly to acknowledge our sinnes and to confesse our selues to bee grieuous Sinners and not to trust in our owne righteousnesse which is none at all indeed but in the righteousnesse of Iesus Christ who as the Apostle teacheth vs Is our Wisedome our Righteousnesse our Sanctification and our Redemption is in the scripture to be righteous to keep Gods commandements Therfore saith S. Iohn That if we say we haue no sinne we deceiue our selues and the truth is not in vs. But if we knowledge our sinnes he is faithfull and iust to forgiue vs our sins and to cleanse vs from all vnrighteousnesse Loe to confesse our sinnes and to acknowledge our selues to be Sinners is to be righteous in Gods sight and to keepe his Commaundementes This Saint Hierome confirmeth in these Golden wordes Tunc ergo iusti sumus quando nos peccatores fatemur iustitia nostra non ex proprio merito sed ex dei consistit misericordia Then therefore are wee iust when wee confesse our selues Sinners and our righteousnesse consisteth not in our owne merite but in Gods mercy Thus writeth this holy and learned Father shewing most euidently to all that haue eyes to see it that we may both be breakers and Keepers of Gods Commaundementes at once both Sinners and Righteous at one and the same time though not in one the same respect Sinners in respect of our selues and our corrupt Nature Righteous in the sight and iudgment of God who of his great mercy pardoneth all penitent Sinners and for Christs merits doth not impute their sins vnto them S. R. I omit Moyses Aaron Samuell Dauid Iosue Zacharie Elizabeth and the Apostles who are said to haue kept Gods Law and some of them in all their hart only Saint Paule I cannot omit because Bell graunteth that he was most free and innocent from Actuall sin therefore surely he kept Gods Law perfectly T. B. I answere First 〈◊〉 all these holy men were in their life time sinners and Transgressors of Gods holy Lawes which I could easily prooue by many Texes of holy Writ if I deemed it needfull so to doe this onely shall suffice