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
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
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 Jesuites Antepast CONTEINING A Reply against a pretensed aun swere to the DOWNE-FALL OF POPERIE lately published by a masked Iesuite Robert Parsons by name though he hide himselfe couertly vnder the letters of S. R. which may fitly be interpreted A SAWCY REBELL Esay 38 verse 1. Put thine house in order for thou shalt die and not liue AT LONDON Printed by William Iaggard dwelling in Barbican 1608. To the Right Honorable my very good Lord Thomas Earle of Dorset Lord high Treasurer of England and one of his Maiesties most Honourable priuy Counsell â‚ IT is a constant and vndoubted truth approoued by all Canonicall Scriptures ancient Councels holy Fathers Ecclesiasticall Histories and Right reason it selfe that as there is but one onely GOD so but one Faith and one Religion Hence commeth it Right Honorable that the Pope and his Iesuites with other his Popish Vassals employ their whole wits learning study care industry and diligence to instill into the cares and harts of the multitude and common people that the Religion which this day they professe is the old Roman Religion which Saint Peter and S. Paule first planted in the Church of Rome And for this end they indeauâ—ur with might and maine yea euen with fire and Fagot to perswade or rather to enforce all Christians to call it the Old Religion and to professe and beleeue it to bee the Catholique and Apostolique Faith whereas the truth is farre otherwise as God willing shortly will appeare Which if the Vulgar sort did once vnderstand they would no doubt stand at defiance with the Pope and from their hearts detest his late start-vppe Romish Doctrine There is a Sect of Fryers at Rome called the Franciscanes who haue by little and little swarued from their first institution and become so licentious and dissolute that another sort of Fryers commonly called the Capucheues haue accused them to haue departed from their Ancient and Primitiue order and therefore do the Capucheues tearme themselues the reformed and true Franciscanes indeede This is this day our case in the Church of Noble England and in many other Churches within the Christian World The Capucheues hold fast keep still and constanty defend all the Ancient Orders of the first Franciscanes they onely reiect and abandon that which by litle and little crept into their Order viz superstition abuses and neglect of Discipline Euen so is it this day with our Church of England she holdeth-fast keepeth still and constantly defendeth all and euery iote of the old Romane Religion reuerencing it as Catholique and Apopostolique Doctrine she onely reiecteth and abandoneth Heresies Errours superstition and intollerable abuses by little and little brought into the Church For neither did most Noble Queene Elizabeth in her time neyther doth our most gratious Soueraigne King IAMES who this day most happily raigneth ouer vs set vp or bring into the Church any new Religion but onely reformeth the Church by the example of King Iosaphat King Ezechias King Iosias and other godly Kinges in their dayes and reduceth it to the Primitiue order and purity of the old Romaine Religion This to be so none can in conscience deny that will with a single and vpright eye this day behold the godly setled Canons of this Church of England For the late Bishops of Rome haue in many points of great importance swarued and departed from the Doctrine of their Ancestors whereof no doubt many Papists euen at about Rome it selfe would this day if they durst for fear of fire and Fagot accuse the Pope himself What shall I say of Hieronymus Sauonarola that famous Preacher and Dominican Fryer Was not be burnt with Fire and Fagot because he preached openly in the famous Citty of Florence against the licencious liues of the Pope and his Clergy and against superstition and abuses crept into the Church I wote it was so it cannot be denyed What Did not Iohannes Geilerius a famous Popish Preacher at Argentorate oftentimes complain to his trusty friends not daring to acquaint otheres therewith that the Thomists and Scotists had brought auricular confession to such a miserable point as none possibly could performe the same He did so their owne good friend Beatus Rhenanus doth contest the same with me What Did not Franciscus à Victoria that â—amous Popish Schoole-doctor complaine grieuously in his time of Popish intollerable dispensations Did he not publish to the view of the world that the Church was brought to such a miserable state as none were able to endure the same Did hee not cry out against the late Bishops of Rome and desire Clements Lines Siluesters His own Book is extant in print the world knoweth it to be so What shall I say of the Popes errors in Faith and Doctrine Was not Pope Liberius an Arrian Heretike Was not Pope Anastasius a Silestorian Hereretique Was not Pope Celestine condemned for erronious doctrin did not Pope Iohn the 22. of that name teach publikely a most notorious heresie Did he not commaund the vniuersity of Paris that none should be admitted to any degree in Theologie but such as would sweare to defend that heresie perpetually Did not the King of France with the aduise consent of the whole vniuersity for that end cause his daÌ„nable opinion to be coÌ„demned with the sound of Trumpets Adrianus who was B of Rome himselfe Alphonsus à Castro Melchior Canus and Viguerius all foure being very learned and famous Papists are constant witnesses of this truth Doth not Nicholaus de Lyra a famous and learned Popish Writer boldly and constantly affirme in his learned Commentaries that many Popes haue swarued from the Faith and become flâ—t Apostaâ—aes in their Romish seates He doth so it cannot bee gaine-said What shall I say of the Popes liues conuersation Was not Pope Iohn the eight of that name belying her sexe and clad in Mans attire with great admiration of her sharpe wit and singuler learning chosen to bee the Bishop or Pope of Rome Did she not shortly after by the familiar helpe of her beloued Companion bring forth the homely and shamefull fruites of her Popedome Is this true Is it possible Then farewell Popish Succession the chiefe Bulwarke of Romish Faith and Religion For seeing no Woman is or can be made capable of holy orders that succession which is deryued froÌ„ our holy Mistris Iohn Pope cannot possibly be of force Yet is this story confirmed to be true by the vniforme assent of many Papistes of great esteeme euen in the Church of Rome viz of Sigebertus Gemblacensis Marianus Scotus Matheus Palmerius Martinus Polonus Philippus Bergoniensis Baptista Platina Bartholomeus Carranza and others Was not Pope Iohn the twelft made Pope by violent meanes Did not his Father Albericus being a man of great power and might enforce the Nobles to take an oth that after the death of Pope Agapitus they would promote his Son
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 bin done You papists haue submitted your selues to be the Popes and the King of Spaines subiects as Story alledged for himselfe at his arraignment and consequently by Popish Diuinity you may take vp armes against king Iames our most gracious Soueraigne and bee no Traytors in so doing For as you write with your pennes so doe you beleeue in your harts and practise in your liues Your late Treason of Gunne-powder to say nothing of all the rest makes it euident to the world God saue our Noble King Iames deliuer him from your bloudy hands for though you speake well of him with your tongue yet do yee wish in your harts to do him the greatest wrong S. R. THat Emperours haue acknowledged the Popes superiority Bell himselfe confesseth where hee saith that some Christian Kings and Emperours haue vpon a blinde zealâ—e humbled themselues to the Pope yea which is more haue yeelded vp their soueraigne rightes vnto him And shal not the Pope bee Superiour vnto them vvho haue humbled themselues and yeelded their Soueraigntie to him T. B. This is my reply First that one may yeeld vp some part of his Soueraignty to another and for all that remaine still continue that others Superior The case is cleere it needeth no proofe If the Iesuite will not yeeld to this he must perforce yeeld to that which will confound both him and the Pope viz that the pope is superior to the Emperor euen in Temporalibus The reason is euident because the Pope challengeth the Temporall soueraigne right of Italy and the free donation of the Emperor Secondly if euery one that humbleth himselfe to another becommeth by and by that others inferiour then doubtles the priest that is confessary to the Pope becommeth the popes superiour For to answere that the Pope doth not humble himselfe to his ghostly father is not onely absurd but flat against the Popes religion And yet our Iesuite disputeth thus Catholiques argue that Kinges and Emperors haue acknowledged Popes their superiors This Bell graunteth in confessing their humiliation to Popes which is neuer done but to superiors Alas alas I pittie the Iesuites folly For first in Popery euery king humbleth himselfe to a silly priest Ergo the priest is the kings superiour Againe euerie papist humbleth himselfe to Images dead bones and especially to the wood of the crosse yea sometimes to the bones of an Heretique as I haue proued in the Article of traditions Ergo Images dead bones wood c. are superiors to the Papists Thirdly the Papists are commanded to humble themselues to that which the Priest holdeth ouer his head at Masse which by their Doctrine if it lacke consecration as it may many waies fall out is but a bare piece of bread Ergo a piece of Bakers bread is their superior Fourthly Pope Siluester the second sometime a Monke a Frenchman borne Gilbertus by name humbled himselfe to the deuill yeelded homage to him so long as the deuill accomplished his desire This story is set downe at large in my Suruey of Poperie Now that the deuill of hell was and is his superior both to this Pope and to many others I admit your argument with all applause Fiftly kings do often humble themselues to their subiects Ergo their subiects are their superiors Sixtly the Emperor humbleth himselfe many times euen vnto those that owe duety to him Ergo his inferiors become his superiors Lastly Absalom when any man came neere vnto him and did him obeysance put forth his hand and tooke him and kissed him and on this manner did Absalom to al Israel that came to the King for Iudgement Ergo euerie man in Israel was Absaloms superiour But the contrarie is the truth and our Iesuite a most notorious lyar CHAP. 5. ¶ Conteyning the confutation of the seuenth Chapter of S. R. that masked Iesuite S. R. VIctoria saith that the glossers of the Lavve haue giuen this Dominion to the Pope they being poore in substance and learning Here insteede of proofes I find an vntruth For neyther doth Victoria in these wordes speake of many things but onely of Dominion meaning Temporall ouer the whole world neyther yet doeth hee call it absurd T. B. I answere first that I cited Victorias words truely after my wonted manner neuer adding or changing one word in my Author Secondly that I added these wordes and these Lordly Titles not in the Latine but in the English not simplie but with a parenthesis that the Reader might know I did it for explication sake which thing is vsuall not onely to our Iesuite but to all other writers Thirdly Victoria as I haue expresly shewed elsewhere speaketh of many Lordly titles ascribed to the Pope But our Iesuite granteth enough viz the dominion ouer the whole world and all power both Ecclesiasticall and temporall on earth For if the Pope haue all Kings can haue none Fourthly maister Gerson a man of high esteeme in the Popish church saith plainly as our Iesuite granteth and I affirme that all power both in heauen on earth which Christ himselfe had is giuen to the Pope What needes more This is flat blasphemy against the sonne of God Fiftly our Iesuite denyeth in one page that which hee granteth in another concerning the Popes power The sound of the Bell maketh him forget himselfe Chapter 6. ¶ Containing the confutation of the 8. and 9. chapters of the Iesuite S. R. touching eight steps of the Popes ladder S. R. COnstantine saith Bell at his departure did as the popes Parasites tell vs giue large guifts to the Pope euen his whole power dominion and territories both in Rome Italy and all the West Behold a man hauing a Wolfe by the care which he dare neyther hold nor yet let go For if he graunt that Constantine gaue the Pope his whole power and dominion ouer Rome Italy and all the West he must needes grant that the Pope of right hath Imperiall power ouer all the west if he deny it he sheweth not how Constantines departure was a step for the Pope to climbe to higher authority T. B. If Robert Parsons that Trayterous Iesuite who dareth not tell his name but hydeth it vnder S. R. be a wolfe indeed as I suppose he is then doubtlesse I haue him by the eares legges nose and all and so fast bound with linkes and chaines of yron as the Pope and all his Iesuited Vassals are neuer able to deliuer him out of my handes For albeit Constantine that most Noble Emperor gaue not the Pope his whole power and Dominion ouer Rome Italy and all the West nor any part thereof yet doth it follow consequently that his departure from Rome to Constantinople was the first step to Popish falsly supposed Primacie The reason is euident because the Emperor being farre off at Constantinople in the East the false pretended donation froÌ„ Constantine was holden beleeued for a trueth The multitude in the western
for a meer vndoubted truth It followeth therefore by a necessary consecution that the quantity of Christs body to be in the Popish Masse is an article of popish faith S. R. Let vs see therefore how Bell disproueth it Forsooth because it implyeth contradiction for a greater body as Christs is to be contained in a lesser as in a Cake Behold the foundation of Bels faith We bring Christs expresse wordes that what he gaue to his Apostles at his last supper was his body giuen and his bloud shed for remission of sinnes T. B. Our Iesuite flyeth quite from my argument because it striketh him dead and laboureth to proue that Christes body is in the Sacrament But all in vaine For first that is not now in question Againe he is to answere me and not to wander about impertinent matters Thirdly I haue answered all that he obiecteth here as also all that can be obiected on their behalfe in my Suruey of Popery many yeares ago to which no Papist durst euer frame an answer vnto this day Fourthly I willingly grant the holy bread in the blessed Eucharist to be Christes body and the holy wine to be his bloud yet not really and substantially as the Papists hold but mystically and sacramentally according to the truth of Gods word And I retort the Iesuites reason out of Christes wordes against himselfe For if Christ had not meant that his body was then giuen sacramentally and not really he would haue said which shall be giuen not which is giuen in the Present tense I proue it because if Christs body had then beene giuen really and his bloud then shed really for the sinnes of the world no other Sacrifice attonement satisfaction or reconciliation had beene needfull on our behalfe which how absurd it is euery childe can discerne Christs meaning therfore is this This is my body sacramentally Or this is the sacrament of my body and bloud but not This is my naturall body and my reall bloud He that desireth the profe hereof at large I refer him to my Suruey of Popery S. R. But to come to Bels reason How proueth he it to bee contradiction for a greater bodie to bee contayned in a lesse T. B. Heere our Iesuite bestirreth himselfe to proue if it wold be that Christs body is not both contained and not contained in their Sacrament but all in vaine For his proofes if they were true as they be falfe would onely conclude this and nothing else viz. that God is able to do it S. R. For albeit it be contradiction for a greater body occupying a place proportionate to it greatnes to be conteyned in a lesse for so it should both be contained and not contained in the lesse yet no contradiction at all it is for a greater body retayning it greatnes to be so coarcted by Gods omnipotency that it fill a place farre lesse then is naturally due or proportionate to it greatnes For in this case it followeth not that it should both be contained not contained in the lesser bodie as in the former case but contained onely And thus we say hath Christ disposed of his bodie in the Sacrament Wee proue it by manie waies T. B. I aunswere with all subiection and due reuerence vnto Gods omnipotent power that God cannot doe any thing which eyther implyeth contradiction in it selfe or imperfection in God Not because there is any defect in GOD himselfe God forbid wee should so thinke but because there is defect in the thing that should so be done By reason of the former God cannot make a dead man remayning dead to be liuing albeit he can raise a dead man to life againe So neyther can God make a blinde man remaining blinde to see nor a deafe man remaining deafe to heare nor a dumbe man remaining dumbe to speake albeit he can restore seeing to the blinde hearing to the deafe and speech to the dumbe By reason of the latter God can neyther make another God nor any creature equall to himselfe nor commit any sinne nor faile in his promise nor repent of any thing that he hath done Now to coarct a great body so retaining it greatnes still that it may be conteined in a lesse body implyeth flat contradiction not for the reason which our Iesuite bringeth but because it is against the intrinsecall reason and the very Essence of quantity which is to haue partē extra partem one part without another And consequently our Iesuits supposed coarctation implyeth flat contradiction For it is impossible to conceiue or vnderstand how a body eight cubits long and eight cubits broad remaining so long so broad hauing euery part without other to be contayned of another body being but seuen cubits long and seuen cubits broad It implyeth as flat contradiction as to make a deafe man remaining deafe to heare It is therefore impossible to all power both create and vncreate to make Christs body to be contained in a little round cake in the Popish Masse S. R. First because Christs body in his natiuity opened not his Virgin-mothers wombe Ergo then it occupyed not a roome naturally proportionate to the greatnesse The consequence is euident and the antecedent is proued by many fathers T. B. I deny both the consequence and the antecedent The consequence because if it were as the Iesuite supposeth which I deny yet should Christes body haue occupied a roome naturally proportionate to the greatnes thereof And our Iesuite denying it vnawares affirmeth all Children to be vnnaturally in their mothers wombes The antecedent because Christ opened his mothers wombe as other children do For first Christ was presented to the Lord according to the Law as the Holy-ghost dooth record yet the Lawe required such presentation onely of them which opened their mother wombe Secondly Christ was made like vnto his Brethren in all things sin onely excepted Thirdly the auncient Fathers Tertullian Origen Ambrose and Hierome are of the same opinion Their expresse words are set downe at large in my Suruey of Popery And it will not serue the turne to say as some do that though Christ was borne of a Virgin yet should she haue bene corrupted no Virgin if her wombe had beene opened in the byrth of Christ. For first not onely holy writ but the auncient Fathers also and other learned Deuines are to be heard before all Physitions in the misteries of our faith Secondly Fernetius maketh nothing for the Papistes as who speaketh only of the dilatation of the Matrice that after the naturall and ordinary course Thirdly albeit it be most true as all holy Writers with vniforme assent do contest that Christs holy Mother the blessed Virgin Mary was euer a pure Virgin before his birth in his birth and after his birth yet it is likewise true that her wombe was opened in his byrth as is already proued For as their owne Angellicall D. sayth whose Doctrine sundry Popes one after another haue confirmed Virginity is
I say our Iesuite remaine aliue and be not killed I will subscribe to this his doctrine And yet is it cleere that in this case his body bloud shold be put apart where they were not before But our Iesuite seemeth to ayme at a farther mark What is that at the creating of Christs body and bloud Is it so indeed Is it possible so to thinke It is very so For these are his words as you heare else God should kill a man if hee created a Soule and body apart Well now I remember an old said saw which doubtles is as foolish as it is old that the priest in the popish masse can create his God God so blesse me and all good Christians that we neuer harken to such Theology CHAP. 4. Containing the confutation of the lesuites fourth Chapter of the second Article IN this fourth Chapter our Iesuite rehearseth sundry absurdities which are found in the Popish Masse But the more hee busieth himselfe to discharge their Masse thereof the more the same absurdities do increase Let vs take a tast of one for all Bell saith he inferreth that either Christs Sacrifice was vnperfect in his last Supper or else that it was needles in his bitter passion on the crosse To which he answereth that neyther of both dooth follow For saith he Christs Sacrifice at his Supper was a most perfect vnbloudy Sacrifice and yet his Sacrifice on the Crosse was needfull as the peculiar price which GOD exacted at his handes for the redemption of the World Loe he granteth freely that Christs Sacrifice at his Supper was most perfect and yet the heathen Philosopher can tell him that Perfecto nihil addi potest To that which is perfect nothing can bee added This notwithstanding he affirmeth these three things First that the Sacrifice on the Crosse was needfull Secondly that it was the peculier price which GOD exacted Thirdly that it was for the redemption of the world Which three points being as truely marked and remembred as they are truely granted all but such as are Sensus communis inopes men without all both sense reason will plainely perceiue and constantly hold that Christs Sacrifice at his last Supper was either imperfect vvhich our Iesuite denieth or else no real sacrifice at al which I defend All the rest of the chapter is full of the like vanity for consideration whereof it is enough to peruse The Downefall of Popery CHAP. 5. Containing the Iesuites confutation touching Berengarius VVHere in The downefall of Popery I related truely the cruell dealing of the Pope and his Popish councell with Berengarius our Iesuite would gladly excuse the Pope and his Sinod but it will not be S. R. Bell exclaimeth mightily because Berengarius was compelled to beleeue that Christ in the Eucharist is sensibly touched broken with the hands of Priests torne with the teeth of the faithfull T. B. Bell doth so Idque merito He hath iust cause so to do R. S. Neuerthelesse Christes body is said to be toucht broken and chewed in the Eucharist because the signe of bread in which it really is is so vsed As GOD is said to haue beene crucified because the humanity in which hee was was so handled and Christ touched when his garment was touched T. B. Heere is all that confessed which I intended for to prooue viz That the bread of the Eucharist is called Christs body because it is the signe and Sacrament of his body And therefore that Berengarius was most cruelly and villanously dealt withall when he was enforced eyther to bee burnt with fire and Fagot or else to sweare that he beleeued in his hart that Christs body was truely touched and broken with the hands of Priests and truely torne with the teeth of the faithfull When for all that many learned Papists Bellarmine Melchior Canus and others with this our Iesuite who would and dooth say the best he can for the Popes defence do freely graunt and plainely confesse that Christes body can neither bee broken with hands nor yet torne or chewed with teeth Loe Berengarius was compelled to beleeue as an article of his faith that Christes body was truely in veritate broken with the hands of Priests and torne with teeth and yet the truth is farre otherwise as both Bellarmine Canus and our Iesuite do confesse Fie on such religion hang vp such Popish Faith accursed be such doctrine S. R. The holy Fathers Saint Cyprian Saint Chrysostome and others do teach vs plainlie that Christs body is broken with hands and chewed with teeth yea Christ himselfe saith This is my body which is broken VVill Bell now condemne Christ and these holy Fathers of wickednesse villany blasphemy and horrible impiety Nay will he condemne both English many forraine Protestants whose doctrine saith he is that Christs body is broken torne and consumed with mouth and teeth Behold good Reader For Papists to say Christs body is touched broken and torne is villany and horrible impiety but for Protestants to say the same and adde consuming too is good doctrine T. B. I prooued out of Cardinall Bellarmine that famous Iesuiticall Fryer that Christs body cannot bee broken and torne saue only in a figure or Sacrament And that by his doctrine it may be sayd to bee broken and torne when the signe thereof is broken and torne Out of whose doctrine I inferred this golden Colorrary viz that if it be true to say Christs body is broken and torne because the signe of his body is broken torne then truely may we say and truely do we say that Christes body is in the Eucharist because the signe of his body is there because the Sacrament of his bodye is there because the representation of his body is there And much more truely might Christ himselfe say This is my body when he gaue the signe and Sacrament of his body I then added that it is the constant doctrine of the church of England which also many other reformed Churches approoue therein that Christs body is receiued broken torne and consumed with mouth teeth figuratiuely significantly mystycally sacramentally And consequently if the Papistes would be iudged by this doctrine which by the pen of the Iesuite Bellarmine they heere deliuer the controuersie would soone bee at an end Now I referre my self to the indifferent Reader whosoeuer he be whether the Iesuite S. R. bee an honest man or no. For first hee beareth the Reader in hand that I condemne Christ and the holy Fathers Secondly that I condemne both the English Churche and many forraine Christians Thirdly he chargeth mee to hold the same Doctrine which I vtterly condemne in Popery Fourthly he iustifieth the condemnation of Berengarius whose doctrine for all that both Bellarmine and Melchior Canus do iustify and himselfe vnawares in this chapter If I should deale with the Papists in this manner all the world would exclaime against me If any indifferent Reader shall
etiam involuntarios These thinges are spoken after the minde of Saint Austen who vnderstandeth all the motions euen those which bee involuntary to bee forbidden in some sort by this Commaundement Thou shalt not Lust. VVhere wee see that not onely Bellarmine theyr Cardinall but Saint Austen that woorthy Piller of the Church affirmeth both Originall concupiscence and the involuntary Motions thereof to be forbidden in this precept Where I may not forget to tell the Reader that though Bellarmine to make his matter good if it would addeth to Saint Austens wordes In some sort yet dooth Saint Austen write very simply and sayth flatly that they are prohibited and addeth not Quodam modo In some sort That is Bellarmines addition it is not in Saint Austen Secondly that habituall Originall Lust is not idle but woorketh ill desires in vs continually agaynst our vvill So sayth S. Austen in these words Agit n. Aliquid concupiscentia carnis c. For concupiscence of the flesh worketh somthing euen when there is not giuen vnto it either the consent of the heart where it may raigne or the members as VVeapons which may accomplish what it appointeth And what doth it but the very wicked and filthy desires For if they were good and lawfull the Apostle would not forbid to obey them Marke these wordes gentle Reader for they are of great consequence and giue a deadly blowe to the Papistes Two thinges are cleered by this Testimony of Saint Austen the one that Concupiscence to which consent is not giuen bringeth foorth ill desires the other that the sayde desires are vnlawfull and prohibited by the Law of GOD. And so wee haue euidently prooued that habituall Concupiscence to which the regenerate yeelde no consent but stoutly resist the same is so farre from beeing meritorious as the Papists would haue it that it is sinne formally and properly so called And wee haue further that habituall concupiscence worketh ill desires in vs against our will and therefore that those desires are truely called originall because vvee doe them not but rather suffer them to bee doone in vs. Thirdly that though the Law in saying Thou shalt not lust seemeth by the force of the word which signifyeth action to prohibite onely the voluntary act of concupiscence yet dooth it forbidde the very Originall Concupiscence it selfe withall the braunches effects and involuntary motions thereof as is already prooued at large Yea Saint Austen doth vnderstand it as Bellarmine himselfe doth grant Heere for the help of the Reader I note that a threefold Concupiscence is forbidden by the tenth Commandement The first is meerely called Originall This is that vvhich vve all contracted of Adam and which is the Fountaine of all concupiscences and sins and therefore truely called of the Apostle sin The second is partly Originall and partly Actuall Originall because it yssueth naturally from the Originall prauity of our nature Actuall for that we couet in act albeit against our wil and because it is against our wil it is more properly truly called Originall then actuall The third is meerely actuall because it is voluntary S. R. I must note Bels important vntruths First that Pope Vrban and Pope Innocent confirmed Saint Thomas his doctrine for authenticall Secondly that Pope Vrban gaue it the first place after cannonicall scripture T. B. This Fryer seemeth to bee framed of lying and as hee hath vsually spent his whole dispute so in the end of the article he closeth it vp with leasing Whosoeuer shal pervse The Downfall of Popery wil soon espy how this Fryer loadeth my back with slaunderous speeches and false reports I will heere in regard of breuity onely set downe the Testimony of a famous Papist Augustinus Hunnaeus by name in that Epistle which he sent to Pope Pius the fift These are his words Vrbanus c. Vrbanus that worthy Prelate of the Apostolique sea admiring the excellent doctrine of this man he speaketh of Aquinas beholding it as fallen from heauen to driue away the naturall mist of ignorance from mens minds doth grauely exhort to the study thereof and commaundeth the vniuersity of Tholouse to follow it as the cheefe in all their disputations and aunsweres concerning faith and manners Innocentius the fift of that name esteemed the same mans Doctrine so greatly that hee doubted not to giue it the first place after the Cannonicall scripture Thus writeth Hunnaeus By whose words it may appeare in what reuerence the Doctrine of Aquinas is with the Papists as also that our Iesuite cannot answere me but by lying And thus I will end this article with these words of our Iesuite Habituall cōcupiscence includeth not only pronesse to euill but also difficulty to do good and want of habibituall order in the inferior powers and therefore is both positiue and priuatiue euill Thus writeth our Iesuite who after he hath long wearied himselfe in struggling against the truth doth at the length vnawares confesse the same For doubtlesse when he graunteth that habituall Concupiscence in the regenerate includeth want of habituall order in the inferior powers and therefore is both positiue and priuatiue euill he graunteth in substance in the truth of the matter as much as I desire He denyeth in wordes that Originall concupiscence is formally sinne but in effect and substance hee graunteth the very same Whosoeuer shal seriously ponder both my discourse heere and in the Downefall especially concerning the Nature definition and essence of sinne he will perceiue with all facility that the Iesuite woulde say as I write if hee were not affrayde to displease the Pope The fift Article of the merite of Good workes S. R. BEls first position containeth two partes the first is that good workes neither do nor can goe before Iustification Behold Bell euen where he would proue himselfe a friend to good workes sheweth himselfe to be an enemy and excluding them from any going before or any way concurring to iustification to which they so concurred in Saint Mary Magdalen as our Sauiour saide Many sinnes are forginen her because shee loued much making her loue a kind of cause viz disponent of her Iustification T. B. Our Iesuite wold gladly perswade his reader that I am an enemy to good workes The best mean he hath to defend himselfe and Popery withall is cogging lying and false dealing I must needs be an enimy to Good workes because I will not admit euill workes for good I say with S. Austen Sequuntur iustificatum non precedent iustificandum Good Workes follow him that is iustified but they go not before him that is to be iustified Behold here gentle Reader that S. Austen is the same enemy to Good workes that I am He affirmeth them to follow iustification and so doe I. Hee denyeth them to goe before iustification and so doe I. What a thing is this Our Iesuite dareth not call Saint Austen an enemy to Good Workes and yet doth he call mee so
in his drunkennesse is worthy of double punishment First for his drunkennesse then for the sinne that followeth vppon the same For though the sinne consequent be not voluntary in the act and deed done yet is it voluntary in the cause S. R. Bell noteth the Romish Religion of mutability confessing that the olde Romaine Religion was Catholique sound pure with which he will not contend But seeing you haue granted the old Roman Religion to be pure and Catholique and slander the late I bring an action of slaunder against you and charge you to bring good witnesse when wherein and by whom the late Romaine Religion corrupted the purity of the old T. B. This is the point indeede that seduceth the silly ignorant sort throughout the ChristiaÌ„ world For the Pope his flattering Parasites beare them in hand that the late start vp Romish doctrin is the old Roman religion which S. Peter and Saint Paule preached to the Romanies in their life time But my life and saluation I gage for the triall it is not so No no It is a New Religion crept by little and little into the Church of Rome To which doctrine if the vulgar people would once hearken all partiality and sinister affection set apart they would vndoubtedly vtterly forsake the Pope and detest from their hearts all Popish faction Here our Fryer Iesuite threatneth me to bring an action of the case against mee for that as hee saith I slander their Religion He would haue me to tell him and his Pope when wherein and by whom the late Romish Religion corrupted the purity of the old I answer first that I desire to know our Iesuites name because we may perhaps agree without suite in Law Secondly that I haue in a printed Booke published many yeares ago to the view and iudgment of all the Christian world shewed in plaine and expresse tearmes at what times in what points by what persons the old Roman Religion taught by Saint Paule as holy Writ telleth vs and by Saint Peter as Histories Ecclesiasticall doe relate was successiuely corrupted errours embraced superstition nourirished ignorance countenanced and false Doctrine decreed for the truth This Booke is intituled the Suruey of Popery published about tenne yeares agoe in the yeare of our Lord God 1596. I haue challenged all Iesuites and Iesuited Papists ioyntly and seuerally to answere it and all my other Bookes They haue oftentimes in many of theyr slaundrous Libels made mention both of the Suruey and of my other Bookes and promised aunswers to the same but while the Grasse growes the Horse dyes This is the first answer that euer I receiued to this day Which how silly it is let others iudge For their late forerunner did but snatch here and there and aunswered directly nothing at all Our Iesuite heere insinuateth something which hee cannot well tell how to shuffle vp I also alleadged out of Iosephus Angles a famous Popish Schoole-Doctor and Byshop that the Popish Doctrine daily altereth in their Schooles S. Thomas sayth he and his followers hold That a Venâ—all sin is not so much against the Law as besides the Law But Durand and many others impugne this opinion and auouch Veniall sinnes to bee against the Commaundements And this opinion sayth hee seemeth now adaies to be more common in the schooles Here I wished the Reader to note by the way out of the word Modo Now adayes the mutability of the Romish Religion S. R. Angles insinuateth Schoole opinions to be mutable Bell applyeth it to the Romaine Religion as if it consisted of Schoole opinions which may be held Pro contra with vnity of Faith T. B. If Schoole opinions be mutable then Popish Religion is mutable of necessity For how dare the Schoole-Doctours teach publiquely contrary to the Popes minde VVas not your famous Doctour Michael at Louain threatned to frame his opinion to the Popes liking or else yee wâ—â—e what would haue followed Did not the Pope send Toledo the Iesuite to conferre with him and tell him what the Pope thought and therefore he must and so forth You know it was so Be not grieued I pray you to heare Beatus Rhenanus one of your deare friends speake a truth of your Schooles and Schoole-Doctouâ—s These are his wordes Thomas Aquinas Scotus c. Thomas Aquinas and Scotus men too much delighted with subtilties haue brought confession this day to such a pâ—sse that Ioannes Geilerius a Graue and reuerend Diuiâ—e and a Preacher a long time at Argentoraium sayd many a time to his friendes that it was impossible for a man to make his confessioÌ„ according to their Traditions Thus writeth Rhenanus Out of whose words I note First that the vain curious destinctions of the Schole-doctors haue brought much mischeefe into the Church of GOD. Which thing if a Papist had not spoken it would seeme incredible to the world Secondly that it is impossible for a Papist to make his confession acording to the Popish law and consequently that all Papists by Popish doctrine must perish euerlastingly Marke well my words Gentle Reader the Papists teach vs to hold for an article of our beleefe that we are bound to make our confessions as the Popish law prescribeth that is as Aquinas and Scotus haue set downe the same And for all that Gielerius a Papist himselfe a great diuine complained often to his frends that no man could possibly performe the same Now then since on the one side Popish confession must be made vnder pain of damnation and since on the other side none possibly can make the same as it is required it followeth of necessity by Popish Doctrine that all Papistes must be damned eternally O miserabie Popery coufounded by thy selfe O late start-vp Religion patched like a Beggers cloke Thine own Doctors O Popery such force hath the truth haue bewrayed thy treachery to the world Thirdly that many likewise among the Papists do externally obey the Popish Law who for all that in their hearts detest the late hatched Romish Religion This is euident by the secret complaint of the learned man Gielerius who tolde that to his trusty frends which he durst not tell the pope S. R. Their canonized Martyr Byshop Fisher sayth he and their Popish Byshop Gerson wrote that Veniall sinnes were such onely by the mercy of God Heere Bell for one truth vttereth two vntruths True it is that Byshop Fisher Gerson were in that errour but that was both before it was condemned in the church as it was since by Pius the v. Gregorius 13. Neyther did they account involuntary motions of Concupiscence for Veniall sinnes as Bell doth but such as Catholickes account Veniall But vntrue it is that eyther Byshop Fisher is cannonized or Gerson was a Byshop T. B. Heere our Iesuite graunteth freely that both the famous learned Byshop Fisher and that excellent Doctour Gerson of high esteem in the Counsell of Constance helde
must sweare that the Pope can depose all Emperors and Kings in the Christian world Secondly they sweare to admit the Popes decrees whō they freely grant may bee an Heretick Thirdly they sweare obedience to him in matters of Faith whom as themselues confesse they can depose for heresie Fourthly that the pope is not supreme Iudge of controuersies seeing Bishops may examine and iudge whether what he commandeth be agreeable to Gods word the Canons Lastly that they swear flat rebellion against their soueraigns seeing they sweare to defend the Popes primacy against all men whomsoeuer T. B. Let vs examine this honest tale made in the behalfe of the Pope and for the benefite of the Reader let vs both heare it and answer it particularly S. R. As for the first point it is vntrue as appeareth by the answer to the first article T. B. The first point is that the Pope can depose Emperours and Kings Our Fryer denyeth it and sendeth the Reader to the first Article I agree also that the Reader peruse my reply with the Downefall then yeeld his censure accordingly for that the Pope challengeth such power though the Iesuite for shame here denieth it it is as cleere as the Sunne shining at noone-day S. R. The second and third containe no inconuenience For we must obey what he decreeth or defineth iudicially as sitting in S. Peters chaire though in hart he were an Hereticke as our Sauiour commaunded the Iewes to follow what the Scribes taught out of Moses Chaire but to abstaine from their priuate Leauen T. B. The second point was that the Bishops sweare to admit his Canons and decrees whom they freely grant may bee an Heretique The third point was that the Bishops sweare obedience to him in matters of Faith whom they can depose for heresie These pointes which our Iesuite proposeth couertly because he would not haue the Reader to vnderstand thē must neuer be forgotten We must saith our Fryer obey beleeue what the Pope decreeth iudicially though in hart he be an Heretick This is strange Doctrine to a Christian hart though approued of all Papists It is not amisse here to adde the Testimony of their graue Quodl betist These are his words As the prudent Greeke appealed from Alexander furious to Alexander sober and Bishoppe Crostate from Pope Adrian priuate to Pope Adrian publique and as Summus pontifex in Cathedra Petri so may the Seculars appeale from the Pope as Clemens vnto his holinesse as Peter These words are expressely set downe Quodl 6. art 10. By this Doctrine so plainely deliuered which is a constant position in the Romish Church the Secular Priests giue vs to vnderstand that execrable and neuer enough detested fallacy wherewith the Pope his popelings haue a long time seduced a great part of the Christian world viz that the Pope may erre as a priuate man but not as a publicke person Of which absurd Doctrine I haue written at large in my Treatise intituled The Hunting of the Romish Foxe I will therefore for the present onely speake thereof as these words giue me fit occasion First then we see heere that if we meane to wring any truth out of the Popes nose we must haue recourse to his holines at such time as he is sober not when he is furious least he become starke mad forget for euer the knowledge of the truth Secondly we must haue his aduise when he is a publike person not a priuate man Thirdly we must go vnto him not as he is indeed this or that Pope but as he is S. Peter that blessed Apostle of our Lord Iesus Thus much is deduced out of this popish Doctrine by euident and necessary consecution These points if they be well marked will vtterly confound all popish Doctrine and turne it vpside downe For first it is a constant Axiome in all popish Doctrine that the Pope and none but the pope must be the Iudge in all controuersies of faith and Doctrine This notwithstanding wee see by this popish doctrine which is currant in the Romish Church that if the Pope Iudge of any matter as he is furious and not sober as he is a priuate man and not a publike person as hee is Clemens Sixtus Adrianus or some other like pope and not Saint Peter himselfe then may hee erre and so both bee deceiued himselfe and deceiue all others Whereupon it followeth of necessity that euery one must well examine the popes Doctrine and Iudgement before he beleeue it otherwise doubtles he may receiue poyson for medicine falshood for truth and erroneous for Orthedoxe Christian doctrine Nay otherwise he cannot possibly tell when he shall appeale from the pope as a false teacher and seducer of the people Secondly the time cannot be named in which the Byshop of Rome shall be the Byshop there not a publick person at the selfe-same time for euen then when hee is a sleepe he is a publicke person or else no Byshop doubtlesse For once a Byshop euer a Byshop by Popish indeleble Character Yet I willingly graunt that a publique person may do some act which may be censured the acte of a priuate man but that cannot serue their turne Thirdly If the Papists will neuer apeale to the pope nor haue any intercourse with him vntill he be Saint Peter they shall neuer do it till the worlds end Fourthly if he be Peter by Office or calling then is hee alwayes Peter vnlesse perhaps hee be sometime Lucifer which were a rare Metamorphosis Fiftly this Popish distinction may fitly be termed a trick of fast and loose For if the Pope define a truth they may thē say he defined as a publick person But if he define an error then they say he defined as a priuat mā So doubtles it may be said indeed that he can neuer erre but some mā in his robes or some Deuill vnder his pall Briefely on the one side as we haue heard already the Pope commands vpon paine of Sacriledge not to dispute of his power nor to examine his doings and yet on the other side we must know whether he speake and define as a publicke person or as a priuate man before we beleeue his decrees which knowledge for al that can no way be had but by due examination of the popes doings What remaineth but to exclaime and complaine to our trusty friendes as the great learned Papist Gielerius did that by this Popish Doctrine no man can go to heauen S. R. For we must obey and beleeue what he decreeth iudicially though in hart he be an Hereticke T. B. Then sir we must examine the doctrine which the pope deliuereth to know whither it proceedeth from the Pope as a publique person or as a priuate man For otherwise we may as soone receiue deadly poyson as wholy medicine and as soone worship Harmannus the Heretiques bones as the reliques of S. Peter or S. Paule But this examination the Pope forbids and your selfe Maister Fryer
religious Fryer Alphonsus de Castro shall be the vmpire in this mystery These are his words At papam solum absque congregatione concilij posse in ijs quae ad fidem spectant errare multi non contemnendae authoritatis theologi asseruerunt imò aliquos pontifices summos in fide errasse comperâ—uns est Deinde si tanta esset solius Papae authoritas quanta totius concilij plene recte congregati frustra tantus labor pro conciliorum congregatione sumeretur That the Pope alone without the assembly of a Councell may erre in thinges pertayning to the Faith many Diuines of high esteeme doe hold and affirme yea it is most certain that some Popes haue erred in the Faith Againe if the Popes authority alone were as sure sound as the whole Councell fully and lawfully assembled then doubtlesse in vain should such paines bee taken in calling a Councell together Thus writeth this learned Popish Fryer affirming stoutly and resolutely mine illation against the Rhemists For this which I haue often tolde the Papistes will in the ende be found an vndoubted and inuincible truth viz that I defend no point of Doctrine against the Papists which the best learned Papists doe not approoue in their printed Bookes And heere by the way I note out of this Popish Doctor that many great learned Papistes doe constantly affrim that the Pope may erre in matters of faith as also that sundry Popes haue De facto erred already Now in Gods name let vs proceed to the mighty Traedition viz of the Bible it selfe S. R. Whence haue we the Apostles Creede but by Tradition as testifie Saint Hierome Saint Austen and Ruffinus VVhence the perpetuall virginity of our blessed Lady VVhence the lawfull transferring of the Sabbaoth day from Saterday to Sunday Whence many other thinges as testifie S. Hierome S. Cyprian and others but by Tradition But especially whence haue we the Bible it selfe Whence haue we that euery Booke Chapter and verse of it is Gods word and no one sentence therein corrupted in all these 1600. yeares T. B. This is nothing else but ridiculous and irkesome Tantologie It is answered againe and againe The Apostles Creede wee haue by Tradition in compendious manner but it is conteyned in the written Word As the Fathers admit many Traditions so doe I with the Church of England For we reiect no Tradition vnlesse it bee either repugnant to holy Writ or else obtruded as a necessary point of Saluation Which if the Reader marke seriously hee shall finde the Iesuite at a Non plus Concerning the Bible that it hath not beene corrupted for these 1600. yeares I aunswere that this blessing commeth not from the late Romish Church but from the GOD of Heauen who preserued the old Testament from corruption wheÌ„ it was longer in the handes of the wicked Iewes Howe we know it to be the word of GOD I haue shewed at large in the Downefall and thinke it needlesse heere to iterate the same Yet as our Iesuite shall giue occasion some more shall be added by way of reply S. R. Bels first aunswere is that there is great difference betwixt the primatiue Church the Church of late daies For the Apostles heard Christes Doctrine saw his Miracles and were replenished with the Holy-Ghost and consequently they were fit witnesses of all that Christ did and taught which adiunctes the Church of Rome hath not Here Bell blasphemeth Christes Church of late dayes auouching her neither to be replenished with the Holy-Ghost contrary to our creede professing her to be holy and Christs promise that the Holy-Ghost should remaine with her for euer Nor to be a fit Witnesse of his truth contrary to Saint Paule calling her the Pillar of Truth T. B. The blasphemy proceedeth from your selues from your pope to whom you ascribe such a prerogatiue as is proper to God alone when you tell vs he cannot erre I therefore answere that the true Church of God is holy hath the assistance of the Holy-Ghost and is a constant witnesse of Christs truth But these promises pertaine not to the church of Rome but to the whole congregation of the faithfull This Congregation is the pillar of Truth this Congregation hath the Holy-Ghost this Congregation is holy this Congregation cannot erâ—e in things necessâ—â—y to eternall life This proposition is prooued at large in my Suruey of Popery It is now enough to admonish the Reader thereof For I haue prooued it both by the Testimony of the holy Fathers and of the best approued Popish Writers One or two shall now suffice Alphonsus that famous Popish Fryer hath these wordes Ecclesiamilâ—tans est fidelium omnium congregatio quae corpus vnum est cuius caput est Christus The Church militant is the Congregation of all the faithfull which is one body whereof Christ is the head Thus writeth our religious Fryer VVho would haue thought that a Popish Fryer should or would thus haue defined the Church The Iesuites will not thus define it Heere is no mention of the pope and yet of the Popish Church he is the head He that opened the mouth of Balaams Asse opened now the mouth of our Fryer Alphonsus The truth must and will in time preuaile Panormitanus a Popish Abbot a Popish Arch-â—ishop and a Popish Cardinall hath these expresse wordes Licet concilium generale representet totamecclesiam uniuersalem tamen in veritate iâ—i non est vera ecclesia vn uersalis sed reprâ—sentatiuè quia vniuer salis ecclesia constituilur excollectione omnium sidelium vnde omnes sideles orbis constitunt istam ecclesiam vniuersaleÌ„ cuius capâ—t sponsus est Christus Sequ tur ista est illa ecclesia que errare non potest Although a generall Councell represent the whole vniuersall Church yet in truth there is not the true vniuersall Church but representatinely for the Vniuersall Church consisteth of the collection of all the faithfull Wherefore all the faithfull in the world make this Vniuersall Church whose head and Spouse is Christ. And this Church is it that cannot erre yea the Popes owne glosse vpon his owne Decrees dooth most liuely describe that Church which cannot erre to bee the congregation of the faithfull Thus is it there written in expresse wordes Quaero de qua ecclesia intelligas quod hic dicitur quod non possit errare Siipso papa certum est quod papa errare potest Respondeo ipsa congregatio sidelium hic dicitur ecclesia talis ecclesia non potest nonesse I aske thee O pope Luci of what Church thou vnderstands that which thou tellest vs in this place To wit that the church cannot erre For if thou vnderstandest it of the pope himself it is very certaine that the pope may erre I answere therfore that the church is here taken for the congregation of the faithfull such a church can neuer erre indeed Out of these words of these great
knowne vnto them Ergo they know the scripture to bee Gods worde because Christ not the church sheweth it vnto them Thirdly because the spiritual man as the Apostle writeth iudgeth al things and himselfe is iudged of no man Ergo he can iudge the holy Bible to be Gods worde For doubtles he that can Iudge euery thing can especially Iudge that thing which is most necessary for him And consequently Hee can Iudge truth from falshood Gods word from the word of euery creature This reason is confirmed by the constant Testimony of many famous papists Dionisius Carthusianus hath these words Spiritualis autem homâ— in quo est spiritus dei iudicat id est benâ— discernit omnia adsalutem pertinentia de singulis talibus verum iudicum proferendo inter bonum malum veruÌ„ falsum veraciter distinguendo The spirituall man which hath the spirit of God indgeth and truely discerneth all thinges which pertaine to saluation prououncing true iudgement of euery such thing and truely distinguishing betweene good and euill truth and falshood Nicolaus de Lyra affoordeth the same exposition to this Text of scripture The famous popish writer Aquinas is of the same mind These are his words Apostolls hic dicit quod spiritualis iudâ—â—at omnia quia sâ—lt homo habeus intellectum illustratii affectum ordinatum per spiritum sanctum de singulis quae pertinent ad salutem rectum indicium habet The Apostle heere saith that the spirituall man Iudgeth all thinges because forsooth a man hauing his vnderstanding enlightned and his affection ordered by the Holy-ghost hath a right Iudgement of all things which pertaine to saluation Iohannes Hosmeisterus hath these words Spiritualis fide sua eo penetrat vt omnia quae sunt spiritus Dei dijudicare possit nec iudicio suâ— fallatur vt bonum dicat malum vel stultum 〈◊〉 est sapientissimuÌ„ The spiritual man doth penetrate so far by his faith that he is able to iudg al things that are of the spirit of God neyther can he be deceiued in his Iudgment that he eyther call Good euill or that foolish which is most wise Out of the words of these great popish Doctours who are euer the best witnesses against the papists I obserue these instructions for the Reader First that euery regenerate person and child of God for all such are Spiritual is able to Iudge of euery thing that concernes his saluation and consequently which is falshood which is Gods word which is not because that especially pertaines to his saluation Secondly that euery childe of God is able by his faith to wade so farre that he can iudge of all needfull trueth and whatsoeuer is conuenient for his soules health neuer be deceiued in his Iudgement Fourthly because S. Iohn tels vs that the vnction which the faithfull haue receiued doth teach them all thinges Ergo to discerne Gods word from mans word Melchior Canus a learned Schooleman and a famous Byshop teacheth vs the selfe-same Doctrine in plainer termes These are his expresse words Praestanti quod in se est Deus fidem ad salutem necessariam non negat Sequitur non n. vnctio queÌ„cunque simpliciter docet de omnibus sed quemque de his quae sunt cipropria necessaria Sequitur concedimus liberaliter doctrinaÌ„ cuique in sua vita statu necessariam illi fore prospectaÌ„ cognitam qui fecerit voluntatem Dei. Sicut n. gustus bene affectus differentias saporum facilè descernit sic animi optima affectio facit vt homo doctrinam dei ad salutem necessariaÌ„ discernat ab errore contrario qui ex deo non est To the man that doth what in him lyeth God neuer denyeth faith necessary to saluation For the vnction doth not simply teach euery one euery thing but it teacheth euery one so much as is proper and necessary for him And we graunt freely that doctrine necessary for euery mans life and state is sufficiently knowne to him that doth the will of God For like as the well affected tast doth easily discerne the differences of sauors or tasts so doth the good affection of the mind bring to passe that a man may discerne the Doctrine of God necessary to saluation from contrary error which is not of God Thus writeth the grauest Papist for learning in the vniuersall world and consequently it is and must bee of great force against the Papistes whatsoeuer hath passed from his pen. And I protest vnto the Gentle Reader that nothing hath more estraunged me from Popery and set me at defiance with it then the cleere prospicuous Doctrine of the best Learned and most renowned Papistes for whosoeuer will seriously pervse the Bookes which I haue published to the view of the world shall therein finde by the Testimony of the best approued Papists euery point of setled Doctrine in the Church of England Out of the words of this learned Popish Byshop that when S. Iohn sayth The vnction teacheth vs all things Hee meaneth not the difficult Questions in Religion but all such points as are necessary for euery mans saluation Secondly that no man wanteth this knowledge and iudgment of Doctrine but he that is willingly ignorant and will not apply himselfe to liue Christianly Thirdly that euery priuate man is able to discern true Doctrine from Falshood and Error so farre forth as is requisite for his saluation as well as a sound and good tast is able to discern differences of tasts Ergo euery faithful Christian is able to discern Gods word from mans word because it is a thing necessary for his owne soules health The case is so cleare as it can by no reason be denyed Fiftly because the formall obiect of our faith is Veritas prima or God himselfe as Dionisius Areopagita telleth vs. Yea Aquinas the Popish Angellicall Doctor teacheth the selfe-same Doctrine Non. n. fides inquit diuina alicui assemitur nisi quia est à deo reuelatum For Diuine faith saith Aquinas will not yeeld assent to any thing vnlesse it be reuealed of God The truth of which doctrine S. Austen confirmeth in these Golden wordes Iam hic videte c. Nowe bretheren behold heere a great sacrament The sound of our wordes pierceth your eares but the Maister that teacheth you is within Thinke not that man learneth any thing of maÌ„ We Preachers may admonish you by sound of words but if he be not within that teacheth in vaine is our sounde The outward teachings are some helpes and admonitions but hee sitteth in his chaire in heauen that teacheth the hart The maister is within that teacheth It is Christ that teacheth It is his inspiration that instructeth Where his inspiration and vnction is not there the outward noyse of words is in vaine Thus writeth this holy auncient and Learned father with many moe words to the like effect By whose doctrine togither with that of
the iudge thereof No more thē hee who conferring Scripture with Scripture expoundeth one place by another Which kind of exposition S. Austen preferreth before all other S. R. Bell saith canonicall Scripture may bee discerned of it selfe as light from darke He prooueth it because Gods word is called a light and a Lanthorne which shineth to Men. Because spirituall men iudge all things because the vnction teacheth Gods children all things And Christes Sheepe both heare and know his voyce But this is easily refelled First because though Samuell were a faithfull and holy man and God spake thrice to him yet he tooke his word for mans word vntill Hely the high Priest tolde him it was Gods word Gedeon was faithfull and yet knew not at first that it was God that spake vnto him by an Angell and therefore demanded a Miracle in confirmation of it Likewise Saint Peter was faithfull and yet at first he knew not that it was an Angell that spake and deliuered him Secondly Gods word consisteth in the sence and meaning which the faithfull oftentimes doe not vnderstand Thirdly the distinction of Scriptures from not Scriptures is not so euident as the distinction of light from darknesse is for then no man could erre therein T. B. This aunswere of our Fryer is friuolous and childish That which hee obiecteth of Samuell Gedeon and Peter is not to the purpose For as I haue prooued out of Melchior Canus and others euery one of the faithfull knoweth not euery thing but onely so much as is necessary for his saluation to know neyther is such their knowledge at euery houre moment but then onely and in such measure when and in what degree it pleaseth God to giue it Some of Gods children are effectually called at the first hour some at the third some at the sixt some at the last For though al Gods children be elected and predestinate before all time yet are they al called both generally and effectually in time some sooner some later according to the good pleasure of the caller who calleth freely without respect of persons Now where our Fryer denyeth the distinction of Gods word from mans word to be so euident as the distinction of light from darkenes because then none as he saith could erre therein I answere that as he that is blinde corporally cannot discerne colours nor behold the bright beams of the sinne so neither can he that is blind spiritually discerne Gods word frō mans word nor behold the brightnes of eternall truth For as the Apostle teacheth vs. If Christs Gospell be hid it is hidde in them that perish in whom the God of this world hath blinded the minds of them which beleeue not least the light of the gospell of the glory of Christ should shine vnto them And the same Apostle telleth vs else-where That the spirituall man iudgeth all things but the naturall man perceiueth not the things which are of God S. R. Saint Iohn sayth Bell affirmeth that the Vnction teacheth vs all thinges which wee deny not but no where saith he that it alone teacheth vs without the testimony of the Church which is it that wee deny and Bell should proue T. B. I haue proued at large euen out of your owne reuerend Byshop Melchior Canus that as the well affected tast can easily discerne the differences of sauours so can the good affection of the minde discerne the Doctrine of saluation And therfore as the testimony of the church is not necessary to the one no more is it to the other Yea if that sence of our Fryer had beene the truth of the text all the graue expositors of S. Iohn woulde neuer haue omitted the same But our Fryer coulde bring no expositor for himselfe and therefore no reason that we should admitte this bare denyall against the plaine wordes of the Text. S. R. That of the Spiritual man is not to the purpose both because all the faithfull are not spirituall but some carnall and therefore may we better inferre that the Gospell is not euident to all the faithfull as also because Saint Paul explicateth not by what meanes the spirituall man iudgeth all things whether by the euidency of the thinges as Bell woulde haue him to Iudge scripture or by some outward Testimony T. B. I answere first that all the faithfull rightly so tearmed are spirituall and not carnall neyther do the places quoted by our Iesuite proue any thing for his purpose For if he will haue none to bee spirituall that are sinners then must he deny the Apostles of our Lord to haue beene spirituall For as S. Iames granteth freely They all sinned in many thinges Secondly that if the Apostle had not explicated by what meanes the Spirituall man iudgeth all things as he did indeed yet would it not follow thereupon that our Iesuite may expound it to his best liking Thirdly that the Apostle sayth plainly in the words afore going That the spirituall man iudgeth by the spirit of God that is in him Fourthly that our Iesuite belyeth Bell heere as he doth many times else-where For Bell would not haue the spirituall man to Iudge the scripture by the euidency of the things but by the spirit of God which is euer at hand euen within him to teach him all necessary truth S. R. Bell alledgeth the Scripture That Christes Sheepe heare and know his voice which no man doubteth of But the question is whether they heare it of himselfe alone or of his church T. B. This is but irkesome Tautologie it is answered againe and againe First the late Romish Church is not the church that cannot erre this is already proued Secondly I haue proued euen out of their owne Cardinall Tolet That Christes sheepe know him because hee first knoweth them Yea the Text doth plainly yeeld that sence I knowe my sheepe saith Christ and they know mee As if he had said My Sheepe therefore know mee because I first know them Christ therefore not the church maketh his sheep to know and discern his voyce Thirdly the church is an outward help as is the preaching of the word To beget a kind of morral certitude or humane faith in the hearers but neither of them eyther doth or can beget faith Diuine in any man Paule may plant and Apol'o may water but only God can giue the increase Experience may confirme this to be so For no testification of the Romish church can make the Turke or Iew bebeleeue or acknowledge Christs Gospel If it were otherwise 10000. Iews this day in Rome would becom christians I wil say more and it is S. Austens Doctrin Many come to the Church and heare the word of God read and preached vnto thē but beleeue it not as their liues declare for euery good tree bringeth forth good fruits as our master christ telleth
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
for the present that the Apostle saith The best Liuers of all offend in many thinges And that the Prophet Dauid telleth vs That none liuing can be iustified in Gods sight Secondly to Saint Paule I answere as in the Downefall That the raging vnvoluntary motions of Concupiscence were sinne in him although he did not actually yeelde his consent vnto them And thereupon I inferred then and now againe That that sin which Saint Paule lamented in himselfe affirming himselfe to bee sold vnder sinne was truely and properly sinne indeede but not Actuall because hee gaue no consent vnto it Ergo hee must needes speake of Originall This point I deliuered so plainly in the Downfall of Popery as none but eitherfooles or malicious Readers can be ignorant thereof Of other Actuall sinnes I spake not S. R. Christ saith Bell being asked what good a man should doe to attaine eternall life aunswered If thou wilt haue eternall life by doing good workes then must they keepe Gods commandemēts but this is impossible saith Bell. Here is most shamefull abuse of Gods word and this sheweth Bell to haue a scared conscience For neither in the mans Question nor in Christes aunswere is there any word how a man should come to Heauen by this way or that way viz by beleeuing or by working or by both but only what was the meane in generall to come to Heauen which the man supposing to bee good asked what good he should doe to come thither Which Question of his is common either to Faith or Works or both foral include doing good And our Sauiour answered him If thou wilt enter not this way nor that way but absolutely Into life Keepe the Commaundements T. B. What a one is this Fryer Hee chargeth mee to haue a seared conscience which may more iustly bee imputed to himselfe I willingly acknowledge my selfe to be a great Sinner GOD forgiue mee yet may I stand at defiance with this Iesuite and withal the Iesuites in the World for any corrupt or falfe dealing either in the Scripture or in the Fathers Councels Histories Chronicles or other Writers whosoeuer they are alike to charge me withall Nay in this very point wherein he desperately accuseth me I am able to charge him too deeply and iustly retort that agianst himselfe which he would most falsly and vniustly impose vpon me He auoucheth most impudently that there is not any word neither in the mans question nor in Christs answere how a man should come to Heauen this way or that way Let vs therefore ponder the mans words seriously and then yeeld our censures according to the truth S. Matthew hath these wordes Good Maister what good thinge shall I doe that I may haue eternall life Saint Marke hath these wordes Good Maister what shall I doe that I may haue eternall life Saint Luke hath these words Good Maister by doing what shall I possesse eternall life Now I pray thee Gentle Reader whosoeuer thou art to be an indifferent Iudge betweene the Iesuite and me Thou seest euidently that the man demaunded of Christ what he should doe to possesse and inioy eternall life For he said plainely What shall I do by doing What shall I possesse eternall life Doth not he aske to go to Heauen this way or that way who asketh to goe thither by doing Goodworkes Yes doubtlesse it cannot be denyed For to go to Heauen by doing this or that to go to heauē this way or that way is al one in effect So likewise he that saith shal I go to Heauen by doing this or by doing that and he that saith shal I go to heauen this way or that way saith one the same thing in effect Truly therfore did I answer to the Obiection by my selfe propounded cut of the Gospell viz that our Sauiour Christ did not shew in that place how men may attaine eternal life but shewed plainly vnto the man who trusted much vnto his workes and good life that perfect obseruation of the Law is required of him that thinketh to bee iustified by the workes of the Law The man did not say how shall I go to Heauen Or how shall I attaine eternall life But thus by doing what shall I haue eternall life Christ therefore aunswered directly to his manner of demaunding If thou trust so much to thy works and thine owne doings that thou thinkes thou canst go to Heauen by doing then do I tell thee that thou must looke well vnto the matter and see thou keep the Commandements This answere is directly and cleerely deduced out of the very text it selfe S. R. Bell saith that Goodworkes are so necessary to attaine eternall life as the vsuall ordinary vndoubted meanes by which God decreed from eternity freely for his owne name sake to bring his elect to saluation and that without them none haue beene are or shall be saued if time be graunted to doe them How are they now become an impossible meane to come to Heauen How did the man enquire of an impossible way to heauen by Goodworkes What need this challenger any aduersary who thus ouerthroweth himselfe T. B. If our Iesuite had either eyes to see eares to heare or wit to vnderstand he could not but both see perceiue that he confoundeth himselfe in his owne dispute For albeit the best liuer vpon earth cannot for any merit of his best workes by any possible meanes attaine eternall life for it is the gifte of God not of workes yet hath GOD decreed to bring vs to heauen by good workes which he of his great mercy freely worketh in vs. For these are the Apostles expresse wordes as the Rhemists haue put them downe For by Grace you are saued by Faith and that not of your selues for it is the gift of God not of workes that no man glory for we are his worke created in Christ lesus in goodworks which God hath prepared that we should walke in them Thus writeth the Apostle euen as our Papists alledge his words Out of which holy discourse of the chosen vessell of our Lorde Iesus I obserue these golden lessons First that we are saued By grace Secondly that saluation followeth not onely our first iustification so called of the Papists which they confesse to be of Grace but their second falsly supposed iustification also which they wold haue to come of Works For as we see here our saluatiō which is after al maner of iustification if ther were as many as the Papists imagine is only of grace not of Workes You are saued saith Saint Paule marke wel the word Saued He saith not you are iustified by grace which goeth before saluation but you are saued by grace which followeth your iustification Thirdly that the Apostle saith Negatiuely We are not saued of Workes and consequently that he confoundeth our Papistes who say that their second iustification and their saluation come of their works But as their second falsly so named
in defence of late start-vp Popery His Doctrine smelleth of nothing but of winde vanity and leasinges His first lye is this That the glosse saith not de nihilo but de nullo The second lie is this that I affirme the glosse to say in all cases and at all times The third lye is this that the words by me alledged are taken out of Iustinian The 4. lie is this that the glosse speaketh of Ciuill contracts Lies abundant for one short sentēce And why doth our Iesuit thus shamefully heap lyes vpon lyes Doubtles because he now seeth the halter about the Popes necke the Pope ready for his trechery to be hanged on the Gallowes as one that is conuicted by the flat Testimony of his owne sworne Vassals of most notorious blasphemy against the sonne of God For first to make of nothing something is vndoubtedly propper to the blessed Trinity the Father the sonne and the Holy-ghost three in distinction of persons and one in Vnity of substance And consequently if the Pope can make something of nothing he must perforce be another God This consequence our Iesuit and his Pope dare not admit in verball phrase although they practise it in reall act and that the truth may euidently appeare beecause it is a matter of great consequence I will examine euery parcell of the Iesuites aunswere seuerally by it selfe S. R. The glosse saith not the Pope can make de nihilo aliquid but de nullo aliquid T. B. This is a most notorious lye I referre my selfe for the truth hereof to al indifferent Readers that haue the popes decretals and can read and vnderstand the same And if the glosse say not de nihilo as I affirme but de nullo as our Iesuite saith let me be discredited for euer Oh sweet Iesus Who could euer thinke that the Papists would bee so impudent as to deny the expresse words of the text Nay I will proue it by the circumstances to the Iesuites euerlasting shame and confusion For first if the assertion were borrowed from the ciuill law and meant of ciuill contracts pacts or stipulations as our Iesuite impudently auoucheth but against his owne conscience if he haue any left then shuld it not be aliquid but aliquod as euery meane Gramarian can and will testifie with me Againe the glosse saith the Pope can change the Nature of thinges by applying the substance of one thing to another But doubtlesse when the Emperor maketh that to be a ciuill contract which afore was none hee doeth not apply the substance of one thing to another but onely commandeth his subiects to accept that for a law which before was none Thirdly no mortall man can apply the substance of one thing to another and so change the nature thereof Although the Pope take vppon him to chaunge bread into Christs body And therefore when the glosse addeth immediately and of nothing he can make something hee meaneth of that diuine power which is propper to GOD alone Like as Antoninus affirmed as is already proued that the Pope doth challenge power super omne quodcunque est ouer euery thing whatsoeuer is and hath any being and consequently ouer God himselfe And so whether he be Antichrist or no I referre it to the iudgement of the Reader for if the Pope be aboue God I dare not take vpon my selfe to bee his iudge Neither will it serue to say that Saint Antoninus doth not affirm the Pope to be aboue God For though he say not so expressely yet doth hee affirme so much virtually when he telleth vs that hee is aboue euery thing that hath being For God hath not only a being but such a supereminent being as surpasseth all intelligence and is the cause of the being of all creatures S. R. Neither yet in all cases and at all times as Bell addeth T. B. If our Iesuite were not intrinsecally as it were made of lying he would neuer for shame delight so much therein These are my wordes in my Booke and yet the truth is that as man can in some cases at some time make one thing of another so in all cases at all times to make something of nothing is proper to God alone Yet the lying and impudent Iesuite not able to encounter me nor to gainesay my proofes and reasons laboreth with might maine to disgrace me with the Reader to get the victory with flat lying Our slanderous and rayling Iesuite reporteth my wordes in this manner for saith Bell it is a thinge proper to God to make something of nothing in al cases and at al times So then all that I said was this viz That though man can at sometime in some cases make one thing of another yet to make of nothing something is proper to GOD alone neither is man able to performe the same S. R. The foresaide words are taken out of Iustinian where the Emperor saith that because he can make to be accounted a stipulation where none is much more hee can an insufficient stipulation to be sufficient T. B. The foresaid words cannot bee found in Iustinian it is a lye with a witnes The Popish Religion cannot be defended but with falshood deceit and leasings The residue is confuted already S. R. Which Bell would apply to creation and the making of Creatures of nothing as God made the world T. B. I both would and haue applyed it so in very deed and I haue proued it so sufficiently as the Iesuit cannot tel what to say to the same and therefore did he bethink him to betake himselfe to his accustomed art of Lyeng The second Article Touching the Masse Chapter first ¶ Of the reall presence of Christs body in the popish Masse S. R. THough saint Thomas teach that Christes quantity is also in the Sacrament yet affirmeth hee it not as a point of faith In like manner Bellarmine in the place which Bell citeth teacheth and truly that Christes quantity is in the Sacrament but not with Bels addition As a point of Fayth T. B. Here I perceiue I haue an Eele by the tayle Anguis est elabitur Doe our Papists teach that which they beleeue not to be true And doe they that in the Sacrifice of their most holy so supposed Masse Who would haue beleeued it if our Iesuite Parsons had not said it But good Sir tell me this Doe you teach that of your reall presence in your holy Masse which ye beleeue not to be true Then doubtlesse your silly subiects your Iesuited Papists haue neede to looke to your fingers Then must they remēber Christs rule Beware of false prophets which come to you in sheepes cloathing but inwardly are rauening Wolues And if you teach vs as ye beleeue then must your doctrin be an article of your faith Againe two Popes Vrbanus the fourth and Innocentius the fifth haue confirmed Aquinas his Doctrine for Authenticall and strictly commaunded to admit and receiue all that he hath written