The Iesuits antepast conteining, a repy against a pretensed aunswere 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.)

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 . ( ⁂ )

IT is a constant and vndoubted truth , approoued by all Canonicall Scriptures , ancient Councels , holy Fathers , Ecclesiasticall Histories , Ephe. 4. 5 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 indeau●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 , The Chu●● of England defendeth old Rom● 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 , The late R●●mish faith the new re●●●●●on . 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 , 〈◊〉 this point w●ll 〈◊〉 . 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 , Par. 19. Reg. 18. Par. 29. 30 , 1. 34. 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 , Reg. 2. 4. 8. ●ee defend 〈◊〉 old Romā●●ligion . 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 , ●n : Dom: — 1498. 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 , 〈…〉 annot. in 〈…〉 . de potest . 〈…〉 & ●onc . 〈◊〉 . 4. p. 139 that ●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 ? 〈◊〉 Iohns esie con●nned with sound of ●●●●pets . 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 damnable opinion to be condemned with the sound of Trumpets ? Adrianus . 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 . Lyr. in 16. 〈◊〉 Mat. 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 fl●t Aposta●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 from our holy Mistris Iohn Pope , The Pope with child . 1. Tim. 2. 12. 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 , Seauen Pop witnesses , 〈◊〉 pope Iohn was a wo●● 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 Octauianus to the Popedome ? Was not the oth accomplished , and bee named Iohn ? Was he not a great hunter , and a man of licencious life ? Did he not keepe women openly , to the notorious scandall of the Church ? Did not some of the Cardinals write to Otto , Behold Po● Iohn the vi gin . King of the Saxons , to come & besiedge Rome so to afflict him for his sins ? Did not the Pope perceiuing it , cause the Cardinals nose to be cut off that gaue the counsel , & his hand that wrote the letter ? Martinus Polonus a Popish Arch-Bishop , & sometime the Popes owne Penitentiary , affirmeth this to bee a constant truth ? Did not Pope Siluester the second , a French-man borne , Gilbertus by name , promise homage to the Deuill , so long as he should accomplish his desire ? Did he not so often expresse his de●ire to the Deuill , as he made homage vnto him ? And was he not first made Archbishop of Rhemes , then of Rauennas , at the last Pope of Rome ? Did not the Deuill knowing his ambitious mind , bring him to honor by degrees ? When he was made Pope , was hee not desirous to know of the Deuill , how long he should liue in his pontificall glory ? Did not the Deuill answere him , 〈◊〉 : Dom: — ●07 . so long as he said no Masse in Hierusalem ? The story is long , he that can read and desireth to know it at large , may find it in Martino Polono , aboue named ? Did not Pope Benedict the eyght , appear corporally after his death , as it were riding on a blacke Horse ( the Deuill ? ) Did he not desire the Bishop that saw him , to cause some Mony to be giuen to the poore , because all that he gaue afore time , was gotten by robbe●y and extortion ? Petrus Damascenus affirmeth it . Was not Pope Formosus , a periured person ? Did not Pope Iohn degrade him , 〈◊〉 is now 〈◊〉 indeleble Character ? after he had been Bishop of Portua ? Did he not take him sworn , that he neither should be Bishop , nor euer returne to the city of Rome ? Did not Pope Martine absolue him of his oath ? Came hee not to Rome , and shortly after was made Pope ? Did not Pope Stephanus the sixt , persecute Pope Formosus ? Did hee not cause his dead body to be brought forth into his consistory , the papall ornamentes to bee taken away & a laical habit to be put on the dead corps , two fingers of his right hand to be cut off , and so his body to bee put into the graue ? Did not Sergius the third , cause Pope Formosus , ( who now had beene dead almost ten yeares ) to be taken out of his Tombe , and to bee set in a Chaire with pontificall attire vpon his backe , most bru●● cruelty ! and then his head to bee cut off and cast into Tyber ? Platina , Carranza , and Polonus affirme it for a constant and knowne truth ? Did not Pope Vrbanus the second absolue subiects , from their fidelity and alleageance which was dew vnto their Soueraigne , so that whosoeuer obeyed the King , was reputed excommunicated , and they that took part against the King , were resolued from the ●●ime of periury and Iniustice ? Did not Pope Boniface the eight , challenge the right of both Swordes ? Did hee not depriue Phillip the French King , and giue his Kingdome to him that could get it ? ●●uclerus . Sigebertus and Nauclerus proclaime it to the World . If I should enter into the full discourse of these Mysteries , time would sooner faile me , then matter whereof to speake . Let it suffice for the present , to call to mind the ladder of eight steppes , by whch the late Bishop of Rome did climbe vp to their tyrannicall primacy ; the killing of Christ in the Popish Masse ; the pluralities of bodies ascribed vnto him ; the sensible touching , breaking , and chewing of Christs Reall and naturall bodie without teeth ; the absurdities , impossiblities , and contradictions , which necessarily insue vpon their falsely and fondly imagined reall presence ; their intollerable and blasphemous dispensations ; the Brother licenced to marry his owne naturall Sister ; persons ioyned in wedlocke by God himselfe , and dissolued by the Pope ; Saint Pauls flat doctrin of Concupiscence to bereiected ; Condigne merits of Mans workes established ; damnable sinnes to be made Veniall ; Bishops must sweare to be true to the Pope . Bishops not to haue voyces in Counsels , vntill they first sweare to de●end the Pope and his damnable decrees ; that Papistes can keepe the Commandements , and adde thereunto works of supererogation . These and many like execrable assertions , the Gentle Reader shall finde in this small Volume , to be truely iustified against the Pope and his Iesuited Popelings . Many years are expired since I first wrote against the Papists . They haue desperately a●firmed , that my Bookes were answered many yeares agoe , yet this is the first answere indeede , that euer was published against any of my Books ; Our holy Iesuite must needs haue a fore-runner . which was pretended to be such a worthy thing , that it must needs haue a fore-runner to come before it , to exhort Men to prepare themselues worthily to receiue it ; as if forsooth , this saucy Rebell S. R. were Christ himselfe , and his fore-ru●ner Saint Iohn the Baptist. What hee hath performed in his supposed aunswere , and my selfe in this my Reply ; The truth 〈◊〉 preuaile in time , and Po●●pery wholly ouerthrowne I refer it to the iudgement and censure of the indifferent Reader . The worke such as it is , I haue Dedicated vnto your Honour ; as an externall signe of thankefulnesse , for the Honourable fauours receiued at your Lordships hand . The Almighty increase your Christian zeale towardes his Gospell ; and so blesse your faithfull seruice to your Prince and Countrey , as your most Honorable place and calling doth require .

Your Honors Seruant in Christ Iesus , Thomas Bell.

The first Article . Of the Popes falsly supposed SOVERAIGNTY .

Chapter first . Of certaine Aphorismes , for the better instruction of the Reader .

Aphorisme 1.

MAny reasons might be alledged , why so many at this day , doe so greedily , ( though foolishly and vndiscreetly ) embrace the late Romish religion ; but these few to giue a tast , shall suffice for the present . The first reason is , because they expect a day as prophane Esau did , Gen● , 27 , 41 See my Anathomy of Popish tyranny . Hest , 7 , 10. when they may kill their true and naturall Soueraigne , Gods sacred and annointed Lieutenant ( as I haue proued elsewhere at large ) and so aspire and be aduaunced to great wealth & dignitie : But let them remember proud Hammons end , least they be hanged on the gallowes , which they intend and prepare for others . The second , because our gratious Soueraigne , ( as did his noble predecessors K. Edward and Queene Elizabeth of famous memory ) laboureth to win Papists with lenity and long sufferance , and by reading & preaching , to bring them to the light of Christes Gospell : whereas the Pope neuer ceaseth , to burne burne with fire and fagot , whosoeuer holdeth and defendeth , any one article , contrary to his late hatched Religion : yea , if one passe by an Image , or their house of Inquisition ( which they terme the Holy-house ) and do not reuerence thereunto , it is enough to cast that man into the sayde disholy prison : Which kind of punishment , if it were vpon iust cause , executed within his Maiesties Dominions , shortly , few or no disloyall subiects would be found within his kingdomes . August , epist 48 , Tom 2 3 Cap , quicunque de haeret , lib 6 Which is not my bare opinion onely , but euen Saint Austens in the like subiect ; as it doeth and may appeare to the indifferent Reader , in his learned Epistle to Vincentius the third , because for the better successe and more free passage of the late Romish Religion , the laicall people are commanded by Popish Canon-law , vnder paine of Excommunication , not to reason at all , in matters of Faith and Religion ; and the learned semblably , not to examine or discusse , how farre the Popes power doeth extend , whatsoeuer or howsoeuer he command them to beleeue . For the Popes law hath made it Sacriledge , to dispute of his power , or to call it into question ; so writeth their owne deare Doctor and popish Fryer , Franciscus à Victoria , the first man that brought the Popish School-doctrine into Spaine : yea the Popes owne decrees are consonant to the same , these are the expresse wordes : Relect , 4 , de potest , papae & conc , propos , 16 , caus , 17 , q , 4 , cap , ne●ini . Similiter de iudicio summi pontificis alicui disputare non licet . In like maner , no man may dispute of the iudgment of the Pope , or high-priest . The fourth , because neyther any of the layty , nor yet of the Cleargy , can vnder paine of Excommunication , read eyther the olde or the new Testament translated into the vulgar tongue , or any other booke of Controuersie or Diuinity , set forth by any not professed Vassall vnto the Pope ; vnlesse such person or persons be especially licenced of the pope so to doe .

Aphorisme second .

The multitude of the vulgar and rude people , become Papists , vpon this false and sandy foundation , supposed of them to be a receiued Theologicall Maxime , viz: that the late start vp Romish Doctrine , is the auncient Catholike faith , and the olde Roman religion : And therefore , when soeucr they speake of any Papist , meaning to expresse his sect and profession ; they tell vs , he is one of the old Relion : but they are grossely deceiued herein ; they may haue zeale , I grant with the Apostle , Rom , 10 , 2 but not acording to knowledge . For , the doctrine this day taught and defended by the Pope , his Iesuites , and Iesuited Papists , is indeed the new Religion , and farre different from the true , catholick , and olde Roman religion . Would to God all simply seduced Papists , would deepely ponder this point , and seriously meditate vpon the same . I doe with all my heart reuerently receiue and admit , the old Roman religion preached by Saint Paule and S. Peter , in their daies at Rome ; but withall , I vtterly abhorre and detest , that Doctrine , which the late Popes and Byshops of Rome deliuer for the same . In regard hereof , I neuer in any one of my Bookes , oppugne simply and absolutely the Roman faith and religion , but the late Romish faith and doctrine . Where I wish the Reader to obserue and marke attentiuely , Marke well this word ( Late . ) this word ( Late ) for it doth significantly declare a cleere difference betweene that doctrine which is now taught in the church of Rome , and that which S. Paule and S. Peter , deliuered to the Romans in their life time . Which , because the common vulgar sort of people cannot distinguish ( such is their ignorance ) they are perforce carried away with the sway of the time . Marke the next Aphorisme .

Aphorisme third .

We know , and the Papists knowe , that theyr reformed Franciscans ( now commonly called Capuchenes ) can tel right well , that their other dissolute Franciscans haue swarued from their auncient order , albeit they can neither tel when , where , nor by whom , that dissolution first began ; yet they proue it à posteriori , by their auncient rules euidently . And euen so do we proue , by the holy scriptures ( the true touch stone of truth ) that the Papistes haue swarued from Apostolicall doctrine , albeit we could not ( as yet we can ) assigne the time , place , and persons ; when , where , and by whom , such Antechristian alteration first began . Let the Reader marke this point well , that , that Sect of Papistes which is called Franciscans , doe boast of their succession & continuance , and by reason of their antiquity , will needes be the true Franciscans , but the Capuchens ( which are nothing but reformed Franciscans ) tell them , that they are the true Franciscans , who haue ●ely put away and abolished all superstition and dissolution , which by little and litle crept into their order . Euen so say we , that we are the olde and true Catholickes or Romans , who keepe stil that saith and doctrine which saint Paule preached to the Romans ; and haue only put away and abolished , that superstition , Idolatry , and erroneous doctrine , which by little and little , crept into the Church . They will needes be the true and olde Catholicks , as is said of the dissolute Franciscans ; but we tell them , as their Capuchens tel their disordered Franciscans , that they are the deformed & bastard Catholicks , vnworthy of the name of Catholicks .

And that we are the reformed and legitimate Catholicks , who keep still and hold fast all Apostolicall doctrin , and haue onely abolished out of the church of God , al Superstition , Idolatry , and errors , contrary to the scriptures and the Gospell , which the Apostles preached , and left in writing to all posterities . Obserue diligently the next Aphorisme .

Aphorisme fourth .

First , Popish primacie began , in the yeare 607. Secondly , Priestes mariage was neuer prohibited , till the yeare 385. Thirdly , Popes pardons were neuer heard of , till the yeare 1300. Fourthly , popish Purgatorie tooke no root in the Romish Church , till the yeare 250. Fiftly , inuocation of Saintes , & adoration of Reliques , was not known , till the yeare 370. Sixtly , Popish pilgrimage began in the yeare 420. Seuenthly , the merite of Workes de condigno , was disputeable about the yeare 1081. Eightly , the communion vnder both kindes , was neuer thought vnlawfull , till the yeare 1414. Ninthly , the Popes Bulles were not authenticall , till the yeare 772. Tenthly , Auricular confession was not established , till the yeare 1215. Eleuenthly , Generall Councels , were euer summoned by the Emperours . That all these heads of Popish doctrine , crept into the Church , by little and little in the yeares aboue named , I haue proued at large ten yeares agoe , in my Booke of the Suruey of Popery , as also partly in my Booke of Motiues , to which bookes I referre the Reader , for better satisfaction therein .

This creeping of late Romish religion into the Church by little & little , Victoria a Popish fryer & famous school-Doctor , witnesseth in these wordes ; Victor : de potest . papae & conc . rel. 4. pag. 151 Paulatim ad hanc , &c. By little and little we are brought to these inordinate dispensations , and to this miserable state , where we are neyther able to endure our owne griefes , nor remedies assigned for the same : and therefore must wee perforce inuent some other way , for conseruation of the Lawes . Giue me Clements , Lines , Siluester , and I will commit all thinges to theyr charge . But to speake nothing grieuously against these latter Popes , they are doubtlesse inferiours to Popes of old time , by many degrees : Thus writeth this learned Popish Fryer ; who if he durst haue spoken plainly , would haue told vs mirabilia . But it sufficeth that Popes were worse and worse , and that errors by little and little crept into the Church .

Aphorisme fift .

The vsuall practise of Papists in their Commentaries , Bookes and Glosses , haue beene such , and so intollerable , in wresting the holy scriptures , that their owne deere brethren and great Doctors , cannot for shame deny or conceale the same . Polydorus virgilius , a famous Papist , hath these wordes ; Non secus isti , &c. Polid. Virg. lib. 4. cap. 9 , pag. 39 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 tu●re causam , quam scriptura sacra . Roffensis art. 37. adu . Luth. pag. 11 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 such 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 , Couar : Tom. 1 part 2. cap. 7 par. 4. ● . 14. in medio . 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 , In the first Article . 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 , Page 4 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 , Page 7 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 commaund 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 . Page 55

Thirdly , because ye likewise grant freely , that the Pope deposed king Henry the eight , Page 75 and Queene Elizabeth , and for better assurance hereof , Page 26 you tell vs the same tale in another place . Page 17 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 : Sigebert . An. 1088. 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 , Sigebert , i● Chron. An. 1088. 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 , See my Anathomy 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 , Page 5 but teach the quite contrary . Page 6 Againe , if Bell reply , that some Cannonists haue affirmed the pope to be Lord temporall ouer the world , let him challenge them , & not like a wise man strike his next fellowes the English papists , who maintaine no such opinion .

T. B.

I proued first out of the Popes owne decrees , dist. 22. can . omner . that pope Nicholas affirmed Christ to haue committed to S. Peter , & consequently to himselfe , the right both of earthly and heauenly Empire .

Secondly , out of the popes glosse , that the Popes hath both the Spirituall and Temporall sworde , and by right thereof , did translate the Empire . Thirdly out of the popes decretals , that pope Boniface challenged the Royall right and Authority of both swords , and made a flat decree for the confirmation thereof . Fourthly , out of Appendix fuldensis , that the same pope Boniface the 8. affirmed himselfe both Spirituall and Temporall Lord of the whole world , and thereupon he required of Phillip king of France , that he would acknowledge his Kingdome from him , which thing the King scorned to do . All this notwithstanding , our Iesuite S. R. aunswereth roundly , that I must challenge them , and not strike their fellowes . Marry sir , this is a short answere indeede ; but as much to the matter , as if you should say , your heart doth pant and bleede : But let vs be content with this answere , seeing the silly Iesuiticall Fryer , was not able to afford vs any better .

S. R.

English Papists attribute to the pope , Page 6 no other authority ouer Kings then spirituall , but do with tongue & heart , and with the popes good liking confesse , that our Soueraigne Lord King Iames hath no superiour on earth , in Temporall matters .

T. B.

What a Masked , lying , and Trayterous Iesuite is this ? We haue heard already , that the Pope deposed both King Henry the 8. and most Noble Queene Elizabeth , and yet heere the ly●ng impudent Iesuite telleth vs boldly without blushing , ( for his face is of brasse ) that King Iames hath no superiour on earth . It is true indeede , but not in his sence . For I pray you Traiterous Iesuites , are not earthly Kingdomes and Dominions , Temporall matters ? It cannot bee denied . Had not King Henry the 8. and Queene Elizabeth of famous memory , the same superiority in their Kingdomes and temporall affayrs , which our gratious soueraigne King Iames hath ? His Maiesty will not denie it . But so it is , that your Pope deposing them , ( as you haue told vs , ) was their superiour as you holde and teach . For doubtlesse , no inferiour can depose his superiour , and consequently , your Pope by your profession , is superiour to our King . This is but your Hypocritical Cozenage ; your cogging and lying , your Diabolicall Equiuocation . If your power were correspondent to your wil , his Maiesty might speedily loose his Crowne and dignity . GOD saue our Noble King , and confound your Antichristian Pope .

S. R.

Because Bellarmine teacheth , that the Pope may excommunicate and depose Princes for heresie ; Page 7 Bell sayth , hee may depose them at his pleasure : As if matters of Heresie , were the Popes pleasure .

T. B.

Here we haue freely granted once againe , that the pope by Popish doctrine , may depose Princes for heresie : only this is denied , that he deposeth them at his pleasure . To which , I thus reply ; First , that euery heresie is voluntary , and consequently , seeing many popes haue been heretiks , ( as Pope Adrian himselfe , Alphonsus de Castro , Melchior Canus , Vignerius , Nicolaus de Lyra , and many others freely grant ) it followeth of necessity , that heresie is the Popes pleasure . Secondly , that when I say , the pope taketh vpon him to depose Princes at his pleasure ; I meane nothing else , but that the pope will depose Princes , whensoeuer they refuse to embrace and beleeue , his late start vp Romish religion ; that is to say , that doctrine , which is added to the olde Roman religion at his pleasure . For all that which the Church of England this day reiecteth of the Romish religion , is added , to the old Romish religion at the Popes pleasure . This subiect is proued at large in my Motiues and Suruey . Page 8 But our Iesuite vrgeth further , that Bell disproueth himselfe in these wordes : Secular Priests ( saith Bell ) write plainly and resolutely , In my Anathomy , in the Caueat to the Reader . and libr. 2. cap. 4. & cap. 9. that the pope hath no power to depriue Kings of their royall sceptars and regalities , nor to giue away their kingdomes to another : in which opinion likewise the French Papists concurre and iumpe with them . Item , the Seculars , although they acknowledge the popes power supereminent in Spiritualibus , yet doe they disclaime from it in Temporalibus , when he taketh vpon him to depose Kinges from their Empires , and to translate their kingdomes . And least we should thinke these few priests who write so , were no Papists , Bell himselfe testifieth , that they are the Popes deare vassals , and professe the same Religion with other Papistes . ●●pist . to the King . By these words , our masked Iesuit , ( as we see ) wold gladly impose vpon me , that I haue slandered them and their Pope . First , because the secular priests deny the Popes power in deposing Kings . Secondly , because I graunt those seculars to be papists , but this slander is easily returned to the Iesuite himselfe . For first , our Iesuites holde , that the Pope may depose Kinges from their Dominions and regalities . Againe , the secular priests are of a contrary opinion . Neyther for all that doth it follow , that they are not papistes : For it is very vsuall and common to Papists , to dissent one from another in matters of Religion . This is prooued in my Motiues . Our masked Iesuit spendeth the whole chapters following ; ( viz ) the second , third , and fourth , not in answering me and my proofes , but in meere impertinent matters ; of the opinion of Knox and his fellow-ministers in Scotland , and such like stuffe : wherefore omitting his impertinent verosity in the saide three Chapters , I come vnto the fift next following the same .

CHAP. 3. ¶ Conteining a confutation of S. R. his answere to the proofes of my assumption . S. R.

POpe Gregory saith Bell , Page 27 writing to the Emperor Mauritius , calleth him soueraign Lord , and professeth himselfe subiect to his command , and to owe him obedience . Wherupon Bell inferreth , that for 600. years after Christ , popes liued in dutifull obedience vnder Emperors .

T. B.

I proued out of Pope Gregories wordes , these three speciall points ; ( viz ) that Pope Gregory freely and willingly acknowledged the Emperour to be his soueraigne Lorde . That he confesseth himselfe to be the Emperours subiect . That he yeelded loyall obedience to the Emperor , and for that respect , thought himselfe bound in conscience to publish the Emperours law , although in some part it seemed to disagree with Gods Law ; and that forsooth , least hee should be found guilty of disloyalty toward his prince .

S. R.

As for the place which Bell citeth , Page 28 he speaketh not there of the subiection , duety , or obedience of a subiect to his prince , but of a seruant to his maister , ( as he had bene to Mauritius whiles they were both pruiate men ) which himselfe plainely professeth in the beginning of his Letter in these wordes ; In this suggestion I speake not as Byshop , nor as subiect , by reason of the common-wealth , but by priuate right of my owne , because you haue beene my Lord since that time when as yet you were not Lord of all . And therefore by the foresayde words he meaneth no otherwise , then a louing seruant doeth , when vpon curtesie to his old maister , though he haue left him , yet he still calleth him maister , and offereth himselfe and his seruice at his command .

T. B.

My reply standeth thus . First , that Pope Gregory or Gregory then Byshop of Rome , spake of that obedience which a subiect oweth to his prince . I proue it ; first , because hee saith , he rendred his obedience to the Emperor , and concealed not what he thought on Gods behalfe . Secondly , because a few lines afore , hee telleth the Emperour what preferment Christ had bestowed on him , and what honor he had done vnto him ; among which this was one , that he had committed his priestes to his charge , Sacerdotes meos t●aemanui commisi , & tu à meo seruitio milites tuos subtrahis ? Christ will say vnto you , saith Gregory ; I haue committed my priests vnto your hands , and do you withdrawe your souldiors from my seruice ? By which words it is apparant , that Gregory yeelded his obedience , as he was a Byshop or priest ; and it skilleth not , that he saith in the beginning of the Epistle , I speake not as Byshoppe , but in mine owne priuate right : the reason is euident , because the publishing of a wicked Law , did not pertaine to him as hee was a Byshop ( whose office is to preach Gods word , and to administer his Sacraments ) but as a priuate man subiect vnto his prince : And therefore he answered in his own priuate right , that it was not agreeable to Gods will , yet did hee publish the same , to shew his allegeance to his soueraign .

S. R.

Moreouer , Page 30 Bell writeth that Barbarians possessed all Italy from the yeere 471. vntill Charles the great 801. how then saith he heere , that Popes liued vnder Emperors vntill the yeare 603.

T. B.

First , our Popes liue not alwaies at Rome , for they haue many times beene driuen from thence , & liued els where : and shall we thereupon conclude , that therefore they ceased to be Popes ? no papist will admit it .

Secondly , though the Aliens and Barbarians did a long time possesse all Italy , yet did the Byshops of Rome euer acknowledge their duety and allegeance vnto the Emperour .

Thirdly , when the Pope is deade , in the Interim while another is chosen , doe not the papistes acknowledge the Popes supremacy ? I weene they do . If S. R. shall denie it , I will vse another argument against him . Euen so , when the Emperors were not at Rome ; yea , when there was no Christian Emperour at all , the Byshops acknowledged the right of his soueraignty .

Fourthly , when I say , that Popes or Byshops of Rome liued in duetifull subiection , to the Emperours of Rome , more then six hundred yeares after Christs sacred incarnation , euery childe knoweth the meaning ; viz. that no Bishop during that time , denyed the Emperours supereminent power ouer him .

Lastly , the Iesuite to further his lying , hath falsifyed both my words and my meaning . Now , where I cited S. Ambrose , Euthymius , Hugo Cardinalis , Lyra , Aquinas , and the popish glosse ; our masked Iesuite answereth roundly , though impudently and vnclerkly , that all the said writers speake of superiority in Temporall matters ; but hee can bring for himselfe , neither Scripture , Counsell , Father , nor reason . We must accept and be content with his bare word : For to the Pope and his Iesuites , no man may say , Curitafacis ? Why dost thou so ? The Popes owne decrees tell vs plainly , that though the Pope be neuer so wicked , though he carry thousands of soules with himselfe head-long into hell ; yet for all that may no man take vpon him to iudge the Pope , vnlesse he be an Hereticke : the reason is yeelded by their own deare Doctor Gerson , dist. 40. cap. si papa . Gers. de pot . eccle. cons. 12. part . 3. Hugo Cardin. ps. 50. because forsooth Christ hath written in his thing , ( the King of Kinges and Lorde of Lords ) to whom no man may say , why dooest thou so . Of whose power it is sacrilege to reason or dispute . To thee alone ( saieth Cardinall Hugo ) haue I sinned , beecause there is not any aboue mee , but thy selfe alone , that hath power to punish me . For I am a King , and so besides thee ( O God ) there is none aboue me . Al the aforenamed writers teach the felfesame Doctrine , viz. that the Pope or Byshop of Rome , is so farre from hauing power to depose Kings and Emperors , that hee himselfe ought to bee subiect to them , & hath no authority at al to punish them .

What can be more plainely spoken ? What Testimonies can be more manifest ? What Doctrine can be clearer ? for if none but God be superior to the king ; See my profes in the downe-fall of popery . if none but God can iudge the King ; if none but GOD can punnish the King , all which , both Auncient Fathers and the Popes owne deere Doctors affirme , as I haue often proued at large in the Downfall of Popery ; then doubtles can not the Pope depose the king ; then can he not absolue his subiects from their allegeance ; then can hee not translate Empires and Kingdomes , and bestowe the same at his owne pleasure . This notwithstanding , the popes parasites to his good liking , tell vs another tale in these wordes . G●rs . de potest eccles. consid. 12. part . 3 Sicut non est potestas nisi à Deo , sic nec aliqua temporalis vel ecclesiastica , imperialis vel regalis , nisi à papa . As there is no power but of God , so is there neither any temporall , nor Ecclesiasticall , neyther imperiall nor Regal , but of the Pope .

S. R.

ONly I say , Page 33 that Iosue was no king , nor the Scripture affordeth any colour of saying , that any High-priest was deposed by any of the saide Kinges , except Abiath●r by Salomon : and yet as it is gathered out of the fourth ch. 3. Reg , 2 , vers. 35 , 27 3 Reg. 4 , 4 Cap. 2 , 35 ( where he is accounted priest in Salomons raigne ) Salomon deposed him not , but only for a time confined him to his house , for his conspiracy with Adonias , and so debarred him for executing his priestly function : And though hee had deposed him , he had not done it as King , but as Prophet , fulfilling ( as the scripture testifieth ) the prophesie against the house of Hely , from whence Abiathar discended .

T. B.

AFter I had proued at large by many authorities , that Kinges haue supereminent power ouer Byshops , not Byshops ouer Kinges ; I added for a confirmation thereof , that the good Kinges , Iosue , Dauid , Salomon , Iehosophat , Ezechias and Iosias , knew ●ight well , that they had authority aboue all the priestes ; and therefore they tooke vpon them , not only to command and controll the priestes , but also to depose them from theyr places and functions : yea , euen the High-priests themselues , when their desertes did so require . Which point I auouched to be proued at large , in my Golden ballance of tryall .

To this discourse S. R. answereth foure thinges .

First , that Iosue was no king .

Secondly , that no High-priest was deposed by any of the saide Kinges .

Thirdly , that Abiathar the High-priest , was not deposed by king Salomon , but onely confined to his house .

Fourthly , that if king Salomon had deposed Abiathar , yet had he not done it as king , but as Prophet .

My reply is this . First , that to deny Iosue to be king , is a vaine cauill , and argueth lacke of matter in our Iesuites answere : for Iosue had the thing , though not the name : he was the Ciuil independent Magistrate , and had the chiefe and supereminent power ouer the Isralites his Subiects ; as Moses whom he succeeded had , Num. 27 , 17 and the other Kings , Dauid , Salomon , Iosaphat , Ezekias , and Iosias . In regard whereof , he was and may bee truely reckoned , with and among the other kings . But when good reasons cannot bee had , such Beggerly cauils must supply the want .

Secondly , that it is a most notorious slander against the holy Scripture , and consequently á notable blasphemy against God himselfe ; to say , and desperately to avouch in a printed Booke , that no High-priest was deposed by any of the said Kinges . These are the expresse wordes of holie writ . Eiecit ergo Salomon Abiathar , 2 Reg. 2 , 27 vt non esset sacerdos domini . Therefore Salomon cast out or deposed Abiathar ( the high Priest ) that he should not be the Priest of the Lord . Again holy writ hath these expresse wordes . Et Sadoc sacerdote posuit pro Abiathar , and the King put Sadoc the Priest , vbi supra . verse 35. in the roome of Abiathar .

Loe the holy scripture telleth vs two things most plainly and expressely ; and that is done euen in that Latin Vulga●a editio , to which the Pope hath tyed all his Iesuites and Iesuited Popelings . The one , that King Salomon deposed Abiathar the High-priest . The other , that hee placed Sadoc the priest in Abiathars roome .

Thirdly , that it is most absurdly auouched of our Iesuit , that Salomon onely confined Abiathar to his house for a time . Concerning this deposition and casting out of Abiathar from his place , and putting Sadoc the priest in his roome , our Iesuite is at his wits end what to say : and why I pray you ? For this end doubtles , because hence it is proued euidently , and by a necessary consecution , that Kings both haue and may depose priests , euen the hie priests , and greatest priests of all . But it can neuer be proued out of the holy scriptures , that any Priest deposed any King ; no , not the meanest king in all the world . The Iesuite contradicteth himselfe mightily . For first hee saith , that none of the Kings deposed any priest , Secondly , that Salomon deposed Abiathar . Thirdly , that Abiathar was not deposed , but onely for a time confined to his owne house . What hors●e would not breake his necke , to heare this sweet melodie ? The scripture telleth vs , 3 Reg. 2 , v. 27. & v. 35. that king Salomon deposed Abiathar , and for confirmation heereof , the same scripture addeth , that Sadoc the priest , was set in his roome .

Fourthly , to say as the Iesuite doeth , that Salomon deposed Abiathar not as King , but as prophet , is to speake at randon , and to make of scripture a nose of wax , for no one Text from the first of Genesis to the last of the Apocalipse , doth iustifie this fond and sottish answer of the masked Iesuite ; albeit , I know this to bee true , that he wanted not the aduise and counsell of his best learned Brethren . Whosoeuer desireth further in sight into this subiect , and of the soueraignty of kings ouer priests and Byshops , which are their subiects ; if he peruse my Golden ballance of tryall , I hope in God , it will satisfie his desire .

CHAP. 4. ¶ Containing a confutation of the sixt Chapter of the masked Iesuite .

THe Iesuite in his sixt Chapter and first article , is wholly occupied in impertinent matters , and foolish demaunds , not once touching directly ought that I haue written : but let vs heare him once againe , and so proceed to another Chapter .

S. R.

Because the question is not , Page 38 vpon what cause Kings and Emperors humbled themselues to the Popes , but whether they did or no : And because they haue so done ( as Bell confesseth ) Catholicks infer the Pope to be their superior . Vnlesse perhaps Bell thinke blinde zeale to disanul euery fact or guift ; and so say , the Iewes persecuted not the Church , because they did it vpon blind zeale ; nor our Catholique ancestors gaue any liuings to Churches , because they did it vpon blind zeale ( as Bell must thinke ) for maintainance of Papistry .

T. B.

O shamelesse and impudent Iesuite ? Is the question only what was done ? Where is thy wit ? Where is thy faith ? Where is thy Religion ? Doth not your Angellicall Doctor Aquinas teach you , that all morall Acts haue their specification of the end and finall cause ? Doth not Scotus , Ockamus , Gabriel , Iosephus , Durandus , and all the rest approue the same Doctrine ? How sayest thou then , O blind Iesuit , that the question is not vpon what cause kinges humbled themselues to the Popes , but whether they did or no , ô Tempora ! ô Mores ! Doth not alms ( otherwise a commendable act ) degenerate into sinne , when it is giuen for vaine glory ? And this onely , because the ende and cause for which it is giuen , is nought and vnlawfull ? Dooeth not Christs Apostle tell thee , that whatsoeuer is not of fayth is sinne ? Rom 14 , 23 1 cor. 10 , 31 That whatsoeuer is done , ought to bee done to to the glory of God ? Alas , alas , euery childe that hath but learned the rudiments of Christianity , can roundly tel our Iesuite , that we must not so much respect what is done , as what ought of right to be done . We may not reason as our Iesuite Parsons doth ( for he is the man ) the thing was don , therefore lawfully done . Kings yeelded supreame authority to the Pope , therefore they did it lawfuly . By that kind of Logicke or rather Legierdemain , all theftes , all robberies , all Rebellions , all mischiefes vnder heauen , may bee iustifyed and defended . You Iesuites , and your Iesuited pope-lings , do take part with the Pope against your annointed Soueraigne ; and so by this new ( no Diuinity ) the pope is our King and Superiour . For thus you reason , beecause Kings haue so done , the Pope is their Superiour . For the question is not , vpon whose grounde they did so , but whether they did so or no. For by your Theology , if the thing be done , it is lawfully done , but what ? Bell perhaps thinkes , that blinde zeale dissanulleth euery fact , and so neither the Iewes persecuted the Church , nor our papistes gaue any liuing to the Church , because they did it ( as Bell must thinke ) vpon blind zeale . O monster of al Monsters ? ô Child of perdition ? ô sonne of the Deuill ? Bell saith not , that blind zeale disanulleth any act . Bell saith not , that papists gaue no liuings to the Church . Bell saith not , that the Iewes did not persecute the Church . No , no , it is the deuill in our Iesuite , that mooues him thus falsly to slaunder Bell. It is one thing to say , the papists gaue liuinges to the Church vpon a blinde zeale ; another thing to say , they gaue nothing at all . The former I say , the latter I denie : & therefore , when you papists labour to proue the popes soueraignty ouer Kings , because some Kings , haue acknowledged it , vpon a blind zeale ; I answer , that your proofe is of no force , not for that such thinges haue not bin done ; but because they were not done , as they should , & ought to 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 , Page 37 Bell himselfe confesseth , where hee saith , that some Christian Kings and Emperours , haue vpon a blinde zeal●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 , who haue humbled themselues , and yeelded their Soueraigntie to him ?

T. B.

This is my reply . First , See the second chapt. for this point . 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 . Page 37 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 , 2 Sam. 15 , 5. 6 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 , Page 42 that the glossers of the Lawe 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 , In my Motiues . 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 , Page 44 our Iesuite denyeth in one page , that which hee granteth in another , concerning the Popes power . The sound of the Bell , Page 47 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 , Page 49 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 , The first step . 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 from Constantine was holden & beleeued for a trueth . The multitude in the western parts , being too too credulous , gaue credit to false reports , and rashly and inconsiderately beleeued , that the Emperor had made a decree , that the Pope and his successors should weare the crowne of pure gold and precious stones which he had giuen him from off his owne head . So that lying , and cogging , was the first step of the Popes exalting . For , who woulde not giue honour to him , who was so honoured of the King ? Although in truth the Popes rising , was nothing else but a meere leasing .

I haue proued soundly out of famous Popish Writers , that Constantines pretended donation was a meere fable , & that Bellarmine himselfe , standeth in doubt thereof , and therefore for his last refuge appealeth to prescription .

S. R.

Bellarmine affirmeth , that the Pope hath two iust Titles to hold his estate . The first , is the free gift of Princes , whereof he can shew Authenticall euidences ; the other , prescription of time .

T. B.

I answere , that for the first Title , though some of the Popes parasites affirme it , yet do learned and wise Papists , Laurentius Valla , Raphael Volateranus , Paulus Cathalanus , Nicolaus Cusanus , & many others , repute it a meer Fable & flat leasing . And for the second , that where the Original is vniust , and the possession holden Mala fide , prescription will not serue the turne . Howsoeuer this be , Constantines departure was the first step to Popish primacy . For , if hee had tarried still at Rome , such feyned and falsly pretended Tytles , could neuer haue taken place .

S. R.

Besides that , not Constantines departure , Page 49 but his gifte should haue beene made the step .

T. B.

Not the gift good Sir , which was none indeed , yet falsely pretended to be ; but his departure from Rome to Constantinople . For if Constantine had made his abode still at Rome , the Popes parasites durst neuer haue giuen him such feyned Tytles .

S. R.

The second step ( saith Bell ) was the fall of the Empyre in the West , The 2. step . Page . 51 in the yeere 471. and the vacancie thereof for almost 330. yeares . But how this fall and vacancy of the Empire , was a step for Popes to climbe ; neither he sheweth , nor any can imagine ; especially , if ( as hee writeth straight after ) in this vacancy of the Empire , Rome was spoyled with fire and sword , and the wals throwne down to the ground , and all Italy possessed of the Barbares vntill Carolus Magnus , who was the first Emperor after the vacancy . If in this vacancy , Rome was destroyed , and all Italy possessed by Barbares , ( who for the most part were heathens or Heretiques ) how could it be a step for the Pope to climbe , and not rather to fall ?

T. B.

Our Iesuite seemeth to bee wise in his owne conceite , thinking nothing to bee true , which his grossum caput cannot apprehend . The great difficulty is this ; how Rome being spoyled with fire and sword , and all Italy possessed of Aliens and Barbarians , could bee a steppe for the Pope to climbe and not to fall .

I answere , Marke . 3 , 24 that when a kingdome is deuided against it selfe , it cannot long continue ; and consequently , the Visigothes ruling in Spaine , the Aliens in Gutan and Gascoyn , the Frenchmen in the residue of France , the Vandales in Affricke , the Saxons in Brittaine , the Ostrogothes in Hungarie , the Hecules and Turdilinges in Italy and in the Cittie of Rome ; the Emperor remaining in the East , was not able to defend his imperiall right in the West , but by little and little was dispossessed thereof . Then the Popes frends possessing the Empire by his good helpe and furtherance , and willing to requite one good turne with another , sought by all meanes possible to aduance and exalt the Pope . And so the fall of the Empire , was a step for the Pope to climb vp to his Lordly primacy . This may be made manifest , by the daily practise of the Pope and his Iesuites . For the Popes and Iesuites neuer cease to stirre vp forraigne potentates to inuade the Empire of great Brittaine , and the kingdome of Ireland ; and that onely for this end and purpose , that the fall thereof may tend to their aduancement . Insomuch , that they haue promised great gifts , to such as would imploy their labours , for the ouerthrowe and fall of this Noble kingdome , which thing is proued at large , in my Anatomy of Popish Tyrany .

S. R.

Bell before said , Pag 52 Popes liued in duetifull obedience vnder Emperors , vntill the 603. how doth he now say , that they climbe to Tiranny from the yeare 471.

T. B.

I answere ; first , In the downfall . pag , 3. that our Iesuite belyeth me in wresting my words , which is his vsuall manner . For my wordes are not ( vnder Emperors ) but ( to the Emperors . ) Againe , I saide not ( in duetifull obedience , ) but ( in subiection . ) Now , euery child knoweth , that there is great difference betweene vnder and to . As also , betweene obedience and subiection . For our English Iesuites , are our Kinges subiects against their will , and yet they liue not in obedience to him . Secondly , many liue in externall obedience to the King , as doe our English Iesuites , in acknowledging the Kings superiority ouer them ; who for all that seeke to climbe vp on high , by poysoning and murdering his Maiesty , if God would permit . Thirdly , to liue in obedience or subiection to Emperors , is nothing else in my sence & true meaning ; but to confesse and freely graunt , that of right they ought to be subiect to Christian Emperours , as to their lawfull Soueraignes . Which subiection our Iesuite can neuer prooue any Pope to haue denied , for the space of 600. yeares and odde . Heere I cannot but tell our Iesuite of his arrogant sawcinesse , ioyned with a notorious lie . For though hee say more boldly then wisely , that Bell wrongly saith , the Empire to haue bin dissolued in the yeare 471. yet is it a meere truth , Page 54 and the Iesuite denying it , sheweth himselfe to bee ignoraunt in Chronologie .

S. R.

The third step ( saith Bell ) was the voluntary Charter which Constantine the Emperour of Constantinople made to Pope Benedist the second ( viz ; ) The 3. step . that whosoeuer the Clergy , Page 52 people , and Romane souldiors , should choose to bee Byshop , all men should beleeue him to be the true Vicar of Christ , without any tarrying for any authority of the Emperour of Constantinople , or the Deputy of Italy , as the custome and manner was euer before that day . Thus ( saith he ) writeth Platina . And the Popes almost for the space of 700. yeares could haue no iurisdiction , nor bee reputed true Byshops of Rome , without the Letters pattentes of the Emperour . Beholde , the impudency of this fellowe . Platina saith , Vt antea fieri consueuerat . Bell affirmeth him to say ; It was the custome euer before that day : Where is in Platina the word ( Euer ? ) Where , till that day ? Nay , doeth not Platina say , that Pelagius the second was created iniussupri●cipis , without command of the Prince ? That Silnerius was made pope , at the command of Theodate a Gothish king ? Did not Bell himselfe tell vs , that Barbarians ruled in Rome , and possessed all Italy for 330. yeares , vntill Charles the great ? How then could it be , that before Benet the second , neuer popes could haue iurisdiction , & bee accounted true byshops of Rome , without letters patents of Emperours ; who were professed enemies , & made wars vpon most of the Barbarians ?

T. B.

If the Iesuite Parsons ( for he is the libeller , and Author of this lying and slanderous pamphlet ) were not at a Non plus , and vnable truly to answer me , Platina in vita Bened. secund. hee would neuer for shame vtter so many lies and notorious vntruths . For first , Platina is wholy on my side , affirming resolutely , that none could be made byshop of Rome , without the letters pattents of the Emperour , vntill the time of Benedict the 2.

Secondly , where our impudent Iesuite laboreth to make his tale good , because Pelagius the seconde was created without commaund of the Prince , he passeth impudencie it selfe . I● vita Pelagii . 2 These are Platina his owne words ; Haec autem vna fuit causa , quare Pelagius iniussuprincipis , tam pontifex creatus sit , cum extra obsessam abhoste vrbe , mitti quispiam non posset . Nil . n. tum à clero in eligendo pontifice actum erat , nisi eius electionem imper. approbasset . This was one cause , why Pelagius was then made Pope without the commaund of the Prince , because none could goe to the Prince , the enemy besiedging the Citty , for nothing doen by the Clergy at that time was in force , vnlesse the Emperour had approued their election . Loe , Gentle Reader , our Iesuite would prooue , that the choice of the B. of Rome was good , without the voice of the Emperor , because Pelagius was created without commaund of the Prince ; and he alledgeth Platina for his Author . What a fond fellow is this ? Platina first telleth him plainely , that no election of any Pope was good , without the Letters pattents of the Emperour . He telleth him secondly , that Pelagius was made Pope without the command of the Prince . That is true : But what followeth ; Forsooth , that he was so made for necessity sake , and ( as all men know ) necessity hath no law . But what necessitie was it ? We haue heard already out of Platina ; because the Citty was besieged of the enemy , so as none coulde haue passage to the Emperor . The Iesuite therefore is a fonde disputer , bringing that for him , which maketh wholy against him , and confoundeth both himselfe , and his pope euerlastingly .

Thirdly , where foolish and Traiterous Iesuite Parsons , laboureth to defend the Pope by the creation of Siluerius , because he was created at the commaund of Theodate a Gothish King ; it maketh as much against him , Platini in vita Siluerii . as his former sottish , and sencelesse affirmation . For after that Platina hath tolde vs that Siluerius was made Byshoppe or Pope , at the commaund of Theodate a Gothish King , hee by and by addeth these words . Cum antea non regum , sed imperatorum autoritas , interveniret , whereas in former times , not the Authority of Kings , but of Emperors was requyred . Marke these wordes , Gentle Reader , and detest the deceitfull dealing of all Trayterous and cozening Iesuits . The Iesuite Parsons saith , Pag 53 that Platina speaketh of the time since Pope Virgillius : But we see , that Platina speaketh of the time before Siluerius ; which Siluerius was before Vigiius . Yea , Pelagius the second was also after Vigilius : & so our Iesuite is turned vpside-downe , and beaten with his owne rod . To the fourth step , which was the deposition of Childericke King of France , The 4. step . by Pope Zachary . Our Iesuite answereth roundly , but nothing clarkly , that the deposition was most iust ) which foolish and shamefull doctrine I deeme sufficiently confuted , by the bare recitall thereof ; ) especially , seeing I haue else where written at large of this subiect .

S. R.

The fift step ( saith Bell ) was the decay of the Empyre The 5. step . in the East , about the yeare 756. Page 57 at what time Pipin being called into Italy by Pope Steuen 2. to deliuer Rome from the siege of the Lombards ; and ouer comming , gaue vp the gouernment of Italie into the Popes hands . Heere Bell hudleth vp store of vntruthes , that the Empyre decaied in the East , about the yeere 756. for it decayed long before , about the yeare 635. vnder the Hereticall Emperour Heraclius .

T. B.

Here our traytorous Iesuite , full of nothing but Rebellion , wind , vanity and lying , cryeth out with open mouth against vntruthes , when all vntruthes proceede from his owne pen . Nothing in this steppe of the Popes ladder , is worthy of examination , saue that only which concerneth the time of the decay of the Empire in the East . I say , as I truely saide before , that the decay of the Empyre in the East , was about the yeare 756. I adde this worde ( about ) not precisely meaning any one certaine yeare . For Historiographers and Chronographers , doe sildome or neuer iumpe in the certaine or precise time , Page 57. or yeare . Our Iesuite sayth , that it decayed long before , about the year 635. We both haue and vse , this word ( about ) as it may seeme , for that end and purpose which I haue already named .

Marke now the profe , and then iudge who is the Lyar. Matthaeus Palmerius , in his Chronology in the yeare 756. hath these expresse wordes : An. 756. Deficiente sedulo in Oriente Romanorum imperio , & imperatore Christianos persequente , Stephanus pontifex imperiales titulos ac dignitates Francorum Regibus concessit , & Pipinum suosque tantum à stirpe successores in eorum reges confirmauit ; caeteris vero omnibus interdixit . When the Romaine Empire in the East was indeed dissolued , and the Emperour persecuted the Christians , then Pope Stephen granted the imperiall tytles and dignities to the French K. and confirmed Pipin and his lineall successors onely to be their kinges , excluding all the rest . Thus writeth that famous Historiographer ; affirming directly , that the Empire in the East , was dissolued in the yeare 756. as I doe hold . Iohannes Nauclerus hath these expresse words ; Anno salutis 800. in die natiuitatis Dom ▪ prohabita matura deliberatione , Nautle . gen. 27. pag. 678 Leo pontifex Rom considerans imperatores Constantinopolitanas agre ad nomen tueri , & ob eam rem vrbem Romam atque Italiam magnis calamitatibus pressam , simulque retr●ctans errores Graecorum frequentes , in obedientiam , & occidentale imporium quasi pro derelicto à Graecis haebitum ; erigione verò perpendens Carolum Francorum regem potentissimum & optime de Ecclesia meritum , qui ecclesiam ab oppressione Desiderij regis Longobardorum liberauit , sicut pater eius Pipinus ab Aistulpho , sic est avus Martellus ● Gothis & Saracenis ; da propter inter missarum solemnia eo die in Basilica S. Petri pontifex populi Romani consensu Carolumimperatorem Romanorum declarat , a● diadema●e coronat ter acclamante populo Romano . In the yeare of our saluation 800. vpon the day of the Natiuity of our Lorde , after mature deliberation , Leo Byshop of Rome , considering that the Emperors of Constantinople could hardly defend that name , and that for that cause the citty of Rome and Italy was subiect to great calamities , and withall correcting the frequent errors and disobedience , and that the Greekes did make no reckoning of the West Empire ; on the other side pondering that Charles the French King was most mighty , and had deserued well of the Church , and had deliuered the Church from the oppression of Desi●erius King of the Lombards , as his father Pipin from Aistulphus , and his graundfather Martellus from the Gothes & Sarazes : Therefore in the time of great solemnity that day in Saint Peters Church , the Byshop by the consent of the people of Rome , declareth Charles to be the Emperor of Rome , and crowneth him with the Diadem , the people of Rome making a threefold acclamation thereunto . Thus writeth this famous Papist , a man of high esteeme in the Church of Rome .

Sigebertus a popish Monke , iumpeth with Nauclerus , in the yeare : So doth Arnoldus Pontacus Bnrdegatensis , iumpe with Matthaeus Palmerius in the yeare 756. and they all differ greatly from our Iesuites supputation , 635. That is to say ; no lesse then 121. yeares . Wherfore , I wish the Reader to beleeue him at leysure , & neuer to giue further credite to him , then his profes deserue .

Here by the way let vs obserue seriously , that Leo the bishop of Rome with the consent of the people of Rome , tooke roundly , ( though vnchristianly ) vppon him , to depose the Emperor , and to put Charles king of France in his place . And thus euery childe may see , how the decay of the East Empyre , was a step to Popish primacy : for the decay thereof , brought him into the roome , who protected the pope in all his Lordly pontificality .

S. R.

The sixt step Bell maketh the translation of the Empire , The 6. step . Page 64 by Pope Leo the thirde from the Greekes to the Frenchmen or Germaines , in the person of Charles the great . This translation is rather a notorious act of the popes superiority ouer Emperors , then a step thereunto .

T. B.

I willingly graunt good Sir , that it was a notorious act of your Pope ; but yet ( as we vse to say ) he is a notorious murderer , a notorious Theee , a notorious Traytor . For as Sigibert the Popes deare Fryer telleth vs , the Romaines , Sigebert . in Chron. An. 801. who a long time had in mind and affection reuolted from the Emperour of Constantinople , seeing now a fit occasion offered them , ( because a Woman did gouerne them , her sonne the Emperour being made blind , ) did with one assent sounde out imperiall acclamations to King Charles , calling him Caesar , and Augustus , and crowning him by the hande of Leo the Pope ; yea , they did collaud his Sonne Pipin , and made him King of Italy . Thus writeth Fryer Sigebert . Out of whose words I obserue these points of great consequence .

First , that 800. years after Christs sacred byrth the Byshops of Rome were subiect to the Emperor , as their own deare Monke Sigebert telleth them ; and as we haue heard already , Pope Gregory acknowledged his fealty to Mauritius the Emperor , in the yeare 603.

Secondly , that the Pope and people of Rome endeuored a long time , to shake off the yoake of obedience vnto the Emperour , and in the yeare 801. put the same in Execution .

Thirdly , that the Translation of the Empire implyed flat Treason , both in the Pope and all his Romish Popelings . For as Fryer Sigebert telleth vs plainely , they surrendered vp the right of their soueraigne to another man . Bellarm. tom 1. col . 831 And hence commeth it , that the Iesuitical Cardinall Bellarmine appealeth to the law of prescription , affirming Titles gotten by robbery to be lawfull by that meanes . And indeede by stealth and robbery , it may well be●eeme a Iesuite , to iustifie Popish late start-vp regality .

S. R.

The seuenth step ( saith Bell ) was the constitution of the The 7 step . 7. electors of the future Emperour , but this was rather an act of superiority in the Pope ouer Emperors , then a step vnto it .

T. B.

Euery thing with our Iesuite , is an act of the Popes superiority ; but yet by his fauor , not such a notorious act , as is the notorious act of murther or rebellion , Phil. Berg. pag. 277 Auton . 3. partit . 22. cap. 5 §. 13 as is already proued . For Gregorie the fift being a Germaine borne , and a neere kinsman of Otho the Emperor at that time , did by his fauour and free graunt , appoint seauen electors of the Empire for euer . ( viz. ) the Archbyshoppe of Mentz , the Archbyshop of Treuerse , the Archbyshop of Colen , the Marques of Brandenburgh , the County Palatine , the Duke of Saxony , and the King of Bohemia . This goodlie constitution was enacted by the Pope and Emperor , ( being both of them not onely Germaines but also kinsmen ) that the Empire might bee established in their posterity , and their bloud thereby aduanced for euer .

S. R.

Seeing this constitution hath euer since beene inuiolably obserued , Page 70 and the Emperors so elected accounted as true Emperours throughout all Christendome ; a signe it is , that Christians thinke the Pope hath Authority to appoint Electours , who may choose what Emperour they please , by Authority giuen them from the Pope .

T. B.

I answere ; first , that many thinges are holden for good generally , which for all that are indeede counterfeite and false . Two most notable markes wee haue heereof . The one in Pope Iohn the woman , as is prooued at large in my Suruey . The other in the Actes of Pope Stephanus & Pope Romanus , as I haue prooued in my Booke of Motiues .

Secondly , that the Emperor hath not his authority from the Pope but from God . Per me reges regnant . Prou. 8 , 15 16. Rom. 13 , 1 By me kings raigne , and princes decree Iustice . By me princes rule , and the Nobles , and all the Iudges of the earth . Let euery one be subiect vnto higher powers ; for there is no power but of God , and the powers that be , are ordained of GOD . Therefore the Emperour cannot haue his power from the Pope , vnlesse he bee ( as some impudently haue written ) both God and man .

Thirdly , the constitution for the electors of the Emperour , was not established so much by the Pope , as by the authority of the Emperour , the Popes neere kinsman , as is already proued .

Fourthly , from the time of Otho the third , when Henricus had stirred vp a great contention about his succession , and all Germany was diuided into parts ; it was prouided by publick authority , that there should be seuen electors appointed , who should from time to time elect a king and place him in the Empire , and that the Pope shoulde set the imperiall crowne vpon his head . And so the insoluble so supposed Dilemma , is fully answered .

S. R.

The eight and highest step of this Ladder ( sayth Bell ) The 8. step . did reach vp euen to the highest heauen , and to the veric throne of our Lorde Iesus . Because ( saith he ) they challenge the Royall right of both swordes , throughout the Christian world .

T. B.

I say so , and I prooued it in the Downefall of popery ; neyther is any Iesuite in the world able , truely to confute the same .

S. R.

But first I deny , that the Pope as Pope , challengeth royall right of eyther sword .

T. B.

Appendix fuldensis hath these words ; Hic papa constitutionem fecerat , &c. This Pope ( hee speaketh of Boniface the eight ) made a constitution , in which he affirmed himselfe to bee both spirituall and temporall Lorde in the whole world . Note this point well . Whereupon hee would haue had Phillip King of France , to haue acknowledged his kingdome from him ; which thing the King scorned to do . Yea , the constitution is expressely related in the Popes Extrauagant , which beginneth thus ; Vnam sanctum , Bonifac. 8 In extr. set downe in the sixt book of the Decretals . And as Gratianus reporteth , Pope Nicolas taught the same Doctrine . How impudent therefore is our fund Iesuite , dist. 22 : can omnes . lib: 7. epist: ● which denyeth such a manifest trueth ? But let vs heare , what their famous Pope Gregory saith . Si ego servus eorum in morte Longobardorum me miscere valuissem , hodie Longobardorum , gens nec regem , nec duces , nec con●ites haberet , atque in summa confusione esset deuisa . Sed quia deum times , in mortem cuiuslibet hominis me miscere formido . If I their seruant woulde haue intangled my selfe in the death of the Lombardes , the Nation of the Lombardes , shoulde this day neyther haue had a King , nor Dukes , nor Counties , but should haue bene in the greatest confusion . But because I feare GOD , I am affraide to intrude my selfe into the death of any man . Loe Gentle Reader , for the space of 600. yeares and odde , the Byshops of Rome durst not deale in absoluing subiects from their alegeance , nor in murdering of Kings and Emperors . And why I pray you ? This their owne deare Saint , Gregory ( surnamed the great ) telleth vs , because he feared God , & consequently , the late Bishops of Rome dare embrue their harts & hands in the bloud of Gods anointed , because they haue not the feare of GOD before their eyes . Yea , the Popes owne Monke ( as wee haue heard out of Sigebert already ) pronounced it flat Heresie , Sigebert . An. 1088. fol. 117. K to absolue subiects from the allegeance due vnto their Soueraigne . And what saith theyr Pontaus Burdegalensis ? these are his words ; Hic primus caepit francos iuramento fidlitatis absoeluere . This Pope ( Zachary ) was the first , that absolued the Frenchmen from the oath of their fealty and allegeance .

This Pope liued about the yeare of our Lord God 752. so that it was neuer heard of among the French-men for the space of 750. Chron. An : 1088 yeares , that the Byshop of Rome tooke vpon him to absolue subiects from their oth & allegeance to their Soueraigne . And Sigebertus proceedeth further , & reproueth it as a Nouelty , or rather Heresie , lately crept into the Church . And who I pray you can doe this , but Christ Iesus , as true God , so true man ? Doth not he challenge the right , at the least of the spirituall sword , that taketh vpon him to absolue subiects from the oth of their allegeance ? Nay , doth hee not take vnto him the right of both swords ? For absolution I am well assured , is euen by popish Doctrine , an act of spirituall iurisdiction ; and to serue the prince , is a secular and meere ciuil act ? Antoninus sometime Arch-byshop of Florence , Anton: 3 : partit . 22 : cap : 5 §. 8. and a Popish cannonized Saint , telleth vs without blushing , that the Pope is Christs Vicar on earth , & hath equal power with God almighty . These are his expresse words ; Cum autem Vicarius Christi si papa , &c. For seeing the Po. is the Vicar of Christ , none can lawfully withdraw himselfe from his obedience , as none can lawfully withdraw himselfe from Gods obedience . And as Christ receiued of his father , the Dukedome and scepter of the Gentiles arising of Israel , ouer all principality and power , and aboue euery thing that hath being , that to him euery knee may bend ; euen so Christe hath committed most full power , to Peter and his successors . Thus writeth our holy Arch-byshop Antoninus . Out of whose wordes I obserue first , that as Christ is the the head ouer his Church , so is the Pope or Byshoppe of Rome head of the same .

Secondly , that as Christ receiued of God the Dukedom ouer all power , so hath the Pope receiued the same power of Christ .

Thirdly , that as Christ hath power aboue and ouer euery thing , whatsoeuer hath any being ; so hath the Pope .

Fourthly , that as to Christ euery knee must be bowed , so also to the Pope .

Now , if this be not to challenge the royall right of both swords , let the indifferent Reader iudge . Neither is it to the purpose , to say that hee challengeth not Royall right . For I weene , our Iesuite will not deny Royall right vnto Christ , who is Lord of heauen and earth , true God , true priest , and true King . And yet doth Antoninus ascribe and yeeld vnto the pope , all power ouer all that hath any being , in as ample and large manner as Christ himselfe hath it . Yea , that Omnia genna , al knees must bow to the pope , And the vsuall practise of papists do confirme the same , euen to the popes good liking . For he must be carried vpon mens shoulders , and men kneeling , must kisse the shoo of his foot , or else not be thought to loue Christ or S. Peter . This my selfe being an eye-witnesse thereof , am able to testifie . When Gregory the thirteenth of that name , came to the English Colledge in Rome , all the Students were appointed by the Iesuite then maister of the Colledge , to come two after two before him , sitting in a ●haire , and to kneele downe on both knees in a great chamber , three seueral times , before they offred to kisse his foot . And while they kissed his foot ( or the shoo of his foot ) one after another , the rest followed as it wer in procession , falling down three times as is already said . But let vs heare the Verdict of Fryer Austen de Ancona . The Pope ( saith he ) as he that is the Vicar of the sonne of the heauenly Emperor , In summam , pag. 152 hath Vniuersal iurisdiction ouer al kingdomes and Empires . And is not this power ouer both swordes ? Is not this to challenge power proper to God alone ? I weene it is , let others iudge .

S. R.

But the words which Bell most vrgeth are , Page 78. that the Pope can make something of nothing . For saith he , it is a thing propper to God alone , to make something of nothing , in all cases and at all times .

T. B.

I say so good Iesuite , neither are you able with the help of all your Iesuiticall broode ( whom for all that I confesse to be very learned ) to proue the contrarie while the world stands .

S. R.

But besides that the glosse neither saith , Page 78 that the pope can make De nihilo aliquid , but , de nullo aliquid , neyther yet in al cases , and at al times , as Bell addeth ; the foresaid words are taken our of Iustinian . C. de rei vxor . act. lib. 1. where the Emperor saith , that because he can make to be accounted a stipulation , where none is , much more he can an insufficient stipulation to be sufficient . And the like authority in humane contractes touching spirituall matters , the glosse attributeth to the Pope . And this hee meant , when he said , the Pope can de nullo facere aliquid , of no contract make one . Which Bell would apply to creation , and making creatures of nothing , as God made the world .

T. B.

For Christs sake gentle Reader , be heere an indifferent iudge betweene our Iesuite and mee . Which if thou shalt truely affirme ; thou canst not but cleerly behold , that our Iesuite is at his wits end , what to say or write in defence of late start-vp Popery . His Doctrine smelleth of nothing , but of winde , The first lye . vanity , and leasinges . His first lye is this ? That the glosse saith not , de nihilo , but , de nullo .

The second lie is this ; The 2. lye . that I affirme the glosse to say , in all cases , and at all times .

The third lye is this ; The 3. lye . that the words by me alledged are taken out of Iustinian .

The 4. The 4. lye . lie is this , that the glosse speaketh of Ciuill contracts . Lies abundant for one short sentence . 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 , Glos. lib. 1. decr●t●tit . 7. ca. 3. 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 , Anton. 3. pag. tit. 22 : cap : 5 §. 8. 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 ; In the downefall of popery . Page 16 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 remember Christs rule ; Mas. 7 , 15 Beware of false prophets , which come to you in sheepes cloathing , but inwardly are rauening Wolues . And if you teach vs as ye beleeue , then must your doctrin be an article of your faith . Againe ; two Popes , Vrbanus the fourth , and Innocentius the fifth haue confirmed Aquinas his Doctrine for Authenticall ; and strictly commaunded to admit and receiue all that he hath written , for a meer vndoubted truth . It followeth therefore by a necessary consecution , that the quantity of Christs body to be in the Popish Masse , is an article of popish faith .

S. R.

Let vs see therefore , Page 92 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 : Pag 95 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 partem 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 , Page 96. 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 , Luk. 2 , 23 Exod. 13 , 2 Num. 8 , 15 Heb. 2 , 17 & 4 , 15. Suruey page 474. 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 , Aquin. 22 , q. 52. ar. 1. ad . 3 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 not lost by fraction of the signacle , but by corruption of the minde , and purpose of the will .

Saint Augustine hath a learned and large discourse , concerning this onely point of Doctrine ; wherein he sheweth grauely , Aug. lib: 1 de ciuit . dei cap. 18 that the apertion of the matrice , may bee done , sundry waies ; ( viz. ) either by Arte in the way of medicine , or by violence of the corrupter , or by other accidentall means ; and that Virginity this notwithstanding , may be free from all corruption . Much more might Christes most holy mothers wombe , bee opened by his diuine power , and neuerthelesse her most sacred wombe , still remaine inviolable .

S. R.

God can by his omnipotency bring a Cammell through a Needles eye , Pag 99 as well as a rich man into heauen ; but he can bring a rich man to heauen keeping his riches : Ergo , a Cammell , keeping his greatnes through a Needles eye .

T. B.

I answere first , that this sillogisme is vnfitly couched , & hangeth together , as Yorke and fowle Sutton .

Secondly , that the consequence is so against all rules of Logicke , as the framer thereof , is worthy to be hissed out of all schoooles .

Thirdly , Mat. 19 , 24 the Gospell saith indeed , it is easier for a Cammell to passe through the eye of a Needle , then for a rich man to enter into the kingdome of heauen . But no Prophet , no Apostle , no Epistle , no Gospell sayth , as our Iesuite doth . For as these wordes , ( keeping his riches ) are the Scripture of our sawcie Popeling , but not the holy scripture ; so also are these words , ( keeping his greatnes , ) the inuention of his own brain . And therfore I must salute him with these words of the holy Apostle ; though we , Galat. 1 , 8. or an Angell from heauen preach any other Gospell to you , then that which we haue preached to you , let him be accursed .

Fourthly , that by the word ( Camell ) may be vnderstood a cable rope , and not a beast . For the Greeke word is indifferent to them both . Vide tu Theophil : in humo locum : Cauinius obseruerh out of the Thalmudists , that it is a prouerbial phrase , by which Christ doth insinuate vnto vs , that rich men do not without great difficulty enter into heauen .

Fiftly , that a Camell keeping his greatnes still , cannot possibly by any power passe through a Needles eye , the Needle still keeping the former quantity . The reason is euident , because it implyeth flat contradiction , as is already proued . Not for that there is any defect in the omnipotency of God , ( who is able to do more , then mans wit can comprehend ) but because there is repugnance in the thing that should be done .

Sixtly , that God can dilate the eie of a Needle so , as a Camell may passe through the same , and that without any preiudice to the naturall quantity of his body .

S. R.

GOD made the furnace of Babylon , Page 99 though neuer so hot , Dan. 3 , 35 not to heat , yea to refresh the three children . Why then can hee not make a great body , to occupy but a smal roome ? For to occupy place is an effect and accident of quantity , as to heat , is of heate .

T. B.

I thus reply ; first , Scripture is to our Iesuite as a nose of wax . He addeth to it , and taketh away from it , as seemeth good in his owne conceit . For , that fire did refresh the 3. Haebrewes , no Scripture doth affirme .

Secondly , whether to occupy place be an effect and accident of quantity , or no , because it is diuersly holden of diuers learned men , and nothing pertinent to our controuersie , transeat for the present . For , whether occupying of place be intrinsecall or extrinsecall to quantity , it skilleth not for this matter , and this question nowe in hand . The reason is euident , because to haue partem extrapartem one part without another , is by vniforme assent of al learned Writers , as well of Phylosophers as of Diuines , so intrinsecall and essentiall vnto quantity , as it can by no power , neither create , nor vncreate , be taken away from it . And this is the cause , not occupation of place , why christs body beeing greater , cannot bee contained in the Popish round cake .

This was my former reason , and it stands stil vntouched , neither can all the Iesuites in the worlde , euer yeelde a sound answere to the same . For if they could , it shoulde now haue beene performed . Because our Iesuite hath had the best aduice and helpe , that any of them could possibly make him . Heere by the way I m●st tell our Iesuite of another monster in the Popish host or Cake , ( viz. ) of their accidents without subiects . Which their position is against all Phylosophy , all reason , all learning . It is a constant axiome generally receiued in all Schooles : Accidentis esse est inesse . The essence and being of an accident , is the inherence and being in the subiect . No Text in the lawe of Moses ; no sentence in the Prophet ; no word in the Psalmes ; no affirmation out of the Gospell ; no Testimony out of the Epistles of the Apostles ; no verdict out of the holy Fathers ; no note out of the Auncient Counsels can euer be found ; which once maketh mention of accidents without subiects . This may suffice for answere to sundry other impertinent bibble babbles , which our Iesuite powreth out by ladle fuls in this Chapter .

CHAP. 2. ¶ Containing a confutation of the Iesuites aunswere , to my reasons against the reall presence . S. R.

CAietane affirmed , as Iosephus Angles ( saith Bell ) reporteth ; that there is no Texte that conuinceth the Reader , to vnderstand these wordes , this is my body , properly . But Bell greatly wrongeth both Caietan and Angles , in changing the word Hereticke into Reader .

T. B.

Let vs heare Iosephus Angles speake for himselfe , & then shall we know Bels dealing in that behalfe . ●o . Ang. in 4 sent. part . ●● pag. 144. Thus doth he write . Exconclusione posita & probationibus , quae à prē à Castro affermiter , coligiter , cantè legendum esse Caietanum dicente , non apparere ex euangelio aliquod , coactinum , quo possimus conuincere haereticos ad intelligenda verba haec , hoc est corpus meum propriem : sed tenendum hoc esse solum authoritate Ecclesiae , quae ita verba consecrationis declarat . We gather out of the conclusion and proofes which father à Castro bringeth , that Caietane must be read warily , who saith , that there appeareth not any coactiue thing in the Gospell , by which we may conuince Heretiques to vnderstande these wordes , This is my body , properly . But wee must hold this to be onely of the authority of the Church , which so declareth the words of consecration . Thus writeth Iosephus Angles , out of whose words , I note first , that Caietane who was a learned man , a Domincan Fryer , and sometime Cardinal of Rome , must be read warily . Secondly , the cause for which he must be warily read , and that consisteth of these two heads . First , that no Text in the whole Gospel can be produced , which conuinceth these words ( This is my Body ) to be vnderstood properly .

Marry sir , it is high time indeed , to read this Cardinal warily , for if his words were wel knowne and marked of all Papists , I weene they would forsake the Pope , thicke and threefold ; If these words ( this is my body ) be not vnderstood properly , as Cardinall Caietane telleth vs ; then doubtlesse farewell the Popish reall presence : then downe with the Pope , then downe with Popish Masse and at all . Secondly , Cardinall Caietane telleth vs plainely , that it is not the scripture , but the authority of the Pope or Church ( which is all one in effect ) that causeth vs so to vnderstande these words ( this is my body . ) If this Cardinall durst haue sayde all he thought against the Popes doctrine , it seemeth , he would haue tolde vs more . Now , let the Reader Iudge , whether I haue wronged Caietan and Angles , or the Iesuit hath wronged me .

S. R.

Aquinas ( saith Bell ) affirmeth constantly , Page 20 corpus christi non esse in pluribus locis simul , secundum proprias dimensiones . That Christs body is not in many places at once , according to the proper dimensions thereof . Whose assertion ( sayeth Bell ) is my flat position .

T. B.

It is most true , that both Aquinas teacheth so , & that Bel flatly holdeth the same Doctrine . And it is also true , that Aquinas elsewhere contradicteth himselfe , as God willing , shall by and by appeare .

S. R.

But Bell herein , 1. contradicteth himselfe . 2. belyeth S. Thomas . 3. vnderstandeth him not .

T. B.

Let vs heare his dispute , And marke it well .

S. R.

He contradicteth himselfe . For before he said , Aquinas holde constantly as an Article of the Christian fayth , that the true body of Christ is truely and really in the Sacrifice of the masse ; and now he saith , that he affirmeth constantly an assertion , which is Bels flat position to the contrarie . Howe can Aquinas holde constantlie two contradictorie points ?

T. B.

Marke gentle Reader , for Christes sake , and then shalt thou see , that our Iesuit hath nothing in him but falshood , lying , and Hypocrisie . The Iesuite will needs haue me to contradict my selfe , because Aquinas contradicteth himselfe . What equity ? What charity ? What reason is in this man ? I charge them in my Motiues and elsewhere , with manifold dissentions and contradictions : plainely telling them , that if they would be consonant to their writinges , then we and they should soone agree . But our Iesuite cannot endure , to heare himselfe and his fellowes confounded by their owne writings .

Now let vs see , who vnderstandeth Aquinas aright . Aquinas holdeth , that Christs body is in the popish cake , and withal , that one body cannot be in two places at once . Our Iesuite would reconcile this apparant contradiction thus . Aquinas meaning saith he , is plaine and euident . For hee thinketh Christs owne dimensions to bee the cause of his being in that place , where he is naturally ; Page 102 and the dimensions of the bodie which is Transubstantiated , the cause of his being , where he is Sacramentally . Here our Iesuite first taketh vppon him , to tell what men thinke ; which is proper to God alone . Then he feyneth a distinction , of a double being of Christes body . For if we once take away feyning , Popery will soone come to mourning .

Christes owne dimensions , sayth our Iesuite , are the cause of Christs naturall being ; but the dimensions of the bread changed and Transubstantiated into Christs body , ( O horrible blasphemy , ) are the cause of Christes sacramentall being . The Papists hold generally , that the accidents of bread in their consecrated host or cake , remaine there without a subiect . But heere we haue another tale : viz. That they are in Christs body . Most miserable is that Doctrine , which must be maintained with such beggerly shifts . Well , I will prooue with one insoluble argument , that Christs body cannot be in many places at once . Vnum est indiuisum , in se , & diuisum à quocunque alio . One , ( as all lerned men do grant , ) is that which is vndiuided in it selfe , and diuided from euery other thing . An argument vnstable . But , if Christs body can be in many places at once , it is both diuided in it selfe , and vndiuided from other things ; Ergo , it neither is nor can be in many places at once . When our Iesuite shall truly answere to this argument , he will deserue a Cardinalles hat ; and I verily thinke , that the Pope for the time being , will willingly bestowe it on him . Marry withall I adde this ; that I would not for the Popedome , be bounde too fast till that time . Here for the better clearing of this controuersie , I will propound an Obiection , which seemeth to make for the Papists , at least in Popish sence and meaning .

The Obiection .

Two adequate bodies may be in one place at once , and yet neither the place be deuided into two places , nor yet the bodies transformed or confounded into one body : Ergo , à simili , one body may be in two places at once ( as Christs body in many thousand Altars at popish Masse , ) and yet neyther the body deuided into two places , neyther the two places contracted into one .

T. B.

When you ( O Iesuite ) shall be able to proue the Antecedent , which will be ad Calendas Graecas , when men vse to clip Pigges and Rats ) I will yeeld vnto you .

S. R.

First , in Christs natiuity , two bodies were in one place at once , because Christes body opened not his mothers wombe .

2 Againe , Christ arose out of the sepulchre , the stone not being roled away .

3. Christ came to his disciples when the doores were shut , and so both his body , and the wood of the doore , were in one place at once : Ergo , two bodies may bee in one place at once : and consequently , one body may be in two places at once .

T. B.

Concerning the opening of the Virgins wombe , I haue answered sufficiently already . For the rolling away of the stone from the Sepulchre ; I answere , that the Angell of God had done it away before Christs resurrection , Mat. 28 , 6. and had brought it to the mouth of the sepulchre againe . What need many wordes ? the answere of the Angell to the women , doth fully determine this question . He is not here ( saieth the Angell ) for he is risen as he saide . Loe , Christs body was not in the Sepulchre , because Christ was risen : so doeth the Angell reason . But Gods Angell must goe to the schoole againe , to learne to frame his argument in better manner , if one body can bee in two places at once . And why ? for the women might haue said to the Angel . What if he be risen ? Yet may his body be heere stil in the graue . For one body may be in two places at once . But the Angel reasoned thus . He is risen , therfore he cannot be here . Or he not heere , because , he is risen . These are the words of the Ang. oukestin oode , egerthe gar , kathoos eipe . He is not heer , for hee is risen , Mat. 28 , 6. as he said . Where I obserue , first the assertion simply in it selfe . Secondly , the cause and reason of the same assertion . The assertion is this ; Christ is not in the Sepulchre . The reason heereof is this ; because Christ is risen .

Now then , since Christ cannot be in the sepulchre , because he is risen ; it followeth of necessity , that eyther the Angell of God inspired with Gods holy spirit , made a very foolish and friuolous argument ( which to affirme is void of all Christianity ) or else , that Christs body cannot be in two places at once ; which is that indeed , which I intende to proue . For , if it were not as I say ; the women might haue replyed effectually against the Angell thus ; albeit Christ be risen as you say , yet may he be also in the sepulchre still ; for he may be in two places at once . But the Angell of GOD reputing it a thing cleere and euident , that Christes body could not bee in two places at one and the selfe-same time ; concluded directly and forcibly ( as hee thought ) Christs absence in the sepulchre , because he was risen againe .

S. R.

Bell citeth Durand , whom he saith holdeth the same opinion . True it is , that Durand thinketh the quantitie of Christs body not to bee in the Eucharist , yet he both affirmeth and prooueth the substaunce of his bodie to bee there .

T. B.

Durand holdeth indeede , that Christ body is in the Eucharist ; yet after another manner , then the Pope and his Iesuites do at this day ? for hee affirmeth , that the matter of bread remaineth still . Neuerthelesse , as wee heere see , Durand denyeth the quantity of Christes body in the Popish Masse ; and euen so doe I with Durand , and with other learned Papists . The Iesuite confesseth heere inough , to his vtter shame and confusion . ( viz. ) That their doctrine is so foolish and vnsound , that the best learned of them cannot agree therein .

S. R.

Bell alledgeth Saint Austen , Page 103 that Christ as man is in some place of heauen , for the manner of a true body . Againe , that his body must be in one place . Item , that hee cannot be at once in the Sunne , the Moone , and on the crosse , according to his coporall presence . In all which places , he speaketh of the naturall manner of bodies being in place .

T. B.

This is a short answere , but as vnsound as short . Let the Reader peruse my Booke , ( the Downefall of Popery ) and hee shall see the Iesuites folly . Aug. epist. 57. tom . 2 Saint Austen writing to Durandus , hath these words ; cum ergo sit corpus aliqua substantia &c. When therefore any substaunce is a bodie , the quantity thereof is in the magnitude of the bignesse ; but the health or soundnesse is not the quantity , but the quality thereof . The quantity therefore of the body could not attain that , which the quality could . For the partes being so distant , which could not be together , because all seuerallie keepe their spaces of places , the lesse , lesser places ; and the great , greater places ; there could not be in all the places seuerally , the whole , or so much ; but there is a larger quantity in the larger parts , a shorter in shorter partes , and in no part so much as in the whole . For if spaces of places bee taken from bodies , they shal be in no place ; and because they shall be in no place , neyther shall they haue any being at all ▪ Out of these words of this holy father , and most graue writer , I obserue , first that euery quantitatiue bodie , hath one part distant from another .

Secondly , that the same parts occupie distinct places .

Thirdly , that two quantities cannot bee in the same place , and at and the same time .

Fourthly , that a greater quantity must haue a greater place , and that it cannot be contained in the lesser .

Fiftly , that no one part can containe so much , as the whole .

Sixtly , that when bodies are without places , they then loose their Natures and beings . I therefore conclude , that it is impossible for Christs Naturall body , to be contained in a little round Popish cake , and his whole body in euery little part thereof . All which for all that , the Papists this day , most impudently and blasphemously do auouch

CHAP. 3. ¶ Containing the confutation of the Iesuites third Chapter , of the second article . S. R.

NOw let vs heare Bels , Page 108 or rather the diuels Arguments against Masse .

T. B.

Our Iesuite before hee come to my Arguments , hath many fond & impertinent digressions of the Popish masse ; for answere whereunto , I referre the Reader to my Suruey of Popery ; where he shall finde answered , whatsoeuer can be said in that behalfe . It is now impertinent , and nothing to the question in hand , ro stand vppon those points . But our Iesuite will not aime at the marke , because hee knoweth , he cannot giue the vpshot . Now in Gods holy name , I defie both the Iesuite and the deuill , speaking ( as it may seeme ) within him ; and hartily pray God ( if it be his holy will ) to forgiue him , Credidi propter quod loquutus sum . I defend nothing , ( God is my witnesse ) but that which as I am perswaded in my conscience , is the truth .

S. R.

The Apostle telleth vs , that Christ rising from the dead , dyeth no more ; the Papists tell vs , that Christ dyeth euery day , nay a thousande times a day in the daily sacrifice of their masse . But better might we say , that Bels tale of the Papists containeth a thousand vntruths .

T. B.

Go on Iesuite ; plead for thy selfe , what thou canst ; delight not in lying , for the truth in time wil preuail . If your Doctrine be true , Christ dyeth a thousand times , nay ten thousand thousand times a day in your most blasphemous Masse .

S. R.

Bell will wring the contrary out of Bellarmine : as water out of a flint . First , because he granteth , that a sacrafice implieth intrinsecally the consumption of the thing sacrificed . Page 10● But this is answerd out of Bellar. teaching that Christ hath two kinds of being ; to wit , naturally , and sacramentally . And the consumption of his sacramentall beeing in the Masse , is no killing , because is is not by reall separating his soule and body , but onely by consuming the Sacramentall formes , in which he was sacramentally .

T. B.

We see heere freely graunted to vs , that a sacrifice implyeth intrinsecally the consumption of the thing sacrificed . Let vs hold this while wee haue it , or else our Iesuite will out of hand take it from vs . Then let vs adde this vnto it ; viz: That no liuing thing after it be consumed , can stil haue life in it . And consequently , eyther Christ is not truly sacrificed in the Popish Masse , ( contrary to the doctrine of the Pope and his Iesuites ) or else he is there consumed a thousande times a day , and so often killed in the Masse . For to be consumed is more then to be killed . The case is cleere , euery childe may perceiue it . But what ? hath our Iesuite no euasion ? Yes forsooth , but it is a very silly one . Christ ( saith he ) hath a double kind of being ; a being naturall , and a beeing Sacramentall . According to the latter , he dyeth in the sacrifice of the Masse ; but according to the former , he still lyueth in heauen .

What a wonderment is this ? Christ is both liuing and deade at once ; both sacrificed and not sacrificed at once ; both consumed and not consumed at once . If these be not flat contradiction , my skil is naught , let the reader iudge . Now , methinkes this is in deede and in plaine termes , the Iesuites answere ; and consequently , the best answere that all the Papists in Europe can make ; for hee hath learned and heard the best aduise of them all , ( viz. ) that Christ in the Popish Masse , both is consumed and dyeth ; yet not really , but Sacramentally . All which my selfe will most willingly admit , and agree vnto . But our Papists will say and vnsay . They say that Christ is in their Masse , truely and really sacrificed , and not onely Sacramentally . For otherwise , we should agree to them , and they to vs . And then must they needs say , that he is really , not onely sacramentally sacrificed in their Masse ; and consequently , that he is killed and consumed in the same really .

S. R.

Againe , Bellarmine ( saith Bell ) telleth vs , Page 110. that Christs body and bloud are offered truely and properly in the Masse . That a true and reall sacrifice , requireth true and reall killing , seeing the Essence of the sacrifice consisteth in killing . But this proofe relyeth onely , vppon Bells false translating the word , ( Quando , seeing , ) which he should haue translated , ( When. )

T. B.

Heere our Iesuite would haue his Reader beleeue , that Bell hath falsely translated Bellarmine . And why , I pray you ? Because forsooth ( saith he ) Bell hath translated , ( seeing ) the Essence of the sacrifice ) for ( when the Essence of the Sacrifice . ) Let vs examine this point to the bottome . First , that Quando dooth aswell signifie seeing , as when , I referre my selfe to all skilfull Grammarians .

Secondly , that it is so taken in Bellarmine , Tom. 2. col. 1063. A. I proue by the circumstances of the Text. These are Bellarmines expresse wordes ; Denique vel in missa fit vera & realis Christi mactatio & eccisio , vel non fit . Si non fit , non est verum & rea●e sacrificium missa . Sacrificium . n. Verum & reale , veram & realem occisionem exiuit , quando in occisione ponitur essentia sacrificij . Si autem fit , ergo verum erit dicere , à sacerdotibus Chrstianis vere & realiter christum accidi ; at hac sacrilegium , non sacrificium esse videtur . Finally , there is in the Masse either a true and reall killing of Christ , or there is not . If there be not , neither is the Masse a true and reall sacrifice . For , a true and reall Sacrifice , requireth a true and reall killing , seeing the Essence of Sacrifice consisteth in killing . Againe , Bellarmine hath these wordes ; Per consecrasionem , res quae ofertur , ad veram , realem , & externam mutationem & destructionem ordinatur , Vbi supra . D. quod erat necessarium , ad rationem sacrificij . By consecration the thing that is offered , is ordained to true , reall , and externall mutation and destruction , as beeing necessary for the Essence of a Sacrifice . Againe , thus ; Nam oper consecrationem , &c. For by consecration Christs body receiueth the forme of meat , Vbi supra . D. and meat is ordained to be eaten , and so to mutation and destruction . Againe , in these wordes ; Neque obstat , quod corpus Christi nullam in se laesionem patiatur , neque esse suum naturale amittat , Vbi supra . D. cum manducatur eucharista . Nam amittit esse sacramentale , & proinde desinit realiter esse in altari , desinit esse cibus sensibilis . Neither is it any hindrance , that Christes body receiueth no hurt in it selfe , neither loseth it naturall being , when the Eucharist is eaten . For it loseth it Sacramentall being , and therefore it ceaseth to bee really on the Aultar , it ceaseth to be sensible meat . Out of these wordes of Cardinall Bellarmine , I note first , that a true and reall Sacrifice , requireth a true and reall killing . Bellarmine prooueth it , because otherwise the Masse should not be a true and reall Sacrifice . Hee addeth the reason , because the Essence of a Sacrifice consisteth in killing .

Secondly , that by consideration the thing which is offered , is ordained to true , reall , and externall destruction , as a thing needfull to the Essence of a Sacrifice ; and consequently , that if Christes body be really in the Masse , it must be really killed or destroyed .

Thirdly , that Christes body suffereth no hurt in the Masse , because only it loseth the Sacramentall being , in ceasing to bee really on the Aultar . These obseruations being well marked , it will appeare as cleere as the Sunne shining at noone-day : that Bellarmine granteth the Essence of euery true and reall Sacrifice , to consist in killing or destruction . Tom. 2. col. 1063. And therefore doth he graunt freely , that Christ is killed in the Masse sacramentally , though not really . Christes body ( saith hee ) although it suffer no hurt in it selfe , neither lose it naturall beeing ; when the Eucharist is eaten ; yet it loseth it sacramentall being , and ceaseth to be really on the Popish Aultar . But euery one knoweth , that when any thing loseth the being or life , them it is killed and destroyed . In regard heereof , Bellarmine ( as is already prooued ) affirmeth resolutely , that eyther there is a reall killing in the Masse , or else no Sacrifice there at all . Marry he expoundeth this reall killing in the Masse , to bee nothing else indeede , but the sacramentall destruction of Christs body in the Eucharist . But therein he contradicteth himselfe ; because neither a sacramental body is a true and reall body , neyther a sacramentall killing a true and reall killing . And so when all is saide and done , Bellarmine can conclude no more indeed , but that Christs body is in the Eucharist sacramentally . And therfore when Christ saith , ( This is my body , ) the true sence & meaning is this , & no other ; This is my body Sacramentally , or the Sacrament of my body .

S. R.

Bell fondly inferreth Christ to be killed , Page 111. if his body and bloud be put apart in the Masse ; because not to put body and bloud apart where they were not before , but to separate them where they are vnited , is to kill : Else GOD should kill a man , if hee created a Soule and body apart .

T. B.

The Crow thinketh her owne Bird the fairest , and euery foole thinketh himselfe a wise man . How fondly soeuer Bell inferreth , and how wisely soeuer our Iesuite disputeth , this must euer bee true , ( viz. ) That the Popish Priest in the Popish Masse , doth what in him lyeth to kill christ in the Masse , so often as he pronounceth their supposed consecration words ; if it should be true which the Pope and his Popelinges holde , that by vertue thereof Christes body is put apart from his bloud , and his bloud apart from his body . For most certaine it is , that no true man , & consequently Christ , can liue any longer , then his body and bloud be vnited together , & it is a meerfoolery to say as our Iesuite doth ; that to put a mans body & bloud apart where they were not before , is not to kill the man . For example sake , because our Iesuite seemeth very grosse ( I will not say a foole ) if it will please his worship to call a Butcher to him , to take all his bloud from him , as hee doth from an Oxe or Calfe , and to receiue it into a great vessell , so as no part thereof fall vppon the ground ; and that doone , to carry the same to Saint Peters Church in Rome , and to put it vnder the high altar there ; and when he hath so done , to carry his body to Hexam , in the north parts of England , there to bee solemnely buryed ; if then ( 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 , The Papists haue two Gods and two Christs . ( 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 , Page 113. our Iesuite rehearseth sundry absurdities , which are found in the Popish Masse . But the more hee busieth himselfe to discharge their Masse thereof , Page 115. 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 , O horrible blasphemy . 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 ( which 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 .

WHere 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 , Page . 126. 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 , Page . 127. 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 . Will 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 , Read the Downfall . 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 , The Iesuite is striken dead . 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 duly and truely , ( all affection and partialitie set apart ) read both The Downefall of Popery , and the Iesuites answere to it , I perswade my selfe , hee will detest both the Pope and popery , vntill his liues end .

S. R.

Saint Austen ( saith Bell ) telleth vs , Page . 132. that the bread which the Apostles ate , was our Lord . I would Bell had marked this himselfe : for it is the vpshot of this Controuersie , and vnanswerable by any Protestant . For , if ( as Bell noteth out of Saint Austen ) the bread which the Apostles are was our Lord ; How can Protestantes deny it , and say it was bare bread ? Or if ( as S. Austen speaketh ) they are bread our Lord , how can Bell say , they are not our Lord , but bare bread ?

T. B.

Here our Iesuite triumpheth before the victorie , and boasteth that that which I saide , was the vpshot on my side , is the vpshot on his side , but how truely , hee saith , he will declare . Saint Austen saith , the Apostles are Panem Dominum . The bread our Lord , but that Iudas ate Panem Domini , the bread of our Lord . Marke well the words , gentle Reader . Saint Austen putteth a cleere difference , betweene that which the Apostles are , See the Downefall . and that which Iudas ate . The Apostles ( saith hee ) are the Bread which is our lord but Iudas the bread of our lord . This assertion of this holy father , say I , confoundeth the Papists ; for , if our Lord & maker be present really in flesh , bloud , & bone , vnder the accidents of bread , and that so long as the same accidents remaine vncorrupt , as the popish faith holdeth ; the doubtles , Iudas should haue receiued his redeemer ; them perforce Iudas should also haue receiued Panem dominum ; them Iudas could not by any possibility , haue barely receiued Panem Domini , which yet S. Austen affirmeth most constantly . For first , if it were true , ( as it is not ) that after Popish supposed consecration , the substance of bread were transubstantiated into Christes body naturall , as it truely consisteth of flesh , bloud , and bone ; And again , if it were also true , that the self-same body remained vnder the forme of bread , vntill it were corrupted , as Popish Doctrine telleth vs ; then say I , ( and it will bee prooued an vndoubted truth ) that all the Papistes in Europe , and else-where , are neuer able to shew me , how Iudas did not receiue Panem Dominum , the bread which is the Lord , but Panem Domini , The bread of our Lord . That is to say , how Iudas could receiue the forme of bread , with the Flesh , bloud , and bones of Christs Organicall and naturall body hidden vnder the same ; and for all that , not receiue Christ himselfe , and Panem dominum , as the other Apostles did . This indeed is the vpshot of this Question , and striketh the Papistes starke dead : they can neuer answere it truely , while the world standes . Now , where our fond Iesuite asketh mee , how I can say , the Apostles are bare bread , seeing they are the bread which Saint Austen saith is the Lord ; I answer , that though perhaps he haue a great head , yet seemeth he to haue but little wit . For I willingly graunt with the same Saint Austen , T●m. 2. p. 474. that Iudas ate the price of our Redemption ; with Saint Cyprian , that the bread which Christ gaue to his disciples , was his true flesh ; with Saint Chrysostome , that Christ offered to Iudas the bloud which he had sold ; but al this , sacramentally , Acts , 3. v. 21. mystically , figuratiuely , and significantly . For his sacred , true , and organicall body was , is , and must be really in Heauen , vntill his second Aduent ; yet is it Sacramentally in the holy Eucharist . Alasse , alasse , must Berengarius be enforced with fire and Fagot , to sweare that Christes body was truely broken , and truely torne with mens teeth ; and that onely , because the figure of his body is broken and torne ; and we for all that and the holy fathers , may not once say , that christs body & bloud is in the holy Eucharist Sacramentally . Yea , the holy Fathers do often call it the vnbloudy sacrifice , and the bloud that issued out of Christs side , & whatsoeuer else is truely verified of his naturall and organicall body indeede ; and this they do , because it is the sacrament and representation of that most sacred body and Sacrifice , which was offered for our sins vppon the Altar of the crosse . All that possibly can be obiected in these cases . For these matters see my Suruey . is fully and soundly answered in my Suruey of Popery .

CHAP. 6. Conteining the confutation of the Iesuites sixt Chapter , touching co●radictions in the Masse . S. R.

THe Papists say , Page 136. that Christes body is the same in the Masse which was on the crosse , and yet confesse it to be a figure thereof . This Bell proueth to be a contradiction , because Bellarmine saith , a figure must needs be inferior to the thing figured . But I deny euery figure to be inferior to the thing figured . For God the Son is the figure of the substance of his Father , Heb. 1. v. 3. and yet true God . And Seth an Image of Adam , and yet true man : and such a figure of Christ is the Eucharist .

T. B.

Our Iesuite may learne in the Schooles , that Nullum simile est idem , no similitude is the same with the thing , whereof it is a similitude . Which if it bee true , ( as true it must bee graunted , or else farewell Schoole-Doctrine , ) then doubtlesse , Christes body beeing the same in the Masse ( as Papists tell vs ) which was on the crosse , cannot possibly bee a figure thereof . But our Iesuite obiecteth , that the Sonne of GOD is the figure of GOD , and yet true God withall . Likewise that Seth was the Image of man , and yet true man withall . I answer to the former , with the auncient Father and reuerend Bishoppe Haymo Halberstatensis , Heb. 1. 3. Haymo in hunc locum . whose expresse wordes are these ; Quantum ad homin●s pertinet , aliud est figura , aliud est substantia , quia dum pingitur , imago & figura alicuius hominis in pariete , non est illud figura quod est substantia . Apostolus autem figuram in hoc loco pro ipsa substantia & pro aequalitate essentiae posuit . Concerning men , a figure is one thing , and substaunce another thing ; because whiles an image and figure is painted in the Wall , the figure is not that which the substance is . But the Apostle in this place put the figure for the substance , and for the equality of Essence . And the Popes owne deare Doctor Nicolaus de Lyra , Lyr. in hunc loc. teacheth the selfe-same Doctrine . These are his wordes ; Dicitur imago vel figura substantiae . 1. Eiusdem substantiae cum patre . Hee is called the Image or figure of his substance ; that is to say , He is of the same substance with his father . By which doctrine thus deliuered by these two learned writers , we see euidently , that the Apostle vnderstandeth by figure Substance , so as this is the sence ; he is of the same substance with the Father . For as the same Haymo saith in the same place ; as in the fire , three things are inseparable , the fire , the heate , and the brightnesse , and in the brightnes is shewed to vs the fire and heat , ( though humaine things may not be compared with things diuine ; ) euen so the nature of the Father , and of the Son , and of the holy Ghost , is vnited inseperably ; and by his word , as by brightnes , hee hath vouchsafed to shew himselfe vnto vs . Fondly therefore doth our Iesuite dispute , when he would proue Christs body , to be both the figure and the thing figured out of the apostles words ; wherfore by the word ( Figure ) vnderstandeth the Essence and equality of God . Hee vseth a Metaphoricall speech , for the dulnes of our capacities ; who can vnderstand nothing in the admirable & diuine mysteries , but by similitudes drawne from Creatures .

To our Iesuites second Obiection , Gen. 5 , ver. 3. that Seth was both a true man , and withall the figure of a true man , I make this answere , ( viz. ) That it maketh against himselfe . The reason is euident , because ( as I haue prooued out of Haymo ) the figure of the thing figured , in humaine Creatures are different , and the one distinguished from the other . And the Iesuite must needes graunt so much , or else say , ( as I think he will not for shame ; ) that Seth was Adam , and his owne Father . But in Christes body the case is otherwise ; for the Papistes hold , that Christes body in the Eucharist , is Idem corpus numero , the same body in number with his body on the crosse , and his body now in heauen . If they shall say otherwise , then perforce must they say , that which they dare not ; that Christ hath moe bodies then one .

S. R.

I returne Bels Argument vppon himselfe , because if figures must needes be inferior to things figured , the Eucharist is some nobler thing then bread .

T. B.

Our Iesuite careth not what he say , so hee seeme to say somewhat ; so gladly would he and his fellowes haue the vulgar sort to think , that they haue answered The Downfall of Popery . But God be thanked , they still fall downe , that striue against it . I aunswere ; First , that albeit all figures were not inferior to the things figured ; yet should my manner of disputation bee good against Bellarmine , because my argument is deduced out of his own ground , and therefore called after their vse , Argumentum ad hominem . Secondly , that our holy Eucharist is far nobler then bare Bakers bread , ( viz. ) Christs true and reall body sacramentally ; euen that very body , which was nayled on the crosse , & that very bloud , which with the spear issued out of Christs side . All which I haue prooued at large , in my Suruey of Popery ; and there haue answered al that possibly can be said , for the Popish reall presence .

S. R.

Neither Christs whole body , Page . 139. nor part thereof , is in the Eucharist before the pronuncication of the last word ; yet are not the former words superfluous . For the last worketh the transmutation , not by his owne vertue alone , but with the vertue of them also , or rather God worketh all when the last word is pronounced .

T. B.

Behold here gentle Reader , what vncertaintie is in popish faith and Doctrine . For first , our Iesuite telleth vs , that either the last word in their supposed consecration worketh transubstantiation alone , or with the help of the rest ; or else God worketh all , when the last word is spoken . Marry , which of these is the truth , that hee cannot tell vs .

Secondly , Aqui●as , part. 3. q. 75. art. 4. & . art. 7. ●● their Angelicall Doctor , and Saint Aquinas saith , that this conuersion is not like to naturall conuersions , but is altogether supernaturall , wrought by the onely power of God . Thirdly , the same Saint Aquinas telleth vs , that this conuersion is doone in an instant . Fourthly , if either fit matter want , or any word of consecration , or the intention of the Priest , nothing is changed , it still remaineth bread . Now then , on the one side , euery action that God doth , is done in an instant ; the reason is euident , because God is of infinite power , to whose action no resistance can be made : All learned papists graunt this to be so . On the other side , euery action that man doth is successiue & in time , because man is of finite and limited power : the words therefore of consecration either worke nothing at all , ( and so they are ciphers , which to hold is absurd in popish doctrine ) or else transubstantiation is effected in time , which is repugnant to Gods infinite power . Heere I must tell our Iesuite , that he passeth ouer with silence two most notable contradictions , whereof he speaketh not one word for feare of biting . I told him in the Downefall , that Berengarius was compelled to confesse and beleeue , that Christes body is broken with hands ; and yet doth Bellarmine graunt , that it is not broken with hands : Ergo , it is broken with hands , and not broken with hands . What can be a plainer contradiction ? None at all .

S. R.

Catholiques thinke indeed , that when the Priest wanteth both actuall and virtuall intention , Page . 142. or omitteth any essentiall worde , that there is no Consecration , and the priest sinneth therein greeuously ; but the people worshipping erroneously vpon inuincible ignorance , offend no more , then did Saint Iohn , when hee worshipped an Angel as God ; or as did Iacob when he lay with Lia who was not his wife , thinking verily she had beene his wife Rachell .

T. B.

This is horrible impiety , that by Popish Religion , men & women are compelled to adore that with diuine worship , as the euerliuing God ; whith perhaps , euen by the Popes owne faith and beleefe , is nothing else but a piece of bread : Yet is it farre greater impiety and flat blasphemy against the sonne of God , to excuse the people from sinne , which commit openly such palpable and grosse Idolatry . But inuincible ignorance ( saith our Iesuite ) doth excuse them as it did S. Iohn and Iacob . Howsoeuer the case stand with S. Iohn and the Patriarke Iacob , ( whereof I am not now to dispute ) ignorance can neuer excuse Idolatry . Hee ( saith Christ ) that knoweth the will of God and doth it not ; shal be beaten with many stripes . He that knoweth not the will of God , Luke , 12 , 5 , 48 and yet doth things worthy of stripes , shal be beaten with few stripes . Ezech. 3. 18. And we are taught in Ezechiel , that the wicked shall die in his iniquity , though the watchman gaue him no warning . The man of God which beleeued the old Prophet that lyed vnto him , sinned greeuously , as appeared by his punishment , 1. Reg. 13. because he transgressed the word of the Lord ; albeit hee offended ignorantly , thinking hee had done the will of God .

S. R.

What maketh it against the masse , Page 114. He speaketh of the counsell of Trent . that three or foure Catholiques did in a difficult matter , before it was defined by the Church , dissent from the rest ? Let Bell if hee can , shew this diuersity now since the Councell .

T. B.

In the Downefall of Popery , I proued out of Durand , that onely the forme of Bread is changed in the Eucharist , & that the matter of Bread remaineth stil. Out of Rupertus the Popish Abbot , that the bread is vnited Hypostatically to the sonne of God . That Caietanus , Henrieus , Capreolus , are of another opinion . That Iohannes Parisiensis , helde also that the bread was assumpted , but in a different maner from the opinion of Rupertus . That another opinion affirmeth the annihilation of the bread : And that Bellarmine holdeth with the counsell of Trent . Nowe , to this pleasant harmony , our Iesuite addeth this goodly Corollary , ( viz. ) that the Church of Rome neuer knewe how to thinke of their real presence , for the space of one thousand , fiue hundered , forty yeares , and odde ; vntill the late dayes of their counsell of Trent , in which Counsell , they receiued ( as it may seeme ) some new ( no Reuelation from heauen , ) concerning the being of Christes body in their masse . And heere may the indifferent Reader cleerly behold , the originall of late Popish Masse ; which the Papists for all that , would make the common people beleeue to be the old Roman religion . I say ( the late Popish religion ) because ( as we heare ) it was but determined & found out in the late counsell of Trent . For the olde Roman masse or communion ( which is all one in effect ) was the same in substance , with the communion this day vsed in our English Church .

S. R.

We say after Saint Hierom and Saint Pontian , Pa. 142 , et 143 that priests Conficiunt Corpus Christi , make Christs body ; but dreame not of making God . But where is the contradiction ? forsooth because Innocentius holdeth , that all such priests do consecrate ; Durand thinketh , that he only who first pronounceth the words ; and Caietan is of another opinion . I graunt these contradicte one another . But what is this to the Masse ? Are these contradictions in it ? The matter 〈◊〉 which these three Authors contradict one another , is no point of faith . For with catholiques it is no more matter of faith , whether all the sayde Priestes or one onely Consecrate ; then it is with Protestants , whether all or one should Christen the Childe , if many at once should dippe him into the Water , and pronounce the words of Baptisme .

T. B.

Here is first graunted , that priests make Christs body , but not GOD . To which I say first , that such making is great villany against the sonne of God . Secondly , that I know not how popish priests can make Christs body , and not make God : Vnlesse perhaps they bee Arrians , and so deny Christ to be God . For where Christs body is , there is Christ , true God , and true man . And therefore , when they make Christs body apart from Christ , then they eyther make a distinct body from Christ ( and so Christ must haue two bodies ) or else they take christs body from the God-head , and so make him no God at all .

Heere is secondly graunted , that one Papist contradicteth another in the hye mistery of the Masse . But forsooth it skilleth not , because it is no matter of faith . This is our Iesuites short aunswere , but as much to the matter as a poke full of Plumes . Marry sir , this is a iest indeede , For he must be a right wise man indeed that can tell what Popish faith is . Many most godly men and women haue beene burnt , for denyall the Popish Transubstantiation , and yet could not the Papists tell what it was , vntil their late Counsell of Trent . God keep vs from such Popish faith .

Heere is thirdly confessed , that it is no more matter whether many Priests do make Christs body one after an other , then whether many Christen a childe one after an other . Behold heere , howe roundly this Iesuite hudleth vp many sacred misteries , as things of smal or no account . I must tell him , that with Godly Christians of all ages , rebaptization was euer reputed a greeuous sinne : and yet we see heere , that one may be baptized of many , one baptizing after another , as one consecrating , after another ; for so is the case in this controuersie . I must tell him likewise , that it is not onely great irreuerence , but also execrable idolatry , and more then Heathenish Villany so to abuse Christs most sacred body . And I cannot but wonder , if any that shall know truely their faith and opinions , do not detest their late start-vp Religion .

The third Article of the Popes dispensations .

COncerning this Article , I thinke two thinges onely needefull .

First , that though our Iesuite cannot deny contracted matrimony to be de iure Diuino , and a sacrament with them before carnall copulation , neither that the best learned Papistes do holde it indispensable ; yet doth he not blush to say , that the Pope can dispense with the same .

Secondly , that he repeateth Pope Martius dispensation with the Brother and his owne naturall sister , as his brother or rather himselfe ( for Robert Parsons , is the Author of both ) had done before in the fore-runner of Bels Downfall . But that which he should haue done , & which he would vndoubtedly haue done , if he had beene able to haue performed it , that hath he not done , viz: he hath not replyed to my answere , neither said one word to my large confutation of the saide forerunner . I there proued by the expresse verdicts of three famous Popish writers ; ( viz. ) Siluester Prieras , Bartholomaeus Fumus , and Angelus de Clauisio : that the Popish famous Archbyshop and canonized Saint See the Popes funerall . Austoninus affirmed resolutely , that pope Martin dispensed with one to marry his owne naturall and full sister , of the same father and mother . I prooued likewise out of Cardinall Caìetan , that the Pope can disspence in al the degrees of Consanguinity , saue only with the father and his daughter , and with the mother and her sonne . It is therefore no straunge thing to charge the Pope to graunt licence for marriage , euen betweene the brother and sister . For larger discourse heereof , I referre the reader to my book , intituled the Popes Funeral , where this point is so handled , as neither this Iesuite nor any of his fellowes , is euer able to answere the same : and therefore it is an vndoubted truth , that the Pope taketh vpon him , to licence a brother to marry his owne sister .

S. R.

I omit Bels errour in affirming that Austen of Ancona , Page , 186 dedicated his booke to Pope Iohn the twelft , who was dead almost 400. yeares before him .

T. B.

I cannot omit to tell you and the Reader , that he may take heed of you heereafter , that you are a lyar more impudent then impudency it selfe . For Augustinus de Ancona , the Author himselfe saith plainly , in the very title and dedication of the Booke , that it is Dedicated to Pope Iohn the twelft of that name . Now , whether the Authour of the booke , or Robert Parsons that Trayterous and shamelesse Iesuite ( as the secular Priestes tearmed him ) knew better to whom the Booke was dedicated , let the Reader iudge . Would not this fellow trow yee , gladly find a hole in my coat ? If we had a good matter in hand , he would not vse such miserable shifts .

The fourth Article , of orignall concupiscence in the regenerate .

THe state of this Question is this . The Pope and Iesuites deny originall concupiscence to bee sinne in the regenerate , because if they should graunt it to be sinne , it would follow against their doctrine , that none could be saued by the merit of his works . I haue therefore proued it sufficiently in The Downefall of Popery to be sin , and therefore will now onely confute by way of reply , such answers and authorities as he thinketh make for his purpose .

S. R.

Nothing done against our will is sin , Pape 165. but diuer actes of concupiscence be such ; Ergo no sinne .

T. B.

Sinne ( as the holy Apostle defineth it ) is Anomia , that is to say , iniquity or transgression of Gods law . 1. Iohn , 3 , 4. Aug. de eos , evang. cap. 4. Tom. 4. Here we see what sinne is . Let vs proceed . The eternall law ( saith Saint Austen ) is the reason or will of God , commaunding the naturall order to be kept , and forbidding the same to bee perturbed . Thus doth S. Austen describe Gods law . So then , whatsoeuer is against Gods Lawe is sinne , and whatsoeuer is against Gods will , is against the law ; Ergo whatsoeuer is against Gods will is sinne . Let this foundaon thus laid , bee remembred , for by it , all Obiections will soone be answered . I therefore deny the proposition of the Iesuites Argument , when he saith , nothing doone against our will is sinne , and they are enforced to confesse the same against their willes , in Children not regenerate . For ( as the Popes law teacheth vs ) Children dying without Baptisme , are damned , and therfore they are not buried in any Church-yard with the Papistes . Now must they tell me , eyther what sinne they did with theyr will , or else confesse with mee , that some thing doone against mans will is sinne . And the reason is yeelded already ( which I wish the Reader euer to remember ) ( viz. ) that whatsoeuer is against the will or law of God is sin , whether it be voluntary , or not voluntary . For Saint Iohn placed not voluntary , in the definition of sinne .

S. R.

In regeneration , Page 173. either we remaine guilty of damnable sinne , or become guiltlesse of all such sin . If we remaine guilty , then is not our sin forgiuen . For it is impossible to be guilty of sin , and to haue sin forgiuen .

T. B.

I distinguish the proposition . The regenerate are guilty by nature , and in respect of sin which still remaineth , for which they might iustly be damned ; and yet guiltles by way of acceptation in Christ Iesus , for whose sake and merits , God doth not impute sinne vnto them . And this is Saint Austens mind , when hee saith . The concupisence of the flesh is forgiuen in Baptisme , Aug. de nup. et concupisc . li , 16 cap , 25 , t● 7 not so that is remaine not , but so as it is not imputed for sinne . In which wordes Saint Austen sheweth plainly , That concupiscence remaineth , though not imputed for sinne . It followeth in S. Austen . Non ergo aliquid remanet , quod non remittatur . Not any thing therefore remaineth , which is not forgiuen . Where the Reader must well obserue , that he saith not ; nothing is sin , that remaineth ; or thus , no sinne remaineth ; but thus : Not any thing remaineth , which is not remitted or forgiuen . As he had said ; Sinne indeede remaineth still in the baptized , but shall not be imputed to the faithfull .

S. R.

A iustified or regenerate man cannot be guilty of damnation , Page 173. Rom , 8 , 1 , because there is no damnation to them , who are in Christ Iesus .

T. B.

It is one thing good Iesuite , not to be damned or not to receiue damnation ; another thing , to bee guilty of damnation : for Gods elect Children may bee guilty of damnation , that is , deserue damnation , as Dauid , Peter , and Paule did , but there is no damnation to such , because they shall neuer be damned .

S. R.

Bell confesseth , Page 173. that a man cannot be iustly condemned for sinne remitted .

T. B.

I grant it . What then ? Albeit originall sinne truely remaine in the elect , yet because it is forgiuen and not imputed to them , they shall neuer bee condemned for it , for otherwise God should be vniust and vnfaithful in his promise .

S. R.

If involuntary acts done against our will bee true sins , Page 167. much more the acts of fooles and mad men , yea of beasts , which are not done against will , but onely without will , and they true Malefactors and Sinners before COD and men , which I thinke , none but a mad man will grant .

T. B.

There is great disparitie ( by your leaue good Mayster Fryer ) in these subiects which you name . Omnes er●●u● in Adamo , se● in principio & ●adice totius humani 〈◊〉 . For Gods commaundements were neuer giuen to the brute beasts , neyther were they euer made capable of doing the same . But all men were once enabled to haue kept Gods ordinances , euen in the protaplast Adam , in whom wee all were originally . And the Pope and his Iesuites must needes confesse so much , or else condemne God of iniustice , in punnishing eternally the vnregenerate Infantes , for that sinne which they neuer consented vnto , neither possibly could auoide . And therefore grauely saith Saint Austen , that euery sinne is voluntary , Aug. retract . lib. 1. cap. 15 Pag. 16. eyther in the act , or else in the Originall .

S. R.

Saint Austen is so farre from thinking , Page 170 Aug. ep. 200 Tom. 2. that we sinne by inuoluntary motions of the flesh ; that hee saith , if wee consent not vnto them , we need not say ; forgiue vs our trespasses .

T. B.

Saint Austen saith not , if wee consent not vnto them , we need not say , forgiue vs our sins ; but if we were thorowly renewed , and were as Adam was in Paradise before his fall , we should haue no debts to be forgiuen ; & consequently , haue no neede to say , forgiue vs our sins . But our case is otherwise , because that perfect renouation cannot bee had in this life , but onely in the World to come . And for this cause doth the ancient councell Mileuita● accurse him , Conc. Mileu . can . 7. & 8. that saith he is so holy , that he neede not say the Lordes prayer for himselfe , but for others .

S. R.

Saint Austen saith , D● ciuit . lib. 1. cap. 25. if concupiscentiall disobedience be without fault in the body of one sleeping , how much ●ore in the body of one not consenting .

T. B.

I aunswere , that Saint Austen and other Fathers doe comparatiuely , as it were extenuate and excuse innate concupiscence , but not simply make it no sinne . When they seeme to make it no sinne , then they so speake , eyther for that it is not imputed to the regenerate , who manfully fight against it ; or else , because it is an ingrafted prauity of Nature , and not a voluntary transgression of Gods law . Breefely , the Fathers call it sinne , yet not simply , but comparatiuely in respect of actuall sinnes . Saint Austen in the place which our Iesuite citeth , disputeth against the fond opinion of some persons , who to auoyde those sinnes , to which they thought their original raging concupiscence would drawe them , resolued to commit one sinne for all , in murthering themselues , and so be deliuered from many sinnes , to which they feared their concupiscence would allure them . Saint Austen therfore disswading from such heynous crimes , encourageth such timorous consciences by way of extenuation , telling them that concupiscence is without fault , in those that striue against it , & do not consent vnto it . Not for that it is no sin in it selfe , but because it is not imputed to the godly . For , ( as we haue heard already , and as I haue proued at large in the Downfall of Popery ) whatsoeuer deflecteth , or swarueth from the will of God , the same is most properly sin . The reason is euident , because not to bee correspondent and agreeable to Gods will , is the very intrinsecall reason , essence , and nature of sinne . Yet so it is , that the Ataxia , disorder , and concupiscence in the regenerate , is repugnant and disagreable to the will of God ; and consequently , it must be sinne indeed . And as for the opinion of Saint Austen , See the Downefall of Popery . I haue proued at large in the Downfall , out of fiue seuerall places of his workes , that it is both the punnishment of sinne , the cause of sinne , and sinne it selfe .

S. R.

As blindnes of hart ( saith Bell out of Austen ) is sinne , Page , 185. punnishment of sinne , and cause of sinne , so concupisence of the flesh is sinne , punnishment , and cause of sin . But I aunswere , that Saint Austen compareth concupisence with blindnesse of heart , in the materiall disorder of sinne .

T. B.

I answere ; that I know not whether I should pitty the ignorance of our Iesuite , or exclaime against his mallice . For first , Saint Austen cannot bee expounded , as Maister Fryer saith , though Bellarmine his Brother hath lent him his solution . For if Saint Austen had meant materially , & not formally , he would neuer haue called it sin the thirde time , after hee named it twice sinne matterially before , ( viz. ) when he called it the cause of sinne , and the punnishment of sinne . Yet after both these , he addeth , that it is sinne formally . For else he had saide no new thing .

Secondly , because our Iesuite confuteth himselfe vnawares , when he writeth thus ; Saint Austen prooueth by the blindnesse of hart , that it was not onely punishment and cause of sinne , Page . 186. but also sinne ; that is , naught , cuill , and disorderly ; because it is against the rule of reason , which is to be sinne materially , though it want the form of sinne , which is voluntarines . This is his answer : Now I pray you Gentle Reader , iudge indifferently between mee and this Fryer . First , hee graunteth that Originall concupisence is naught , euill , and disorderly . Secondly , that it is against the rule of reason , and all that he can say for himselfe is this , that it is indeede sinne materially , but not formally . Where if I may finde an indifferent Reader , the victory is mine own : GOD is my iudge , I speake as I thinke . For to be against the rule of reason , is formally sinne . August , vbi supra . Which Saint Austen ( as is already proued ) declareth euidently , when he defineth the eternall law to be nothing else , but the reason or will of God . The reason is confirmed , because Saint Austen compareth it with the blindnes of hart , which ( as euery good Christian knoweth , ) is sinne most formally . For if master Fryer Parsons , shall deny blindnesse of heart , thorough which man beleeueth not in God , to bee sinne formally , he will be hissed out of all good schools ; howsoeuer our holy Father the Pope , sitting in his chaire vppon men● shoulders , giue him ten hundred thousand yeares pardon for the same . Nay , I will yet say more to our holy Fryer maister Robert Parsons , ( the Author of this fond presensed answere to the Downfall of Popery , ) ( viz. ) that in the last precept of the Decalogue or Ten commaundementes , ( Thou shalt not lust , ) is prohibited not onely actuall and voluntary concupiscence , but the very Originall and Fountaine of all concupiscences with all her involuntary branches .

I prooue it first , because that concupiscence actuall , wherewith wee couet that that is another mans , and not our own , is forbidden , by all the sixt , seuenth , and eight precepts of the second Table . This doeth our maister Christ teach vs , when hee saith ; That whosoeuer shall see a woman to lust after her , Mat , 5 , 29 hath already committed adultery with hi● in his hart . The same doctrine teacheth S. Iohn , when hee sheweth the hatred of our brother to be agaiust this precept ; Thou shall not kill . I. Iohn , 3 , 5 , 15.

Secondly , because if no other thing were prohibited in this commandement , but actuall concupiscence , there shoulde bee but nine precepts in the Decalogue ; seeing the last shoulde bee no newe Commaundement , but only a bare recitall or repetition of the nine former precepts .

Thirdly , because S. Paul granteth himselfe to be carnally sold vnder sin , Rom , 7 , 14 5 , 19 , 20. by reason of original concupiscence , and not actuall ; against which he fought stoutly , and neuer gaue consent vnto it .

Fourthly , because that which the Saints of God detest , & call sin by the iudgement of the holy ghost , must needs be sin properly . But so it is , that S. Paul in the name of all the Saints of God , detesteth this Original concupiscence , calleth it sin , and mourning , tearmeth himselfe vnhappy for it , and desireth to be deliuered from it : Ergo , it must needs be sin properly .

Fiftly , to say that it is called sin figuratiuely and vnproperly , is against that generall rule which all Diuines haue deliuered , when the scriptures must bee vnderstood properly , and when figuratiuely , viz: that then they are taken figuratiuely , when the sence , which the words in their proper signification yeeld , do not agree with other scriptures , and the Analogy of faith , but are repugnant vnto the same .

Now , no scripture can bee produced , which denyeth that Originall concupisence with the involuntary motions thereof , Romans , 7. is properly sin : Nay , the Apostle aboue twelue times in one Chapter , plainely and simply calleth it sin , neither will it helpe to say , that the scripture freeth Gods children from sinne . August , vbi supra . For as saint Austen sayth , they are not deliuered from sinne so , that it is not in them , but that it is not imputed to them . And the Prophet teacheth the same doctrine , when he pronounceth The man blessed not who hath no sin , but to whom the Lorde imputeth no sinne . Psalme , 32 , 2. And the Papists must either recall their doctrine in this point , or else cry fire and faggot for their chiefe maister Petrus Lombardus , sur-named the Maister of sentences ( whose Booke to this day is publikely Read in the schoole of Diuinity , Lombard . lib. 3 sent. dist. 19. c. for thus doth he write : ) Secundum animas vero iam redempti sumus &c. But touching our soules , wee are redeemed in part , not wholly ; from the sinne , not from the paine ; neyther wholly from the sinne or fault : For we are not so redeemed from it , that it be not ( in vs ) but that it rule not ( ouer vs . ) Lo , Maister Lombard that famous Writer , graunteth first , that we are redeemed in part , but not in the whole .

Secondly , that wee are not wholly redeemed from sinne .

Thirdly , he telleth vs , how we are redeemed from sin , viz: that albeit sin shall remain in vs , yet hath it not such dominion ouer vs , that it can enforce vs to consent therevnto . Lo , the greatest and best learned Papists , teach the same doctrine that I do .

Sixtly , Saint Austen affirmeth plainely , that Originall Concupiscence is prohibited by this Precept ( Thou shalt not Lust ; ) and not onely the habituall concupiscence it selfe , but also all the actuall involuntary motions thereof ; Bellar● . tom. 3. col 400. vide Aug. de spir. & liter . cap , vlt. tom. 3. Thus doeth hee write , as the Iesuire Bellarmine alleadgeth him ; These thinges ( saith Bellarmine ) are spoken after Saint Austens mind , who by this precept ( Thou shalt not Lust ) vnderstandeth all the motions of concupiscence , euen the involuntary , to bee prohibited in some sort ; and that the consent to these motions forbidden by that other precept ; follow not thy concupiscence . Thus writeth our Iesuiticall Cardinall ; by whose doctrin it is euident that S. Austen affirmeth the first motions of concupiscence , which peruert reason , and cannot be auoided , to be condemned by S. Paul , as sinfull and against the law of God . Which doctrine of S. Austen , doth so sting and confound all Papists , that Bellarmine knoweth not in the world what hee shall answere to the same . And therefore he addeth deceitfully in his exposition of S. Austens words , this word . ( Quodam modo , after a sort , ) which word for all that , is neither in S. Austen , nor yet agreeable to his meaning . For S. Austen saith plainely , simply , and absolutely , without all ands , or ifs , or other qualifications , that such motions are forbidden by this commaundement ( non concupisces . ) If I ( gentle Reader ) should thus deale in reciting or expounding my authors , what exclamations , what outcries wold be made against me ? all the cursed brood of Iesuites and Iesuited Papists would pursue me with hue and cry , as if I were a rancke Traytor . But S. Austens words are so plaine , as no denyall or Legierdemaine can haue place : for he sayth , that Originall concupiscence with the involuntary motions thereof are forbidden by the last precept of the Decalogue , and the consent to the same , by that other precept , Go not after thy concupiscence . Let this bee wel marked Heere S. Austen vttereth his owne meaning , concerning this great controuersie . For he plainly and flatly distinguisheth , betweene originall concupiscence it selfe , and the consent that is giuen to the same . Hee telleth vs simply and resolutely , that the concupiscence is prohibited by one precept , and the consent to it , by another . Which the Iesuiticall Cardinall seeing to bee an inuincible Bulwarke against him , and against the very essence of all Popish doctrine ; hee thought it stood him in hand to inuent some ( thogh neuer so miserable ) Legier demain to dazel the eyes of the reader withal . and for this end , he added to Saint Austen text , this word ( Quodam modo , in a sort . ) Which ( In a sort ) though it bee graunted him , yet will it not serue his turne . For , if it bee prohibited in a sorte , and in a sort bee against Gods commaundement , then must it needs followe , that at least in a sort , it is sinne ; and so the victory is mine owne .

Lastly , it is a constant Axiome , generally receiued of all Logitians in all Schooles ; that the cause beeing taken away , the effect must needs be taken away also . But death is the effect of originall sinne , Ergo if Originall sin , Ablata causa tollitur effect●s . Rom. 6. v , 23 ▪ which is the cause , be taken away in baptisme , then death which is the effect thereof , must be taken away with it . Wherefore , seeing both olde and young after Baptisme still dye , as we daily see ; it is an euident Argument , that the cause thereof ( which is originall concupiscence ) is not taken away .

S. R.

If in regeneration wee become guiltlesse of all damnable sinne , Page 173. Lib. 1. de imp. & concu . cap. 26. tom. 7. then haue we no such sinne in vs . For as Saint Austen saith , to bee not guilty of sinne , is to haue no sinne .

T. B.

I answer , that we are guilty in the nature of the thing , yet guiltles & freed by Gods mercy in Christ Iesus . And I tell our Iesuite , that he inverteth Saint Austens wordes , as one that neuer read the same . Thus writeth Saint Austen ; Hoc est . n. Non habere peccatum , reum non esse peccati . For this is to haue no sinne , not to be guilty of sinne . And what is this ? Forsooth S. Austen saith , he may be thought or saide to haue no sinne in him , ( though his sinne remaine in act ) whose sinne is not imputed to him .

S. R.

Sins remaine but by their guilt : as adultery once committed , Page 177. remaineth in the committer , onely because he is still guilty of the adultery that he did , vntill it bee remitted .

T. B.

Some sinnes , as Adultery , passe in acte when they are done , and remaine in guilt . Others passe in guilt , and remaine in acte , as originall concupiscence in the regenerate , which remaineth in the vnregenerate , both in guilt and in act .

S. R.

Though it were true which Bell saith of the reprobates , yet would it not follow thereof , Page . 184. that concupiscence in reprobates is formall sinne , but onely that originall sinne is not truely forgiuen in baptisme to any reprobate : which is false .

T. B.

I prooued by the testimony of the Rhemists , See the Downefall . that originall sin still remaineth in the baptized ; and consequently , that it is sinne formally in the regenerate . And so I haue my purpose , ( viz. ) that sinne still abideth in the regenerate , though it be not imputed to them . For , if originall sinne be truely remitted in baptisme , and bee not truely sinne indeede in the baptised ; then can none bee iustly damned , that are baptized . For how shall they bee iustly condemned , for that which is remitted ? It cannot be . And this notwithstanding , to grant that all baptized shall be saued , is most absurd . For larger discourse hereof , I refer the Reader to the Downefall it selfe . I study to be briefe .

S. R.

When Saint Austen asketh , Page . 188. why concupiscence is sin in the child , if it be in the parent baptized without sin , he supposeth that it is no true sin in the baptized , contrary to Bels allegation .

T. B.

S. Austen worthily demanded , how concupiscence can be sinne in the Childe , if it bee none in the baptized Parent . For how can any man impart that to another , which he hath not himselfe ? and thereupon Saint Austen concluded , that originall sin still remaineth formally in the baptized Parent , though not imputed for sinne . This reason is vnanswerable .

S. R.

Saint Austen answered , Pape 189. that by baptisme Non imputatur in peccatum , It is not imputed for sin . In which answer , vnlesse he did by not imputing for sin , meane , making no sin , he hadde not answered the question , why concupiscence was no sin in the baptized Parent . Therefore with him , concupiscence not to be imputed to or for sin , is to be made no sin .

T. B.

If you Maister Fryer Iesuite , or Iesuited Fryer , may expound Saint Austen at your pleasure , and without eyther Scripture , Father , Text , Circumstance , or Reason , say this is his meaning ; it must bee as you say , I shall in vain dispute against you . But I hope the indifferent Reader will not afforde you that freedome . The Question which Saint Austen mooueth , Marke , for the lesuite is striken dead . is this : Why originall concupiscence is sin in the Childe , and no sin in the Baptized Parent . And Saint Austen himselfe , aunswereth himselfe , because it is not imputed for sin in the Parent . Thus standeth the case ; this is the question ; this is the aunswere : The difficulty is this ; How the Childe can contract and receiue of the Parent , that which is not in the Parent ; because no man can bestow and impart that , which he himselfe hath not . The answer to the difficulty is this ; that originall concupiscence is still in the Parent after baptisme receiued , as truely and formally sin in it owne Nature , as it is truely and formally sin in the vnbaptized Child : and so the Child contracteth nothing of the Parent , but that very same which was in him . This notwithstanding , there is this difference betweene the sin formally in the Parent , and the sinne formally in the Childe , ( viz. ) that though it bee formally , really , and truely in them both ; yet is it is in the one after one manner , in the other after another manner . It is formall sin in the Parent , but not so imputed , yet in the child before Baptisme , it is both formall sin , and so imputed . So that the difference is not in the thing , but in the manner and modification of the thing . And this is the true meaning of S. Austen , when hee saith ; Non imputatur in peccatum , It is not imputed for sinne . As if he had said , it is still sin aswell in the Parent as in the Childe , ( or els the Child could not receiue and contract it of his Father ) in the nature of the thing it selfe : Neuerthelesse , it is as if it were not in him , because of mercy it is not imputed to him for sin . Breefely , it is sinne in the Parent , but not so imputed ; In the Childe it both is sin , and for sin imputed .

S. R.

Neyther indeed can God otherwise not impute sinne , Page . 189. but by taking it away : For his iudgement is according to truth ; and therefore , if there be sin in vs , he must needes impute it to vs , and account vs Sinners , else hee should not account vs as we are , and according to truth .

T. B.

It is time to say with Christs holy Apostle ; Apoc. 22. 20. Come Lord Iesus . For , if the World shall continue , and Iesuitisme bee permitted to raigne , Luke 9 , 58 , Foxes may haue holes , and Foules of the Ayre Nestes , but the Sonne of man hardly where to lay his head . For I pray thee , gentle Reader , doth not our Iesuite , who tearmeth himselfe S. R. ( Saucy Rebell , if ye will so interpret it , and know Robert Persons for the man , ) take vppon him saucily and arrogantly to appoint bounds and limits to the power of God omnipotent ? Doth he not say here , God cannot , and God must ? Euen where there is no necessity at all .

First , it is most false , & great blasphemy against the son of God , to say that God cannot otherwise not impute sin but by taking it away . If this fond assertion were true , none could euer bee loued of God in this life , seeing all men are full of sinne , which God euer hateth as a thing most odious in his sight . Who but Iesuites will euer say , that they are not Gods enemies in truth , if God respect them after theyr deserts ? Who but Iesuites will refuse to say with the Prophet ; Psal , 143 , 2. Enter not into iudgment , with thy seruant ( O Lord ) for none liuing shall bee iustifyed in thy sight . Therefore wisely , and most christianly sayth Saint Austen ; Aug. conf. libr. 9. cap. 13. Woe euen to the best liuer on earth , if thou O Lord examine his life , ( thy mercy set apart . ) What ? Must GOD needs impute sinne , where hee findes it ? Then a sharpe Vae vobis will fall vppon our Iesuite , vnlesse hee bee holyer then eyther Saint Peter or Saint Paule . Mat ▪ 18 , 24. But Sir ; Heard you neuer of a King , whose Seruant ought him tenne thousand Talentes , which hee was not able to pay ? Know yee not , that the King his Lord imputed not the debt vnto him ? But yee will say , the King forgaue it him . True it is , but how did he forgiue it him ? Forsooth by not imputing it to him . For neyther did hee pay , neyther was hee able to pay the debt . So then , as that King ( the King of Heauen if yee will , ) did impute the tenne thousand Tallentes as payde , though they remained vnpaid indeede , and esteemed him as no Debtour , who had his debt still vnpaide : euen so , our mercifull God , both can deale , and doth deale with vs , in not imputing our sin to vs , though they still remaine in vs .

Secondly , Gods iudgement is euer according to truth , euen when hee imputeth not our sinnes to vs , as well as when he imputeth them to vs . For , as the King knew right well that the debt was vnpayde , iudging rightly that it was vnpayde , and withall accepted of it as if it hadde beene payde , not imputing the debt to the debtour ; euen so , our mercyfull GOD and louing Father , knoweth right well , Originall Concupiscence remayneth really and formally in vs , rightly iudging that sin to bee in vs , and withall accepting vs as if wee were no Sinners , not imputing our debts vnto vs . And this hee dooth of his owne free mercy , for the merits of his deare Sonne CHRIST IESVS , 1 , Cor , 1 , 30 . in whom hee is well pleased . Tit , 3 , 5.

So then , we see heere , Mat , 3 , 17. not onely the Iesuites blasphemy against GOD , but also of his fond manner of disputing euery where . For euery Childe can tell him , that it is one thing to know and iudge that man oweth him Money ; another thing , not to impute the debt to him that oweth the same . For example sake , ( because sensuall thinges woorke most with sensuall men , ) if Thomas Bell were bound in an Obligation of one thousand poundes vnto S. R. for the payment of one hundered pence vppon the first of Iuly next , at which day Thomas Bell should make default of payment , and the sayd S. R. should not impute the default and Non paiment vnto the said Thomas Bell , ( as I thinke he would not ) should not the Obligation be still in force , and Thomas Bell still remaine indebted to S. R ? Should not Thomas Bell stand still in the curtcs●e of S. R ? Might not S. R. commence suite against Thomas Bell , for his debt , notwithstanding his forbearaunce in not imputing the breach of day vnto him ? I cannot tell , I am not skillfull in the Lawe ; but I feare mee , Thomas Bell might bee intreated of S. R. as the Fellow-Seruant that ought an hundred pence , Mat , 18 , 28 , of whom we haue mention made in the holy Gospell .

S. R.

The second thing which Bell inferreth , Page 193 . and biddeth vs marke it well , is , that the tenth Commaundement forbiddeth Originall lust without consent , and habituall Concupiscence . Did euery man reade more markeable folly ? First , he maketh Originall lust to bee committed , which is to make Originall Actuall , because what is committed is actuall , as commission is action . Secondly , that habituall and Originall , inclination to euill , is forbidden by the tenth Commaundement , and calleth the contrary most absurd .

T. B.

Doubles , Bell will confesse plainely , that hee hath not often read more markeable folly indeed , then our markable Fryer vttereth in this place , who will neuer gaine any thing at T. B. his hands , vnlesse it be with his markeable folly , and deceitfull dealing . He first leaueth out my words , in the beginning of the sentence ; then addeth he his own , as if they were mine , in the end of the sentence ; that done , he discourseth of them & me , at his own good pleasure : But I answer . First , that not only actual , but also habituall inclination to euill , is forbidden in the tenth precept . Bellarmine shall be witnesse against Robert Parsons , whose words are these ; Bellarm. tom. 3. col. 400. Aug. de spir. & liter . cap. vlt. tom. 3. Haec dicta sunt ad mentem , S. Augustini , qui precepto , non concupisces , intelligit prohiberi aliqua modo matus omnes concupiscentiae , 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. ) Where 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 will .

So sayth S. Austen , Aug. de nup. et concup . lib. 1. co , 2. 27. 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 Weapons , 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 wee 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 which we all contracted of Adam , and which is the Fountaine of all concupiscences and sins , and therefore truely called of the Apostle sin . Rom , 7 , 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 , Page . 202. 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 , Page , 161 . with these words of our Iesuite ; Habituall concupiscence 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 , Page , 212 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 , Luke 7 , 47 ( 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 . Aug. de fide & oper. cap. 14 , tom 4. 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 , who defend and holde the same doctrine that Saint Austen doth . Nay , how is it possible to haue Good Workes , before wee haue fayth ? Seeing ( as the Apostle teacheth vs ) Without faith it is vnpossible to please GOD . Heb , 11 , 6 Who so listeth to pervse my Suruey of Popery , shall there find euery thing soundly aunswered , whatsoeuer can bee sayde for Popery in this kinde of subiect . But our Fryer will proue Good workes to go before iustification , because Christ sayde to Mary Magdalen ; Luke , 7. 47 Many Sinnes are forgiuen her , because shee loued much . I answere , that Christs Argument is not drawne from the cause , but from the effect . As if Christ had sayd ; wee may know by her great loue , that great gifts are bestowed on her , that many sins are forgiuen her . For , that no remission of her sinnes proceeded from her loue , but her loue of the forgiuenesse of her sinnes , appeareth by the similitude of the debters . For Christ tolde Peter of two debters , whereof the one ought fiue hundered pence , the other fifty , and that when they had not wherewith to pay , the Creditour forgaue them both . Hee therefore demaunded of Peter , whether of the Debters loued the Creditour more ? Peter aunswered , that he to whom more was forgiuen . Christ approued Peters answer , and concluded therevpon , that seeing Mary Magdalen loued more , he might know that she had more forgiuen her , because saith Christ , To whome little is forgiuen , the same loueth little . Neyther is it possible , to draw any other meaning out of christs words . The reason is euident , because christ saith plainly , that the debts were freely forgiuen the debters , who were not able to pay the debts . For otherwise , Maries forgiuenesse shoulde haue no coherence with the similitude of the debters .

The second part of his position is , that good works euer follow ( as fruits the tree ) the persons that are freely iustified . This is most manifestly falfe in infants , whereof many iustified in baptisme , dye before they do any good worke . And if his comparison of the tree be good , some iustified , neuer do good worke ; and al , want them long time , some giue ouer doing good , as some trees are barren , some cease to beare fruit , and none beare alwayes .

T. B.

This Fryer thinketh he can daunce in a net naked , and yet no man see him ; but I weene , euery indifferent Reader doeth easily espy his manner of dealing , ( viz. ) that he hath nothing in him , but Cauils , Slanders , and notorious leasings . Good workes , sayth he , cannot euer follow iustified persons , as fruits follow trees , because some trees neuer do good , and all want a long time , and none beare alwayes . Is this Fryer trow ye , wel in his wits ? Hath not malice so blinded him , that he cannot see wood for trees ? Hath the Pope dispensed with him , to say what hee list ? Good workes say I , euer follow persons freely iustified , as fruits follow the Tree , by Gods mercy in Christ Iesus for his merits and condigne deserts . Now what doth our Iesuite ? he aplies himselfe wholy to cauils & extreme folly . He perceiueth , that truth wil preuail , & therfore strugleth with cauils and deceitfull dealing against the same .

First , he leaueth out GODS mercy , and the merites of Christ Iesus .

Secondly , he inferreth a fond conclusion of his owne making , and beareth the Reader in hand , that it is mine .

Thirdly , he triumpheth before the victory , boasting that hee hath confuted my position , when indeede hee hath onely confuted himselfe , and fought the combate with his owne folly . For I do not say , that Good Workes do euer and continually without all interruption , follow persons freely iustified . Let the Reader duely and truely pervse my wordes , and then tell me , if our Fryer Iesuite be not a notorious lyar . I say Good Workes do euer folow but not simply , absolutely , & at all seasons ; but as fruites follow trees . Now , I pray you gentle Reader , how doe fruits follow trees ? Our Fryer telleth vs . Some trees neuer haue any fruit ( sayth he ) some want a long time , and none beare fruit euer . Alas , alas , what a fond fryer-Iesuit is this Robert Parsons ? Where were their wits , that made him the Prouinciall of England ? If good workes follow persons iustified no otherwise , but as fruits follow trees , which is my position ; then doubtlesse are they not to be expected euery hour , but when the due circumstances of time , place , and persons do require . For good trees do not euer bring forth their fruits , but in due times and seasons .

S. R.

His first argument is taken out of Saint Paule , Rom. Page 22● 6. 23. But the gift of GOD is life euerlasting in Christ Iesu our Lord . He argueth in this manner ; Eternall life is the free gift of God , therefore it can no way bee due to the merit of mans workes . I aunswere , that the Antecedent is false , and neyther heere nor any where else taught by S. Paule .

T. B.

Our Iesuite shall aunswere and confute himselfe , Page 230 for these are his owne words a little after . Because ( sayth our Iesuite ) as workes are rewarded euen aboue their virtual & proportionate equality , as Diuines say ▪ vltra condignum ; no maruell , if S. Paul called eternall life rather Grace , or Gift , then Stipend , seeing it hath much more of Grace , then it hath of Iustice ; yet he no where calleth it meere grace . Beside that , as Saint Austen writeth , he might haue called it a Stipend , as hec calleth Death in respect of Sinne , but forbore , least wee should thinke it were so iustly deserued by Good Workes , as death is by euill . Thus discourseth our Fryer . Where we haue first by his owne free graunt , that Workes are rewarded aboue their desert . Albeit before hee called them condigne , and of condigne merite . These are his wordes : Good workes ( saith he ) done in Gods grace , are condignely meritorius of eternall life . Secondly , Page 221 that Saint Paule calleth eternall life rather Grace then Stipend , because it hath much more of Grace , then it hath of Iustice , where vnawares he confuteth himselfe doubtlesse ; because where there is more of Grace then of Iustice , it is vnpossible to establish condigne merite . For as the Apostle teacheth vs ; To him that worketh , the reward is not reckoned of Grace , Rom , 4 , 4. but of debt or duety . And the same Apostle declareth it more plainely in another place . For by Grace ( saith he ) you are saued throgh faith ( & that not of your selues , Ephes , 2 , 8 : for it is the gift of God ) not of workes , least any man shoulde boast himselfe . Tit. 3 , 5. And again in another place thus ; Not by the works of righteousnesse which we did , but according to his mercy he saued vs .

Thirdly , that the Apostle calleth eternall life , rather grace then stipend , as S. Austen writeth ; because it is not so iustly deserued by Good Workes , as death is by euill workes . No , no , S. Austen saith plainly ; Cum Deus coronat merita nostra , nihil aliud coronat quam munera sua . When God crowneth our merites , Aug. Ep. 105. tom. 2. he crowneth nothing els but his owne giftes . First therefore , seeing Good Workes are rewarded aboue their deserts . Secondly , seeing Good Workes haue more of grace then of Iustice . Thirdly , seeing Good Workes cannot so merite heauen ; as ill workes merite hell . Fourthly , seeing the best merits are nothing else , but the meere giftes of GOD ; I must needes conclude , that Workes are not condignely meritorious of eternal life .

S. R.

Bell citeth Theophilact , Page , 236. because he sayth , Saint Paule called eternall life Grace , and not a Reward , as though he had sayd , It is not the reward of our labors . But this is nothing against vs , who willingly confesse erernall life to be grace , and not to proceede of our owne labours done by our selues , but done and wrought also by the grace of Christ .

T. B.

Our Iesuite is so pinched and nipped by my Authorities and reasons , that he had rather say any thing then acknowledge the truth that I defend . Here as we see , hee is become a Semi-pelagian Heretique , for he affirmeth eternall life to bee wrought and doone of our selues , yet not wholly of our selues , but partly also of the holy Ghost . And after such a silly manner , he is enforced to answer all the rest , viz: euer against himselfe .

S. R.

True it is , that Augles as a follower of Scotus , Page 247 seemeth to thinke that the condignity of Good Workes , riseth not of any equality which is in them vnto glory , but of Gods promise to reward them .

T. B.

It is well , that ye wil once seeme to graunt a truth . The truth is this ; that both Iosephus Angles , and your Cardinall Bellarmine , do freely grant being ouercome with the force of trueth , that Good workes can merite nothing , but by reason of GODS promise freely made vnto men . I haue prooued the Controuersie so euidently , that our Iesuite doth nothing else but weary both himselfe and his Reader , in writing most friuolously against the same . I referre the Reader to The Downfall it selfe ; where hee shall find euery Argument and peece of reason soundly answered , before our Iesuite had published the same . And therefore for mee to vse any further reply therein , were but Actum agere . For doubtlesse , whosoeuer shall duly ( all partiality set aside , ) peruse The Downfall as it came from my penne , and lay downe this Iesuites aunswere to it in euery place , and compare them together ; he will ( I am fully perswaded ) freely confesse , that no further reply is necessary in that behalfe .

The sixt Article , of the destinction of mortall and veniall sinnes . S. R.

ALl his proofes may be reduced to this Syllogisme . What is against Gods Law is mortal sin ; Page , 269 all sin is against Gods law , Ergo all sinne is mortall . Beholde , Bell here absolutely concludeth all sinne to be mortal , and after calleth our veniall sinnes cursed and deformed : which argueth , that he thinketh all sin to be indeed mortal , notwithstanding Gods mercy . The proposition he supposeth , the assumption he prooueth out of scripture , fathers , and schoolemen .

T. B.

This controuersie consisteth wholy in this viz: whether euery sin be of it own nature mo●al , or no. I hold the Affirmatiue , our Iesuite the Negatiue . And for all that , hee freely granteth vnawares as you see , that I haue prooued mine opinion and doctrin , both out of the holy scripture , and also out of the fathers and schoole-Doctors .

S. R.

Christ ( saith Bell ) telleth vs , Vbi supra . that we must giue account for euery ydle word ; and S. Iohn saith , that euery sinne is Anomia , that is , Transgression of the law . Saint Ambrose also defineth sin in generall , to be transgression of Gods law , and S. Austen describeth it , to be euery word , deed , or desire against Gods law . Yea , Bellarmine arffimeth euery sin to be against Gods law . The Rhemists also confesse , that euery sin is a swaruing from the Law . Likewise Iosephus Angles and Durandus , teach venial sins to be against the law . To this argument Catholicks answer differently , some by denial of the proposition , others by denial of the assumption . Some say , that euery sin which is against the Law is not mortall , but onely that which is perfectly against it . Others say , that veniall sinnes are not against the Law , but besides the Law .

T. B.

Heere is an answere , aunswerelesse . For first , our Fryer graunteth , that I haue prooued by the Scripture , by Saint Ambrose , by S. Austen , by Bellarmine , their famous Cardinall , by the Rhemists , their learned bretheren , by Iosephus Angles , their religious Fryer , and reuerend Byshop , and by Durandus , their famous Schoole-Doctor ; that euery sin , more and lesse is against the Law of God ; and consequently , mortall of it owne nature .

Secondly , our Fryer freely confesseth , that this argument of mine , doth so trouble the Papists , that they cannot agree among themselues , how to answere the same . Some sayth he , deny the proposition , some deny the assumption , other some say they cannot tell what : and our Iesuite himselfe standes amazed , whether it is better to yeeld to the truth , or to face it out desperately , and impudently with Legierdemain , iugling , falshood , and deceitfull dealing .

S. R.

Yet better it is to say , Page , 270. that veniall sinnes are beside the Law , then against the Lawe .

T. B.

Our Iesuite being in perplexity , ( like as Buridanus his Asse ) what to answere to my argument , resolueth to take the best way as he supposeth : for , he thinketh as felons & Traytors standing at the barre in their arraigment , that it is the best to plead ( not guilty . ) But I must tell him two things : The one , that to be beside the Law and against the Law , is al one in effect . For as our master Christ saith , Hee that is not with him , is against him , and consequently , Mat , 12 , 30. if he do besides Christs commaundement , hee doth against the same .

The other , that Durandus , and many Popish Schoole-Doctors confesse resolutely , that euery sinne is against Gods law . And Iosephus Angles affirmeth constantly , that Dwrands opinion is now adaies the Doctrine of theyr Schooles . Where I wish the Reader to note by the way , the mutability of late start vp Romish Religion . Read the Downefall , where this point is set downe at large .

S. R.

Therefore if Bell graunt indeede ( as he doth in words ) that by Gods mercy some sins are made veniall ; Page 271. he must also confesse , that by Gods mercy , they are not against his charity and friendship .

T. B.

I graunt , that as all sinnes is mortall of their owne nature , ( which I haue prooued copiously in The Downefall , euen by the testimony of very famous Papists : ) so are all sins veniall by Gods mercy for the merits of his sonne Iesus , to the regenerate his elect children , and consequently , though all sins bee against Gods friendship ( who hateth and detesteth all sinne ) in their owne nature , 1 , Cor. 6 , 11 , yet are all the sins of Gods elect , Ephes , 1 , 7. reputed not onely as veniall , but none at all in Christ Iesus , 1 , Cor. 1 , 30. & they receiued into Gods fauour for Christs sake . 2 , Cor , 5 , 21.

S. R.

Bell prooueth out of Saint Ambrose , Page . 276. that sin is defined the transgression of the law . And out of S. Austen , that it is diuine reason , or the will of God , commaunding the order of nature to be kept , and forbidding it to bee broken . But these Fathers define onely mortall sin .

T. B.

Mark for Christs sake , and behold our Iesuite at a great Non plus . I haue prooued both by the Scripture out of Saint Iohn , and by the testimony of the holy Fathers , and famous Popish Writers ; that the very Essence , Nature , and formality of sin , is the transgression of Gods Lawe . That Gods law is nothing else , but his eternall reason or will decreeing what ought to be done , or not to be done , and consequently , that euery sin is mortall , as beeing against Gods reason , Will , and Law . Now , our Fryer being indeede at his wits end , knoweth not what aunswere to make ; but saith at Randon , that the Fathers onely define mortall sin . He neither hath Rime nor Reason thus to say ; but we must ( if ye will ) admit his bare word , for he is an honest man , I warrant you ; his word is as good , as no Obligation . The Fathers define sin generally , they make no exception at all , yet our Iesuite will needs haue them , to define onely mortall . What a thing is this ? Who euer hath heard the like ? The Question is , whether euery sin be mortall , or no. I affirme euery sin to bee mortall ; and I prooue it , because the holy Scripture , the Auncient Fathers , and the Doctors doe define sin to bee so ; yet our Iesuite thinketh it enough barely to aunswere , that they all speak of mortall sin , not of veniall . O sweet Iesus ? Our Iesuite is either too too foolish , or els too , too malicious . His fond answer is tearmed in Schooles , Petitio principij , the begging of the Question . He will needes haue the Fathers to except veniall sins , and to acknowledge such sins , although they take no notice of such sins , neither once name such sins ; but contrariwise affirme , all sinnes without exception to bee mortall . These Fathers ( saith our fatherly Iesuite ) define mortall sin , not veniall . Euen so sorsooth , for why should they define that , which is not ? The Fathers were wise ; they knew that euery sin in it owne nature deserued death and therefore defined sin accordingly . They knew , Rom , 6 , 23 , that Saint Paule saith ; The reward of sinne is death . They knew , what God saith by his Prophet Ezechiell ; The Soule that sinneth , Eze , 18 , 20 , shall dye the death . They knew what God saith by his Prophet Dauid ; Psal , 5 , 4 , Thou art not a GOD that loueth wickednesse , neither shall euill dwell with thee . They knew what Christ will say , at the day of dome ; Depart from me ye cursed , into euerlasting fire . But our Iesuite saith , Math , 25 , 41 that veniall sinnes breake not friendshippe with God . Well , Page 271. let him stand in iudgment against God for his venials ; Psal , 143 , 2 . I will say with the humble Prophet : Enter not into iudgement with thy Seruant ( O Lord ) for no flesh can be iustified in thy sight .

S. R.

I admit , Page 275. that by sin Saint Iohn vnderstood all kinde of Actuall sin , and deny that Anomia Iniquity , is taken for wickednesse , and perfect transgression of the Lawe ; but generally as it is common to perfect transgression , & only swaruing from the Law .

T. B.

I answere , First , that Anomia is the transgression of the Law , according to the nature and proper signification of the word , as their most famous Linguist , Arias Montanus graunteth .

Secondly , that iniquity is perfect sin and wickednesse , Psal. 6 , 9. as the Prophet telleth vs ; Discedite à me omnes , qui operamini iniquitate . Depart from me all ye , that worke iniquity . So the Latin Vulgata editio readeth , which the papists must approoue perforce , because the Pope hath so inioyned them . Heere iniquity , must needes bee taken for mortall sin : for as our Iesuite saith , Veniall sinnes do not breake friendship with God : and I may presume to affirme of holy Dauid , that hee commaunded not them to depart from him , who were in fauour with God . No , no , God loueth not those that worke iniquity .

Thirdly , Page 273. that Saint Iohn speaketh of mortall sinne , by our Iesuites owne confession .

Fourthly , that Saint Bede , Lyranus , and Carthusianus , do all three with vniforme assent , expound it of mortall sin .

Fiftly , Page , 278 that our Iesuite vnawares graunteth no lesse . These are his wordes ; For iniquity requireth onely want of equitie , and conformitie to Gods Lawe . Loe , hee graunteth iniquity , to want conformity to Gods Law : and so ( say I ) vnawares he granteth , iniquity to be against Gods law , seeing it is here confessed of our Iesuite , that it wants conformity thereunto : for that is to be against Gods Law .

S. R.

Durand and Angles ( I confesse ) did thinke veniall sins to bee against the Lawe ; Page 280. but neyther is this a matter of Fayth , neyther do they intend to fauour Bell any thing .

T. B.

Here our Iesuite graunteth me the victory , confessing that his owne deare friendes , Durand and Angles defend mine opinion . But he addeth two things for his defence , as hee thinketh , yet I deny them , and so I thinke will the indifferent Reader , to be very ridiculous , and altogether childish . First , he saith , it is no matter of faith . What then good Sir ? Is nothing to be regarded , but matters of Fayth ? Is it a matter of faith , that your Pope cannot erre ? That he is aboue a general Councel ? That he can depose kings ? Nay , that either he or your selfe be an honest man ? And what is a matter of fayth ? Forsooth , whatsoeuer the Pope will haue a matter of fayth . Secondly , he saith , Durand and Angles intend not to fauour mee . This is brother-folly to the former . How farre to London , a pokefull of Plumbes .

S. R.

All formall sin is formall iniquity , but not contrarywise . Page 278. As Adultery or murther committed by a foole or madde man , is iniquity , but no more sinne , then it is in Beasts .

T. B.

First , Iniquity is wickednesse , and consequently sin , as is already prooued .

Secondly , Iniquity is formally against equity , as our Iesuite hath graunted .

Thirdly , it is formally transgression of Gods Law , Page 278 as I haue many wayes confirmed . Ergo , it is formally sin .

Fourthly , If Adultery or murther doone by a foole or mad man be iniquity , it is also sin ; for all iniquity is sin , as is already prooued .

Fiftly , to say that Adultery done by a foole or madde man , Ignorantia iuris diuini vel naturalis , non excusat . cans . 17. q. 4. cap. siqui● . is no more sinne then it is in beastes , seemeth to me a beastly affirmation . Our Iesuite barely sayth it , hee prooueth it not . I know his supposed ground ; because forsooth , it is not voluntary . But I would haue him to tell mee , how it is not as well sinne in Fooles and mad men , as Adams fault is sinne in Infants against their will . Because ( saith he ) they cannot auoyde it . The same say I , of Infantes . I adde , that Beastes neuer hadde it in their power , to auoyde sinne , and sinnefull actes ; but Fooles , madde men , and Infantes , were all at once enabled to haue kept the Lawe , when they were in Lumbis Adae ; which is enough for their iust condemnation . And it is confirmed , because they may as well bee freed from Originall sin , as from murther and Adultery . It is a common saying , that if a drunken man , kill a man , Aristotle , libr. 3. ethic. cap. 5. §. 72. when hee is drunke ; hee must bee hanged , when hee is sober : Yea , the Ethnicke Philosopher can tell vs , that a murtherer 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 , Page 280. 281. 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 Christian 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 , Ios. Ang. ● . ●2 . s. Page 175. that the Popish Doctrine daily altereth in their Schooles . S. Thomas ( sayth he ) and his followers hold ; That a Ven●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 . Page 280. 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 ? Was not your famous Doctour Michael at Louain , threatned to frame his opinion to the Popes liking , or else yee w●●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 , Rhenan . in annot. ad libr. Tertul. to heare Beatus Rhenanus , one of your deare friends , speake a truth of your Schooles and Schoole-Doctou●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 p●sse , that Ioannes Geilerius , a Graue and reuerend Diui●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 confession , 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 , Loe , Papistes dare not say al they thinke . 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 , Page , 281. that Veniall sinnes were such onely by the mercy of God . Behold the O●iginall of Venial Sinnes . 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 for a constant position and sound Doctrine , that euery sin is mortall of it owne nature , our Doctrine therefore is the same , which great learned Papists do defend . And I must needs heere put the Reader in minde , of the newnesse of late Romish religion . ( viz. ) that Venial Sinnes were neuer known to the Church , vntil the late dayes of Pius the fift , and Gregory the 13. that is to say ; about forty yeares ago . An: Dom: 1566. O Popery ! thou art but a childe , thou must neuer from this day , Veniall sinnes were hatched . be called the old Religion , for heere our Iesuite confesseth thine Nonage , and proclaimeth thee to bee the New religion . I must likewise insinuate to the Reader , another point of great importance ( viz. ) that the popes act is reputed the decree of the Church , and that no part of Romish religion is a matter of faith , vntill it please the Pope so to apoint it . Now , for Fisher and Gerson , the one is a cannonized Popish Saint , the other a Popish Byshop . But these are not matters to stand vpon , though they help our Iesuite to passe ouer the time , and to dazle the eyes of the Reader .

S. R.

He concludeth this Article with this goodly reason . Page , 281 One stealeth iust so many Egges , as are necessary to make a Mortall sinne ; another stealeth one lesse . But there can be no reason , why God may iustly condemne the one to hell , and not the other . Therefore they both sinne Mortally alike . To this I aunswere , by demaunding a reason , why the Iudge may condemne him to death that stealeth thirteene pence halfe peny , and not him that stealeth one peny lesse . If he answer , because the law condemneth one and not the other ; I aske againe , what reason was there , that the Law was made against the one , and no● against the other ? And if Bell can find a reason in this , he wil find one in his owne Question . The reason of both is , because such a quantity , is a notable iniury to our neighbour , and consequently , it is against charity , and so breaketh the Law ; and a lesse quantity is not .

T. B.

The destinction betweene Mortall and Veniall Sinnes lately inuented by the Pope , doth so trouble our Iesuite after his consultation with his best learned friendes , that hee can shape mee no aunswere , touching a few Egges . Gladly he would seeme to say something ; yet after hee hath wearied himselfe with strugling against the truth , he is where he first began . Not knowing how to answere , he demaundeth two Questions ; and that done , hee telleth me , I must answere my selfe . This notwithstanding , after better aduisement and consideration had of the matter , he pretends to shew a reason of both his owne questions . But howsoeuer that be ( which is indeed a meere mockery ) he leaueth my argument vntouched . Let vs suppose for explication sake , that Egges worth thirteene pence halfe peny makes a Mortal sinne , and that God may iustly condemne him that stole them ; as also a Mortall Iudge , among Mortall men . Let vs likewise suppose for example sake , that neyther the Ciuill Iudge , nor God himselfe can iustly condemne him , that hath stollen but so many Egges as are woorth twelue pence halfe penny . Nowe , this is my Question ; Nay , this is mine assertion ; that there can no good reason be yeelded , why God may iustly condemne the one to Hell , and not the other . To answere as the Iesuite doeth , after hee hath deepely pondered the matter , that one is a notable iniury to our neighbor , not so the other , is too teo childish and friuolous . For , if thirteene pence halfe peny be a notable iniurie , so is also twelue pence : One penny doubtlesse , cannot make Mortall and Veniall difference : neyther is it to the purpose , to say as our Iesuite doth ; viz. that the ciuil Iudge cannot condemne the theefe , that stealeth one peny lesse . The reason is euident , because the ciuil Iudge is vnder the law and subiect to it , but God Omnipotent is aboue his Law , and may dispense with it at his good pleasure . So did Christ aunswere the Pharisees , on the behalfe of his disciple . The sabboath sayth Christ , Marke , 2 , 27. was made for man , and not man for the sabboth . Therefore is the sonne of Man , Lorde of the sabboth also . The Iesuites reason thus reiected as friuolous , and nothing to the purpose , let vs examine the matter to the bottome , for it is a point of great consequence . First then , this is an vndoubted truth , that the supreme ciuill Magistrate , may as lawfully appoint death for stealing of twelue pence , as for 13. pence halfe peny , for the penalty of death , is wholly arbitrary to the iudge . He must frame his laws , as serue best for the peaceable gouernment of his people . Whereupon it commeth , that in diuers countryes , diuers punishments are designed for the same faults , and all agreeable to Gods law . This is likewise an vndoubted truth in Popery , ( viz. ) that some Sinnes are Veniall of their owne nature , other some mortall . Against this false ground of Popery , doe I now contend . We haue seene already , that a theefe may as wel be condemned to dye for twelue pence , as for more , euen so then , God à fortiori , may as iustly condemne one for a Popish Veniall sinne , as for a Mortall , for euery sinne deserueth death of it owne nature , bee it more , be it lesse . Yea , if any sinne should of it owne nature , be Veniall , them should Originall sinne in an infant , be Veniall most of all , because the Infant neyther can auoyd it , neyther hath any will to do it . I therefore conclude , that it is against all sence and reason , to say , that God may iustly condeme a man , for stealing so many Egges as in Popery make a Mortall Si●n● , ( let them name what number they will , ) and that he cannot likewise condemne him , that stealeth but one Egge lesse . And it is absurd to say or thinke , that the least sinne that can be named , doth not breake off amity and friendship with God , Psal , 5. 4 if wee respect the sin in it owne Nature . Psal , 6. 8 I proue it , because the least sinne that can be named , doth auert and turne the doer from the face of God ; Ergo , from the amity and fauour of God . I proue the Antecedent , for the consequence is good , and cannot bee denyed . No sinne whatsoeuer , more or lesse , can be referred vnto God , who detesteth all sinne ; Ergo , euery sinne , bee it neuer so small , turneth vs away from the fauour of God . Truely therefore wrote Byshop Fisher and Maister Gerson , that euery sin is mortall of it owne nature . And so is that proued , which I defend .

The seuenth Article , of Vnwritten Traditions .

THe Iesuite vseth many impertinent digressions , and needlesse Ta●tologies in this Article . I standing to bee breefe , will onely aunswere to such allegations , as shall seeme necessary for the contentation of the Reader , referring him for the rest to the Downfal , where he may find all necessary pointes , virtually confuted , though not in expresse termes .

S. R.

All such points of Christian fayth , Page 284. as are necessary to be actually beleeued , of euery one that hath vse of reason though hee be neuer so simple , are actually contained in scripture , eyther clearely or obscurely .

T. B.

This doctrine is good , I approue it with all my heart , and willingly subscribe vnto it with my pen . If our Iesuite will stand to this Doctrine , we shall soone agree .

S. R.

For surely , Page . 285. the Prophets and Euangelists , writing their Doctrin for our remembrance , would omit no one point , which was necessary to be actually known of euery one ; especially , seeing they haue written many thinges , which are not so necessary . 〈◊〉 . in Ioan. tract. 49. to . 9. And this thing teacheth S. Austen , when he sayth ; those thinges are written , which seemed sufficient for the saluation of the faithfull .

T. B.

This Doctrine I likewise approue ; it is the verie same that I defend . Keepe thee heere Iesuite , and we shall not contend .

S. R.

Methinks S. Austen plainly auoucheth , that God hath procured euery thing to be clearly written , Page 286 which to know is necessary to euery mans saluation . The same teacheth S. Syril saying ; Aug. de peci . mer. lib. 2 , c. vlt tom. 7. Not al things which our lord did are written , but what the writers deemed sufficient , Ciril . in Iob. lib. 12. cap , vlt. as well for manners , as for Doctrine ; that by right saith and workes , we may attaine the kingdome of Heauen . S. Chrisostome sayth ; Chrisost. in 2. Thes. Hom. 3. what things soeuer are necessary , the same are manifest out of the scripture .

T. B.

This doctrine I still approue , as which the Reader may find , to be taken out of the Downfall . And so our Iesuite doth heere subscribe vnto my Doctrine , though hee take vpon him to oppugne the same . For the truth is mighty , & will in time preuaile . This being so , I haue no neede to stand long vpon this point . For as the Reader seeth , the Iesuite approoueth that Doctrine , which I in the Downefall do defend .

S. R.

Truly said Saint Ephiphanius , Page 291 that we may tel the inuention of euery question , out of the consequence of Scriptures . Epipha . heres. 65 He saide not , out of the Scripture . For all cannot be taken thence , as himself writeth ; but of the consequence of them . Heres. 61. Because all questions are resolued out of the scriptures , or out of that which followeth of them , as the effect of the cause .

T. B.

This also is sound Doctrine , and the very same which I defend in the Downfal . And consequently , the very weapons which our Iesuite hath put into our hands , are sufficient to defend vs and our cause against him . For if the Reader shal remember these grounds , and these positions freely of him granted , and withall haue recourse vnto the Downfall ; he shall be able with all facility , to answere to all that the Iesuite obiecteth in this Article .

S. R.

All points of Christian faith , cannot be sufficiently and immediatly proued out of scripture . Page 293 For there is no place of all the scripture , which sufficiently proueth all the rest to be cannonicall ; our B. Lady to be a perpetuall Virgin , and. the Sabboth to be lawfully translated from Saturday to Sunday .

T. B.

Now our Iesuite forgetteth himselfe , and what doctrin he hath already deliuered . It were a sufficient answere to tell him , that hee heere confuteth himselfe . But for the Readers helpe , I will breefely aunswere his particulars . To the first I say , Page . 134. it is soundly and largely answered in the Downfall of Popery . In regard of breuity , I referre the Reader to the place quoted in the Margent . To the second , I answere first , that I willingly acknowledge the most blessed Virgin , to be the Mother of true God and true man , and to haue bin a perpetuall Virgin , both before Christs byrth , and in his byrth , and after his byrth .

Secondly , that albeit I defend ( as our Iesuite also hath granted ) all things necessary to be beleeued vnto saluation to be contained in the holy scriptures ; yet do I not deny , but willingly graunt , and reuerently admit many things , receiued by the perpetuall consent of the church , and not repugnant to the written word , Aug ad Iam●ar . ep. 118 as true , wholesome , and godly . For I am perswaded with S. Austen , that whatsoeuer is neyther against Fayth , nor against good manners ; may indifferently be obserued for their society amongst whom we do conuerse . Againe , it is one thing to say , that all necessary points of fayth and Doctrine , are contained in the holy scriptures ; another thing to say , that nothing not contained in the scripture , hath bin receyued by tradition , & may be admitted for a truth . It cannot be convinced out of the scriptures ( and therefore no matter of fayth ) that Saint Peter and S , Paule dyed together at Rome ; yet do I admit it for a truth , as receiued by Tradition from the Primatiue Church , and testified by vniforme consent of al approued antiquity . To the third , I haue already said inough both in my Booke of Suruey , and also in the Regiment of the Church . For in things indifferent , the Church may determine what is most expedient , for the due circumstances of times , places , and persons .

S. R.

God ( sayth Bell , ) forbiddeth vs to adde to his word . Page , 295 I answere , that such places make nothing against Traditions , which are necessary to mans saluation , because such are indeed Gods word , though vnwritten .

T. B.

I answere our Iesuite with his owne words , which follow immediately , and are these ; for the two first places onely forbid , adding to Gods word any thing of our own heade , or which is mans word , as may be proued by the reason of the forbiddance ; Prou , 30 , 6 viz: least we be disproued , & found lyars as no doubt we might , by adding mans word which is subiect to lye ; but not by adding Gods worde , which neuer can proue vntrue , though it be not written ; Thus writeth our Iesuite , confuting himselfe so sufficiently , as more needs not be required .

In these words he telleth vs two things , the one quite opposite to the other . First , he truly saith ( confuting himselfe ) that the Scripture forbiddeth , to adde of our owne head , any thing , which is but mans word , and subiect to falshood and lying .

This is good . But secondly hee addeth , that to adde Gods word though vnwritten , is a lawfull thing : but this is a silly begging of the question , as the Schooles tearme it . For I deny that vnwritten Word to bee Gods Word , which our Iesuite should prooue , but cannot . And our Iesuite hath already confessed , that all necessary pointes of faith , Page , 284 , 285. are contained in the Scriptures & written Word . And consequently , it is to late to tell vs now , of adding or admitting the vnwritten Word . I admit his former assertion , as consonant to the Scriptures ; this latter I reiect , as childish , vaine , and friuolous . I proue it , because euery word of God is to be admitted as a matter of faith ; and yet all matters of Faith are written , as is already proued and granted . This therefore not being written , must be hissed out of the Schoole of Christians .

S. R.

Bell alleadgeth the Prophets words ; To the Law rather , Page 301. and to the Testimony . Esa , 8 , 20. This place maketh nothing for him . First , because the Prophet nameth not onely the Law , but Testimony also , which comprehendeth Gods vnwritten word . Secondly , because Esay doth not absolutely bidde vs recurre to the Law and Testimony , but rather to them , then to Witches ; of whom he had immediately forbidden vs to enquire .

T. B.

I answere , that our Iesuite maketh no conscience how hee interpret the Scripture , so he may any way make it seeme to serue his turne . For hee desperately heere affirmeth without all reason and authority , that by Testimony , is vnderstood the vnwritten Word . Whereas indeede it is the written Lawe , added onely for explication sake : as if he had sayde ; Ye must not seeke helpe at the dead , which is the illusion of Sathan , but yee must seeke remedie in the word of God , where his will is reuealed : ye must in all doubtes and difficulties haue recourse to the Law of God , which is the testification of Gods will towards man . In it ye shall find , whatsoeuer is necessary for you to know . Breefely , as if he had sayde ; Ye must euer haue recourse to the Law , as to the Testimony of Gods holy will . Saint Hierom yeeldeth the same exposition of this place , Hier. in hune locum . 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 ; 2. Par. 23. 11. 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 , Page 301 , 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 , This is done in the Downfall of Popery . 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 , Page 304. 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 , Aquinas vnderstandeth these words , both of Christes sayings and doings , 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 , P 3. q. 42. art. 4. ad primum . because these wordes of Saint Iohn ( These a●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 . M●racles cannot beget Faith , Mar , 16 , 20 , 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 , Page 308 , 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 , Page , 284. you haue confessed again , and againe . As before like a Pelagian , you said , Eternall life was not meer grace , Page 285 , nor the meere guift of God , Page , 286. but dependeth partly to mans merit ; So now you say heere , Page 230. 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 , Page 285. 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 , Page 284. in another place you haue these expresse wordes ; All such points of Christian Faith , as are necessary to be actually beleeued , of euery one that hath vse of reason , are actually contained in the Scripture . Now , out of these wordes I note : First , that the Scriptures were written for our remembrance and good .

Secondly , that nothing is omitted in the Scripture , which is necessary for our saluation .

Thirdly , that the Prophets and Euangelists wrote many things not so necessary for vs , and therefore , would in no case omit those thinges which were necessary for our soules health .

Fourthly , that all thinges which euery one is bound to beleeue actually , are actually set downe in the Scripture . This being true , as it is most true indeed ; I am content to stand to the censure of euery indifferent Reader , whether by the Iesuites confession and free graunt , the Scripture be a totall rule of our Faith , or no. For doubtlesse , that which containeth all necessary points of Christian Faith , cannot be a partiall rule , but a total and consummate rule of our faith .

S. R.

The most that Bell hath out of S. Cyprian , is , Page 314. That what is no true Tradition , Page 315. must be prooued by Scripture , which I willingly graunt . Saint Cyprian thought the Pope onely to er●e in a Commandement to be done ; Cypr. lib. 1. ep. 3. Bell condemneth him , in his iudiciall sentences of Faith . Whereas S. Cyprian professeth , that false Faith can haue no accesse to S. Peters Chaire .

T. B.

I haue prooued in the Downefall , that though our Papists of late daies do impudently affirme , that their Pope cannot erre , when hee defineth iudicially ; yet this notwithwithstanding , Saint Cyprian teacheth and telleth vs plainly and roundly , that in his time the Byshop of Rome had no such authority , as this day he proudly , & Antichristianly taketh vpon him . For he roundly withstood the decree of Pope Stephanus , who was then the Bishop of Rome , and both sharpely reprooued him , and stoutly contemned his falsely pretended authority . And for all that , Saint Cyprian was euer reputed a very holy Byshoppe in his life time , and a glorious Martyr beeing dead . But , if the Byshop of Rome had beene Christs Vicar , and so priuiledged , as our Papists beare the World in hand hee is ; then doublesse Saint Cyprian must needes haue beene an Heretique , and so reputed and esteemed in the Church of GOD , For , if any Christian shall this day do or affirme , as Saint Cyprian did in his time , or publiquely deny the Popes falsely pretended prymacy in any place , Country , Territories , or Dominions , where Popery beareth the sway ; then without all peraduenture , he must bee burnt at a stake , with fire and Fagot for his paines . Now , what doth our Iesuite answere to this discourse ? Forsooth , that whatsoeuer is no true Tradition , the same must be tryed by the Scripture . Alasse , alasse , Who seeth not , that our Iesuite , ( and consequently all Papistes , seeing hee hath the aduise of all the learned among them , ) is at a Non plus ? I contend , that Traditions ought to bee tryed by the Scripture , whether they bee true and sound , or no : Our Fryer answereth , that false Traditions , and such as bee not true , must be so tryed . What a iest is this ? The Scripture is the Touch-stone , by which wee must try false and true Traditions ; and so we cannot know them to be true Traditions , before we try them by the Scripture . How fondly therefore aunswereth our Fryer , that if they bee not true , they must be tryed by the Scripture ? We deny these , and these Traditions to bee true , and therefore appeale to the Scripture for the tryall thereof . No , no , saith our Iesuite , these may not bee tryed by the Scripture , because they are true Traditions . Marry Sir , this is indeed an aunswere answerlesse . For ye take all the tryall to your selfe , and leaue none at all to the Scripture . You will first set down in your iudgements , which be true Traditions , and which be false ; and that done , we must goe try those to be false by the Scripture , which you hold for false ; but with the other , we must not deale at all . By this kind of dealing , I must needes say , the Scripture is but a partiall rule of Faith indeed . And what shal be the total rule of our saith ? Our Iesuite here tels vs , that it is the Popes iudiciall sentence , whose faith cannot faile . For false Faith ( saith he ) can haue no accesse to Saint Peters chaire : as though forsooth Saint Cyprian did thinke , that the Byshop of Romes Faith could not faile , where hee meaneth nothing lesse , then to ascribe such a priuiledge to the Church of Rome . For , if he had beene of that minde , he would neuer haue vrged Pope Stephanus , to be tryed by the Scriptures . No , no , Saint Cyprian speaketh not of errour in Faith or Doctrine , but of neglect of discipline and false dealing of Schismatiques , to whose false tales and reportes , the Romaines would neuer yeelde their consent . As if he hadde said ; The Schismatickes which wee haue driuen out of Affrica , seeke intertainement at Rome , but the Romans ( whose Faith the Apostle praised , ) will neuer hearken vnto them , or giue credite to their reportes . He speaketh of one Felicissimus , and other bad fellowes his Companions , whose naughty dealing Saint Cyprian thought Cornelius and the godly Romaines would neuer fauour . But such beggerly shifts as these be , are good enough for Popish falsly pretended prymacy . Of which subiect I haue written at large , in the Hunting of the Romish Foxe .

S. R.

Bell citeth Saint Ambrose , Page 319. who biddeth vs not beleeue Argument and disputations , but to aske the Scriptures , Apostles , Prophets , and Christ . But it maketh for vs , because it alloweth enquiring of others besides the Scriptures : namely , of Apostles , from whom the churches Traditions came .

T. B.

Our Iesuite is a notable couetous Fellow ; he will haue all to make for him , though it bee neuer so much against him . Because Saint Ambrose , after hee hath willed vs to haue recourse to the Scriptures , and there to know the resolution of all doubts , doth forthwith name the Apopostles , Prophets , and Christ , he will haue S. Ambrose , ( Will he , Nil he ) to send vs to others besides the scriptures , whereas Saint Ambrose dooth onely explicate himselfe , telling vs what Scriptures wee shall search ; ( viz. ) not O●ids Metamorphosis , nor Tullies Offices , but of the Prophets , of the Apostles , of Christ himselfe .

S. R.

Bell citeth S. Chrysostome , Page 318. who saith , that if any thing be spoken without Scripture , the hearers mind wauereth , somtimes doubting ▪ somtimes assenting , otherwhiles denying . But maruell it is , that he would touch Saint Chrysostome who Hom. 42. Thessal . Vpon these wordes , ( Hold Traditions ) saith . Hence it appeareth , that the Apostles deliuered not all things by Letters , & that one aswell as the other are worthy of the same credite . Wherefore we thinke the Churches Traditions to deserue beleefe . It is a Tradition , aske no more .

T. B.

Here I might tell our Iesuite , that Saint Chrysostome hath but fiue Homelies in all , to the second of the Thessalonians , though he name it the 42. Our Fryer would exclaime , if he could ●ind such a fault in my writings . True it is , that Saint Chrysostome and other of the Fathers , and my selfe with them , doe willingly admit , and greatly reuerence , many vnwritten Trad●tions beeing consonant to the Holy Scriptures ; but neither as matters of Faith , nor as partes of necessary doctrine , but as thinges tending to order & comelinesse in the worship of God , and administration of his sacraments . In this kind of Traditions , I willingly agree with Saint Chrisostome , Saint Basil , S. Ambrose , and other fathers . Neither would I wish any to bee too curious , in this kind of Traditions . It is enough to heare of them , to whom the chiefe care of the church is committed , that it is a Tradition of the Elders : and so haue I answered enough to all friuolous obiections of our Iesuite ; especially , if The Downefall be well marked . The rest which I let passe , is sufficiently confuted there . Saint Chrisostoms meaning , is plainely ( as I haue said . ) Hence it may apeare , because , in the former part of this Obiection , he will admit , nothing without the scripture ; ( In thinges concerning faith , and Doctrine , euer vnder stande ; ) in the latter part of the Obiection , he admitteth vnwritten Traditions , and wil not haue vs too curious in receiuing them ; ( In thinge which are indifferent , euer vnderstand . )

S. R.

Bell citeth Byshop Fisher because in one place , hee calleth the Scripture the store-house of all truths , Page , 324. necessarie to be knowne of Christians : and in another sayeth , that when Heretiques contend with vs , wee must defend our cause with other help , than by the holy scripture . His meaning is , that when we dispute with Heretiques , we ought to haue other helpes beside scripture .

T. B.

His meaning is as you say , and I approue the same . But why doth he require other helpe then the scripture , seeing the scripture as he graunteth , is the store-house of all necessary truths ? Shall I tell you ? You will not thanke me for my paines . I haue set downe at large in my Booke of Motiues , what this your holy Byshoppe hath written of Purgatory and Pardons . I will now recount the argument , See my Motiues , in the 7. Preamble . onely referring the Reader to the place .

First , Maister Fisher telleth vs , that the Greeke church neuer bel eeued Purgatory .

Secondly , that the Latine Church and Church of Rome did not beleeue the sayd Purgatory , for many hundered of yeares after S. Peters death , whose successor for al that , the Pope boasteth himselfe to be .

Thirdly , that this Purgatory was not beleeued of all the Latine Church , at one and the same time ; but by litle & little . Where I wish the Reader to note by the way , that Popery crept into the Church by little and little , and not all at one time , which is a point that galleth the papistes more then a little I weene .

Fourthly , that Purgatory was beleeued in these latter dayes , by speciall reuelation of the holy Ghost .

Fiftly , that Pardons came not vp , till Purgatory was found out , for in Purgatory resteth the life of Pardons ; as which ( if ther be no Purgatory , ) are not worth a straw .

Sixtly , that Purgatory was a loug time vnknowne .

Seauenthly , that Purgatory could not be found in the Scripture , of a very long time .

Eightly , that it was not wholly found out by the scriptures , but partly by Reuelations . And heere wee see that verified , which our Iesuite out of Bellarmine telleth vs , ( viz. ) that the holy Scripture is but a partial rule of faith . For , if it be a totall rule of fayth , the Pope ( as Maister Fisher affirmeth ) must both want his Purgatory , and be bereaued of his pardons .

Ninthly , that pardons were not heard of , or knowne , to the Primatiue Church .

Tenthly , that then Pardons began , when men began to feare the paines of Purgatory .

This is the summe of that worthy Doctrine , which Byshop Fisher hath published to the world ; euen at that time when he defended the Pope and Popery , after the best manner he could . He that shall read his words in my Motiues at large , cannot but detest the Pope and all popish faction . Hence it is most apparant , why the Byshop sayd that they must vse other helpes then the holy Scripture , for the maintenance of their Religion , for the Scripture is but a partiall rule of popish faith , as wee haue heard alreadie .

S. R.

Bell citeth S. Thomas , that whatsoeuer Christ woulde haue vs to read of his doings and sayings , Page , 328. he commanded the Apostles to write , as with his own hands . But this maketh nothing against vs , both because S. Thomas saith not , what Christ would haue vs beleeue , but what hee would haue vs read , and Traditions be such , as Christ would haue vs beleeue , though we read them not . As also because S. Thomas speaketh not of all points of beleefe , but onely of Christs sayings & doings , besides which the very sayings and dooinges of the Apostles recorded in their Acts and Epistles , or testified by Tradition , are to be beleeued .

T. B.

I answere ; First , that Popery is this day a most miserable Religion , and woe vnto them that do beleeue and obey the same . This is , or may bee euident to euery one , throughout this whole discourse . Secondly , that Aquinas auoucheth very plainely ( as I sayde in the Downefall ) that all things necessary to our saluation , are contained in the Scriptures . For in Christs deeds are contained his myracles , his life , his conuersation ; in his sayinges Semblably , are contained , his preaching , his teaching , his doctrine , and consequently , whatsoeuer is necessary for vs to know . If then this be true , as it is most true , ( for the papists may not deny the doctrine of Aquinas ) that whatsoeuer Christ would haue vs to know , of his myracles , of his life , of his conuersation , of his preaching , of his teaching , of his doctrine , the same is written in the Scriptures ; then doubtlesse , none but such as will Cum ratione in sanires , can deny all thinges necessary for our saluation , to be contained in the holy scriptures . Yea , if our Iesuite will stand to his owne doctrine , plainly auouched in this present Pamphlet , this Controuersie is at an end , for we agree therein . These are his expresse words : For surely , Page 278 the Prophets and Euangelists writing their Doctrine for our better remembrance , would omit no one point , which was necessary to bee actually knowne of euery one ; especially , seeing they haue written many things , which are not so necessary . And this teacheth S. Austen when he sayth , that those things are written which seemed sufficient for the saluation of the faithfull .

Thus writeth our Fryer Iesuite : Out of whose words I note first , that the Prophets and Apostles wrote their doctrine for our good .

Secondly , that they left no point vnwritten , which was necessary for vs to know .

Thirdly , that he yeeldeth a reason why all thinges necessary are written ; ( viz. ) because the Prophets & Euangelists haue written many things which were not so necessary for vs to know .

Fourthly , that S. Austen teacheth vs the same doctrin , ( viz. ) that all things necessary for our saluation are committed to writing and set downe in the Scripture ; yea , the Iesuite affirmeth in another place , out of the same Saint Austen , Page 286. that all things are plainly set downe in the Scripture , which concerne either faith or manners .

Fiftly , that our Iesuite granteth al things to be written of Christs both sayings , and doings , which Christ would haue vs to read . Marry , hee addeth three worthy exceptions . First , that though all Christs sayings and dooings , be written , which Christ would haue vs to read , yet not all which he would haue vs to beleeue . As thogh forsooth Christ would haue vs beleeue something , which we may not read . What a fond saying is this ? Nay , what a fond Religion is Popery ? All things necessary for vs , are written ( saith our Iesuite , ) and yet he telleth vs withall , that we must beleeue things which are not written . And consequently , we must beleeue thinges which are necessarie for vs . Nay , which is more , that Articles of the Christian fayth are not necessary for vs . Loe , Popery is a very strange Religion .

Secondly , that we must beleeue Traditions , which Christ would not haue vs to read , and consequently , that Christ would not haue vs to read our beliefe . Lord haue mercy vpon vs , and keepe vs from this doctrine .

Thirdly , that we must beleeue many vnwritten Traditions of the Apostles , which are neither contained in Christs sayings , nor in his dooinges . But the holy Ghost came downe from Heauen , not to teach the Apostles new Reuelations , saue those thinges onely which Christ had foretold them , and which they did not perfectly vnderstand . Iohn 14 , 16. But the comforter the holy Ghost ( saith Christ ) whom the Father will send in my name , he shall teach you all things , and bring all thinges to your remembrance , whatsoeuer I haue saide vnto you , so is the Originall in Greeke . Panta ha eipon humin . But the Latine Vulgata editio , to which the Pope hath tyed all Papists , readeth thus ; Whatsoeuer I shall say vnto you . And hence it is , that they would establish their vnwritten Traditions . But the truth is , as we haue seene , ( viz. ) that Christ hath commanded his Apostles to writ● all things , both of his myracles and of his Doctrin , which he would haue vs know and beleeue ; as also , that Christs Apostles receiued no new Reuelations of the holy ghost , but the perfect vnderstanding of those thinges , which Christ afore had taught them , and heere we may note by the way , Iohn ●0 , 31 . that Aquinas vnderstandeth Saint Iohns words , ( These thinges are written ) aswell of Christes Doctrine , as of his Myracles .

S. R.

Bell citeth an Apocryphall sentence out of Esdras , Page , 327. 3. 4. vnder the name of the wise man , as if it were Salomons .

T. B.

If our Iesuite were not at a Non plus , he would neuer be so friuolously occupied . I name the wise man , of whome I spake ; euen Esdras , as our Iesuite graunteth . If our Fryer , denie all men to bee wise ( Salomon only excepted ; ) then doubtles , not onely himselfe is a foole , as it well seemeth by his Writing ; but his Pope also ( for he is not Salomon ) and so all Papists must bee ruled by a Foole , and beleeue that a foole , cannot erre . And in the end , they sha●l haue a fooles Bable , and a Foxe taile for their paines .

S. R.

Bell citeth Victoria thus ; I am not certaine of it , Page 329 ( sayth Victoria ) though all Writers affirme it , which is not contayned in the scripture . But Vistoria meaneth of thinges spoken , not by Tradition , but by probable Opinion , as the conception of our Lady without Originall sinne , and such like ; or he meaneth of thinges , neyther actually nor virtually contained in Scripture , as Traditions bee , according to our second conclusion .

T. B.

If I should answere fully to all our Iesuites fonde sentences ; my reply would grow to a bigger booke , then is the great Bible . For our Iesuite thinketh himselfe a verie wise man , though before hee would haue none wise but Salomon . First , our Fryer telleth vs , that Victoria meaneth not of Traditions , but of probable opinions , yet secondly hee graunteth , that hee cannot tell what Victoria meaneth , But perhaps ( sayth hee ) he meaneth of thinges , neyther actually nor virtually contained in scripture .

Lo● heere , Gentle Reader , Popish Traditions be neyther virtually nor actually , contained in the Scripture . Ergo say I , they are no points of Christian fayth . And I prooue it , by our Iesuites owne expresse words : Page 290 All points ( sayth our Fryer ) of Christian faith , are virtually contained in scripture . Thus I nowe frame an Argument , A sillogisme vnanswerable . against Popish vnwritten Traditions , to which when our Iesuite shall aunswere soundly , I will thinke him woorthy to bee Pope of Rome . All pointes of Christian fayth , are virtually contained in the Scripture ; but Popish vnwritten Traditions are not contained virtually in the Scripture , Ergo Popish vnwritten Traditions , are no pointes of Christian fayth . The consequence is good , and cannot bee denyed . It is in the second figure , and moode , called Baroco . The assumption is the Iesuites owne , 2. Figura . Baroco , in the Page quoted in the Margent ; ( viz. ) 329. Page 329 The proposition also is the Iesuites , in another place ; ( viz. ) Page 290. Page , 290 . and so I inferre this Golden and ineuitable Corollary ; ( viz. ) that Popis● vnwritten Traditions , are no pointes of Christian fayth . Well therefore may they bee partes of Turcisme , of Iudaisme , of Atheisme , but partes of Christianity they cannot be . Apage , Apage , they smell of Infidelity .

S. R.

Bell againe citeth Victoria , who sayth , That for Opinions we no way ought to depart from the rule of scriptures . Page , 239 What is this to the purpose ? Let Bell prooue , that wee eyther for Opinions , or any thing else depart from Scripture .

T. B.

Bell hath proued your departure from the holy scripture , in many of his Bookes many yeares ago published to the view of the world , yet to this day , this is the first answer , the last , and al , that euer came from your pens . But to satisfie your itching eares a little , I must put you in minde , what lately you haue heard in this short reply .

First , that the Greekes neuer beleeued your Popish Purgatorie , as which cannot bee prooued , out of the Scriptures .

Secondly , that the Byshoppe of Rome to challenge power to depose Kings , is against the holie Scripture .

Thirdly , that to acknowledge sinnes Veniall of their owne Nature , is to depart from the scripture .

Fourthly , that to giue Pardons as the Pope doeth , is to depart from the scripture .

Fiftly , that to establish Workes of condigne merite , is to depart from the Scripture . And so in the rest , as I haue both heere and else where prooued at large . For the Reading of Holy Scripture , and the facilitie thereof touching thinges necessary for saluation , our Iesuite bestirreth himselfe more then a little ; but the bare pervse of the Downefall , will bee a sufficient reply to the same . Once let vs heare him in this point .

S. R.

The first point is not against vs , Page 34● . who graunt that in Reading the Scripture , wee may find all things necessary .

T. B.

You told vs euen now , ( Good Sir Fryer , ) that your popish vnwritten Traditions , Page 329 . are neyther actually nor virtually contained in the Scripture ; Ergo , by your Doctrine now deliuered , they are not necessarie . Beholde heere , ( Gentle Reader , ) howe vncertaine Popish Doctrine is , and into what Fooleries and Contradictions the Papistes fall , while they busie themselues to fight against the truth .

S. R.

Bell Obiecteth out of Theodoretus , that the Haebrewe Bookes were Translated into all Languages . This is nothing against vs , who deny not but Scripture hath bin and may bee , vpon iust and vrgent causes , translated into all languages , so it be not vulgarly vsed , and common to all kind of vulgar people .

T. B.

You say , you deny not , but Scripture hath beene , and also may bee Translated into the vulgar Languages : yet you adde two restrictions , by which , you in effect vnsay that , which you had saide before .

First , you say , it may be in the Vulgar languages , so it bee not vulgarly vsed . What is this ? Fast and loose , your Legierdemaine ? To what end I pray you , shall it and may it bee turned into the vulgar Languages ? That the vulgar people may Read it , or no ? If you say , yea ; then may it be vulgarly vsed . For that is to bee vulgarly vsed , to be read vulgarly . If you say , no ; then in vaine do you graunt it to be Translated into the vulgar tongue .

Secondly , you say , it may also be Translated , so it be doone vppon iust and vrgent causes . You should haue doone well , to haue named those iust and vrgent causes . But Sir , seeing the thing may bee doone , and seeing also there may bee iust and vrgent causes , why it should bee doone ; how commeth it to passe , that none may doe it , vnlesse the Pope licence him thereunto ? How happeneth it , that none may read it when it is translated , vnlesse hee haue the Popes licence so to doe ? How chanceth it , that it was neuer done , since the Bishop of Rome aspired to his vsurped prymacy ? This would I learne .

S. R.

The Holy Fathers affirme , Page 364. that there are vnwritten Apostolicall Traditions ; Bell and some few start-vp Heretiques deny it . Whether beleeue ye Christians ?

T. B.

Bell denyeth not simply , that there bee no vnwritten Apostolicall Traditions . It is a notorious calumny ; sor I willingly admit vnwritten Traditions , as is apparant by my Bookes published to the World . But I constantly reiect all vnwritten Traditions whatsoeuer , which are obtruded as necessary to saluation , or as necessary parts of doctrin , because al such things are contained in the written Word . Other Traditions not contrary to Gods Word , which the Church obserueth , I am so farre from condemning them , that I both willingly admit them , and highly reuerence the same . And if you were constant to your own writings , Page , 284. 285. 286. 290. 291. you would subscribe to this my doctrine . For you graunt in many places , that all thinges necessary for saluation , are contained in the holy Scripture . Which being granted , you contradict your selfe , when yee vrge vnwritten Traditions , as necessary points of Christian Faith .

S. R.

There are certaine and vndoubted Apostolicall Tradions . Page 385. This is against Bell.

T. B.

It is not against Bell , for Bell admitteth ( as we haue seen already ) such vnwritten Traditions , as are repugnant to the holy Scripture , and haue euer beene approued of the whole Church . But such neither are Articles of the Chrian faith , neither necessary to Saluation .

S. R.

But I prooue it , because the Traditions of the Bible to be Gods word , Page . 385. of the perpetuall virginity of our blessed Lady , of the transferring of the Sabboath , and such like , are certaine , and vndoubted .

T. B.

Crambe bis posita mors est , saith the Prouerbe . This Cuckow song , soundeth often in our eares . This irkesome Tautology of yours , doth you good seruice . The perpetuall virginity of the most blessed Virgin , I admit with all reuerence ; and semblably , I approoue the translation of the Sabboath . As this is not the first time ye vrged them , Page , 364. so neither the first time I answere them . Page 292. But neither are they repugnant to the holy Scripture , nor necessary points of Doctrine . To the Tradition of the Bible ( which is euer your last and best trump , ) aunswere shall bee made God willing , in the ende of this Article . It is the most colourable thing , you can alleadge , and the onely foundation , vppon which you continually relie . I therefore reserue it for the vpshot , and to entertaine you with such a collation , as may be to your best liking .

S. R.

Bels conclusion is , Page 386. that Traditions are so vncertain , as the learnedst Papists contend about them : and hee prooueth it , because S. Victor contended with the Byshop of Asia ; Saint Policarpe with Saint Anicetus . Surely , he meaneth , that these men were Papists , or else his conclusion is vnprooued : and consequently , Papistes and Popery were 1400. yeares agoe .

T. B.

Two thinges our Fryer vrgeth , neither of which will do him any seruice , ( viz. ) my meaning , and the proofe of my conclusion . My meaning is cleerely vttered , See the place ▪ Page 129. when in the Downefall I affirmed Saint Policarpus , Saint Policrates , and other holy Fathers , to bee so farre from acknowledging the Byshop of Rome to bee the supreme head of the Church , and that he could not erre ; that they all reputed themselues his equals , touching gouernment Ecclesiasticall ; that they all reprooued him very sharpely ; that they all with vniforme assent , affirmed him to defend a grosse errour , & to hold a false opinion ; and therefore they with might and maine withstand his proceedings . Whereas this day , if any Bishops , Magestrates , or other Potentates in the World ( where Popery beareth the sway ) should doe the like ; they might all roundly be excommunicated , and not onely deposed from their iurisdiction , but also to be burnt with fire and Fagot for their pains . Thus I then wrote , so as our Fryer could not doubt of my meaning , but that malice carryeth him away to lying . Well , but how is my conclusion proued ? Thus forsooth ; I alleaged this great contention among the holy Fathers , to proue the vncertainty of obtruded vnwritten Traditions in these our dayes . My Argument was , A maiori ad minus , as the Scooles tearm it , ( viz. ) that if the Fathers of the most ancient Church , when she was in good estate , and stained with very few or no corruptions at all , could finde no certaintie in vnwritten Traditions ; much lesse can wee trust to vnwritten Traditions in these dayes , when the Pope and his Iesuited Popelinges , employ all their care , study , & industry , to bury the truth of Christs Gospell vnder the ground . And so haue I both prooued my conclusion , and also our Fryer to be either full of malice , or a very foole .

S. R.

Bell denyeth the keeping of Lent to be Apostolicall , Page 389. because Saint Crysostome writeth , That Christ did not bid vs imitate his fast , but be humble ; and to bee certaine , because Eusebius out of Ieremy writeth ; That in his time some thought wee ought to fast one day , some two daies , others more , and some fortie . Here Bell sheweth his lacke of iudgment , in citing a place clearely against himselfe . For here Saint Ireney & Eusebius affirme cleerely , that at the beginning there was one manner of fasting Lent appointed , though some afterward , either of ignorance or negligence , did breake it . Which prooueth not the said Tradition to be vncertain in the whole Church , vnlesse Bell will impute the fault of some few to the whole . And by this is aunswered , what he bringeth out of Socrates touching the diuersity of time and meate vsed in the fast of Lent . Albeit what Socrates sayth of the Romane Church , fasting but three weekes before Easter , Dist. 8. cap. si consue●udine . and not on Saterday , is an vntruth . See the eight distinction of the Popes decrees , and note it well .

T. B.

I prooued in the Downefall out of Eusebius Caesariensis , the vncertainty of Popish vnwritten Traditions , by the great diuersity about the keeping of Lent . Because some thought they ought only to fast one day , some two daies , others more daies , and some forty . I prooued semblably out of Socrates , that the people did differ no lesse in theyr manner of eating , then they did in their daies of abstayning . For some ( saith he ) would eate no liuing thing ; othersome of liuing things , eat onely Fish ; some together with fish , did ate also Birdes ; but some ate onely Bread , and others at night eate all kind of meats without difference : yea , hee telleth vs in the same place , that the Romans fast three weekes before Easter , besides the Sabbaoth and the Lords day . And that the Illirians and Alexandrians doe fast sixe weekes , and yet doe they all tearm their fast , Lent . Here I inferred in the Downefall , the vncertainty of Popish vnwritten Traditions . Now our Fryer thinketh to answere all this ( though a Bulwarke inuincible ) with his onely bare Word ; ( viz. ) in telling his Reader , that Bell sheweth his want of iudgement , in bringing a place cleerely against himselfe . Mary Sir , this is a ready answere indeede . If such answeres will serue , in vaine is all disputation . But our Fryer would seeme , to yeelde a reason of this his answere . And what is that ? Forsooth , that in the beginning all obserued one manner of Fast , though some afterward , either of ignorance or negligence ( he cannot tell whether ) did breake it . To my Testimony out of Socrates , he saith it is an vntruth , because the Romains fasted the Saterdaies . But I answere thus ; First , that the vncertainety of Traditions is heereby so apparant , as it is great impudency to deny the same . For how can there bee any certainty , where not onely the time of fasting , but also the meats that must be eaten , is vncertaine ? Both which happen is this case .

Secondly , that the ancient Cannons of the Apostles confirme Socrates his affirmation ; for there is it thus written ; Si quis dominicum diem , aut Sabbathum , vno solo dempto , Can. 65. ●postlop . ieiunare deprehendatur , deponitor . If any shal be conuicted to fast the Sunday or Sabbaoth , one onely excepted , let him bee depriued . So then , either our Fryer must graunt , that Socrates spake the truth , & that he hath falsly accused him ; or else ( if hee like this better ) that the Pope contemned the cannon Apostolicall . Yea , the sixt Synod generall of Constantinople , affirmeth it to bee against the Tradition of the Church , Conc. constū● can. 55. to fast on Saterdaie . Behold here , the comely certainety of Popish Traditions . The Tradition of the church saith , We must not fast on Saterday ; the Pope holdeth the contrary ; and yet saith our Iesuite , Traditions are most certaine .

S. R.

Popish Traditions ( saith Bell ) tell vs , Page 393. that all the Bishops of Rome , one after another , haue taught successiuely the same Doctrine with Saint Peter : howbeit theyr owne deere Fryer and learned Doctor , Nicholaus de Lyra , auoucheth plainely , roundly , and boldly , to the whole Christian world ; that many Byshoppes of Rome haue falne away from the faith , and become fit Apostataes . But well may one bee an Apostata , and yet teach the Doctrine of his Predecessor . As S. Peter denyed his Maister , and yet taught no contrary Doctrine . Saint Marcellin offered sacrifice to Idols , and yet taught no Idolatry . Ioh. 11. 51. Caiphas murdered Christ , and yet prophesied .

T. B.

Marke Gentle Reader , the case is so plaine , that Popes haue swarued from the right faith of Christ , that our Frier cannot deny the same . They may ( saith he ) be flat Apostataes , forsake the Faith , yet neuer preach a false faith . They may sacrifice to Idolles , yet neuer preach Idolatry . They may deny Christ , yet neuer preach against Christ . And indeed for preaching , it may be true , in an vsual Popish sense & meaning . For since they came to their Lordly primacy , they haue abandoned preaching with solemnity . Well , hee that list to know what your Popes haue beene , and what Faith they held , I refer him to my book of Suruey , and to my Motiues . For I desire to be breefe , especially , since our Iesuite bringeth nothing to be aunswered , which was not in effect confuted before it came to light .

S. R.

Bell telleth vs of Constantius baptisme , Page 394. but it is a meere Historicall Tradition , & concernes no matter of saluation , & it is vnawares contested by Bel himself , when he saith , that he hath seene at Rome the Font , and that Constantine is worthily called great .

T. B.

I wrote in the Downfall , that by Popish Tradition the Emperor Constantine was baptized at Rome , in a Font remaining there to this day ; & that my selfe haue seen the Fons in which ( as they say ) hee was baptized . Howbeit , Hyeronymus , Eusebius , Socrates , Theodoretus , Sozomenus , Cassiodorus , and Pompontus , doe all affirme very constantly , that he was baptized at Nichomedia . But our Iesuite thinkes it enough to say , that it concerns no matter of faith , & that my selfe confesse vnawares , that I haue seene the Font , in which they say Constantine was Baptized . I aunswere to the former , that if a man shall go to Rome , and there reprooue any Tradition which the Pope holdeth , or practiseth , he shal be burnt as an Heretique . To the latter , that I onely report what I haue seene ; I neyther say , Constantine was christned in it , nor deny the same . This I constantly affirme ; that since so many learned menne deny it , it must needes argue great vncertainty , in Popish vnwritten Traditions .

S. R.

The Papists ( saith Bell ) by their Popish Traditions , Platin. in vita Bonifacij . 8. & Martin . polon . p. 237. in append . make some to honour Heretiques for Saintes . For both theyr owne deare friende Platina , and their famous Byshoppe Martinus Polonus doe tell vs , that the dead corps of Hermannus were worshipped for a Saints Reliques at Ferrara , the space of twenty yeares together , who for all that ( Oh impious Idolatry , and Idolatrous impiety ) was a knowne Heretick , as the same Platina auoucheth . Is not this a strange thing , to make the error of common people a Popish tradition ? Besides , Platina affirmeth no such thing himselfe , but onely that some others write so .

T. B.

Platina writeth as other Historiographers do , that which he hath learned by credible report . And he addeth , that he verily deemed that Hermannus to bee one è fraticellis , whose sect at that time abounded . But their Bishop Martinus Polonus , or whosoeuer was the Authour of the appendix ioyned to his Chronicle , telleth vs plainely ; that the Maisters of the Inquisition sought out the truth of the matter , and caused Harmannus his body to be digged out of the Graue , and to bee burnt as an Heretique , and his sumptuous shrine to bee 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 , Page 398. Reade the Downefall . 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 faith● 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 , Page 284. Page , 285. Page 286. 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 . Mat. 15 , 9 2 Tim , 3 , 15. Saint Paule telleth vs ; That the Scriptures are able to make vs wise 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 , Page 285. 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 ; Page 400 , 1 , Iohn , 4. 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. Page 399. 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 , Acts 17 , 11. 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 . Mat , 7 , 15. Iohn 5 , 39. 1. Thes. 5 , 21 1 Iohn 4 , 1. 1 Cor. 2 , 15 , 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 , Page , 40● . 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 ; Page , 403. Decree I pray you , if it please you ; I will not feare to say three Hypostases , if you bid . And hee requested him to giue authority , either to affirme or deny three Hypostases : and darest thou Bell , make no account of the Popes sentence , when so great a Doctor so highly esteemed it ?

T. B.

I answer , first that if we beleeue Fryer Austen de Aneona , the Pope in these dayes , In summa Page 152. hath Vniuersal iurisdiction ouer all Kingdomes and Empyres . Secondly , that as Antoninus saith , He hath power ouer all things , that haue any being . Aquin. in sup. q. 25. art. 1. Thirdly , that as Aquinas saith , Hee hath as much power as Christ himselfe had , and can giue as large Pardons , as Christ himselfe gaue . Fourthly , that as Siluester saith , Silv. de indulg. 33. One may haue so large a Pardon from the Pope , Grat. dist. 22. can . omnes . that if he chance to die the same houre he hath it , he shall go to heauen out of hand . Fiftly , that as Gratianus telleth vs , Hee beareth the keyes of eternall life , the right both of earthly & heauenly Empire . Sixtly , that as the Popish Glosse saith ; Hee hath both swords , the spirituall and the Temporall , Lyr. in 16. cap. Mat. and by that meanes , hee can translate Empires . Seauenthly , that as Nicolaus de Lyra his owne deare fryer telleth him ; He may be an Apostata , and forsake the faith , as many of his predecessors haue done . Eightly , that as Fryer Caranza saith , He may enter into the Popedome as a Fox , liue in it as a Wolfe , and dye as a Dogge . Carranz . in tom , 1. concil , Dist 40. cap. si papa . Ninthly , that as his owne Decrees tel vs , though he be so wicked that he carry many thousands to Hell with him , yet may no mortall man Iudge him . No maruell therefore , if our Iesuite demaund of one , how I dare controule his dealing . Yet by his fauour , I may tell him with humility , that Damasus was a Vertuous , Wise , and Learned Byshop , and of great Authority by reason of his place , and for that end did S. Hierome thinke it fitte in the troublous state of the Church , ( when the Arrians did euery where molest the Christians ) to haue his counsell and assistaunce , in the cheefest point then in controuersie . Like as in these our dayes , greater personages , and better learned , will not sometime disdaine , to haue the opinion and Iudgement of meaner men . I adde , that Sa. Hierome knewe right well , that it was a thinge meerely Adiaphoron , and therefore was therein resolued , to do as Damasus should giue aduise .

S. R.

Bellarmine ( saith Bell ) telleth vs , that the greater part of voyces must beare the sway in Counsels . Page 409. But Melchior Canus a learned Popish Byshop , doth roundly tell vs another tale . It is not ( saith he ) with vs as it is within humaine assemblies , where moe voyces euer preuaile . For these matters are not to be iudged by number , but by weight . And the Counsels receiue their waight from the grauity and authority of the Pope . Ergo ( saith Bell. ) There is no certainty in Counsels . A goodly reason surely , as if nothing in counsels were certaine , because two Byshops cannot agree of the Popes authority .

T. B.

The reason is strong against you , for in these late daies the Pope taketh so much vppon him , that wee see , the best learned Papistes know not , what to thinke of the decree .

S. R.

Bellarmine ( saith Bell ) in one place saith , Page 411. that the Consistorie of Bishops in lawful councels , is the true assembly of Iudges , and that their decrees and Lawes must be obserued of necessity . Yet in another place he saith , it is all one , whether the Pope disanul the Councel expressely , or the Councell doe against the Popes minde . This is no Contradiction , for though he affirme Byshoppes to bee Iudges , and theyr iudgement to bee necessarily followed , yet must not that bee , before it be confirmed by the Pope .

T. B.

Let the Reader giue his censure ; The case is euident .

S. R.

Bell citeth M●lchior Canus , Page 415. affirming that the Pope cannot communicate his iudiciall power to his Legates , whom he sendeth to Counsells ; and therefore inferreth , that the Pope abuseth the World , whereas the Pope abuseth the World no more , then doth the Prince abuse the Parliament , when sending thether the Lord Chancellor to supply his place , will neuerthelesse approue nothing what the Peeres do● , or decree , vnlesse himselfe iudgeth it conuenient .

T. B.

The Popes dealing is shamefull , and this manner of defending him more shamefull . For first , humaine thinges and diuine are not alike , as your owne Doctor Canus telleth vs . Secondly , all Princes I thinke , come in their proper persons to all their Parliamentes . Thirdly , though Princes negatiuely casheire & disanul such things , as they deeme not conuenient for Gods glory , and the good of their people ; yet do they neuer affirmatiuely establish any Law , without the ioynt consent of the Lordes Spirituall , Lordes Temporall , and the Commons . Fourthly , there is great disparity in the Persons , for , the Prince may doe much more in his Kingdome , then the Pope in generall Councels .

First , because the Pope of right , neither can call councels , nor yet confirme the same . This is proued in my Suruey of Popery , and in my Golden ballance of tryall .

Secondly , because euery King is supreame head ouer all persons in his Kingdomes ; not so the Pope ouer all Kinges and people , in the Christian World . Neyther dooth the Pope in person , come to Councelles at all of late daies .

S. R.

Bell citeth Bell●rmine , Page , 413. for the Emperours sitting in Councelles aboue the Pope : Ergo , the East Church neuer acknowledged his primacy . Who seeth not the weaknesse of this reason ?

T. B.

Our Iesuite falsifieth my words , and then descanteth at his pleasure vppon them . Page 121. These are my wordes , as it may appeare in the Downefall . The pope was neuer present at the Councelles in the East Churches , by himselfe , and in his owne person . The conclusion is freely confessed by Bellarmine , who alleadgeth two reasons , for the Popes absence . The one forsooth , because it was not conuenient , that the head should follow the members . The other , because the Emperour would euer sit in the highest place . Out of these wordes I noted two pointes of importance ; the one , that in the Auncient Church , the highest place in the Councels , was euer reserued to the Emperour . The other , that the East Churches did neuer acknowledge the Popes prymacie , which hee this day challengeth ouer all Kingdomes and Regalities most arrogantly . To which twaine , this pleasant adiunct perforce must be annexed : ( viz. ) that our humble Father the Pope ( who hypocritically calleth himselfe Sernus seruorum Dei , ) would neuer come to the Councels , because forsooth he could not endure to see the Emperour sitting in the highest place . Now the Reader hath the truth , let him him giue his censure accordingly .

S. R.

Bell inferreth diuers thinges requisite to be answered . Page 416.

T. B.

But yee both propound them as is best for your owne aduantage , and answere them either with silence , or nothing to the purpose . But let vs be content with that we can get , and make our best commodity thereof . Say on good Fryer , thou shalt be heard with all fauour .

S. R.

First , Bishops before they can be admitted in councels ( saith Bell ) must sweare , Page 416. that the Pope can depose all Emperors , and Kings in the Christian world . Secondly , they sweare to admit the Popes decrees , whom 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 . The Popes doctrine must be obei●d , though he be an Hereticke . 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 then ) 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 then say , he defined as a publick person . But if he define an error , then they say , he defined as a priuat man . So doubtles it may be said indeed , that he can neuer erre , but some man 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 ) tels vs the same tale in your next wordes , which are these ; Because Byshops must not examine the Doctrine , which the Pope deliuereth iudicially out of S. Peters chaire , as supreme pastor of Gods Church , but onely that , wherein hee vttereth his owne priuate Opinion . Thus writeth our Iesuite , truly telling vs the Popish faith . Which Doctrine , if any but a Papist had deliuered it , few or none woulde haue giuen credite thereunto . O sweet Iesus ! I wonder how any Papist hearing such Doctrine published in print , by our Iesuites , so deare & so neare to the Pope himselfe , and duely pondering the vanity thereof , and the blasphemy therein contained , can still be a Papist , and not defie the Pope & his damnable doctrine . What shal we do with holy scripture ? Is it the infallible rule of faith ? Is it superior to the Popes iudiciall sentence ? No , no , if the Pope define against it , his sentence must bee obeyed , neyther may any Byshop , ( much lesse euery priuate man ) examine the same , or else cal it into Question , Apage , Apage , fire & faggot for such rotten Popery , God will vomit it out of his mouth .

S. R.

As our Sauiour commandeth the Iewes to follow , Page , 419 Mat , 23 , 3 what the Scribes taught out of Moyses chaire , but to abstaine from their priuate leuen .

T. B.

You pope sitteth in Cathedra pestilentiae , & not in Cathedra petri . I haue proued it elsewhere at large ; here I wil adde one point or two , In the Golden Ballance of Tryall . for the Readers better satisfaction in this behalfe . Iohannes Gerson a famous Papist and chansellor of Paris teacheth so plainely , that Popes may erre not only as priuate men , but euen as publicke persons in their publick and iudicial decrees of faith and manners , as none for very shame can deny the same , that shall eyther read or heare his words . Gers. in serm. de pase . page , 3 Thus therefore doth h●e write ; Propter quod insuper apparet falsitas doctrinae papae Iohannis 22. quae damnata fuit cum s●no buccinarum coram ●ege Phillippo per Theologos Parisienses , & credidit potius Theologis Parisiensibus , quam ●uriae . By reason whereof appeareth further the falshood of the Doctrine of Pope Iohn , which was condemned by the sound of Trumpets , before king Phillip by the Diuines of Paris , & the king beleeued rather the diuines then the court ( of Rome . ) Out of these words I note first , that the Doctrine of pope Iohn the 22. of that name , was condemned at Paris , as false and erroneous .

Secondly , that his Doctrine was condemned with the sound of Trumpets .

Thirdly , that it was condemned , in the presence of the king of France .

Fourthly , that the king gaue more credit to the Diuines of Paris , then to the Court of Rome ; that is , then to the pope and his Cardinals .

Fiftly , that the great Learned Doctours of the most famous Vniuersity of Paris , gaue sentence against the popes Opinion .

Sixtly , that neyther the king , nor the learned papistes , did in those dayes graunt such authority to the Pope , as now adayes the Pope arrogantly challengeth to himself , whereuppon it followeth consequently , that the Pope taught false Doctrine , euen in a weighty matter of faith . To which is consectary , that his Doctrine was publicke , as which was publikely condemned at Paris , and that in the presence of the King . But now kings must not deale in such matters , where the Popes holinesse beareth any sway . Yet thus dealt the King of France with the Pope , almost 300. yeares ago . I thinke it not amisse heere to insinuate to the Reader , how the kings of France haue vsed the Popes Messengers . Boniface the eight falling at variance with King Phillippe the faire , woulde needes excommunicate him , but there was neuer excommunication cost Pope so deare , as that did him , for his Nuncios were committed prisoners his B●l●es burnt , and Bonif●ce himselfe being taken by Naueret Chancellor of Fraunce , presently after dyed for very sorrow . Wherein king Phillippe did nothing , but by the Counsell & consent of the whole Clergy of France . So Bennet the 13. otherwise called peter de Luna , interdicted Charles the sixt and his Realm , but the king sitting in his Throne of Iustice in the Parliament or high Court of Paris , the 21. of May . 1408. gaue sentence , that the Bull should be rent in pieces , and that Gonsalue and Conseloux the bearers thereof , should bee set vpon a pillory , and publiquely notified and traduced in the pulpit Which decree was accordingly put in execution in the moneth of August , with the greatest scorne that could be deuised , the two Nuncioes or Legates hauing this inscription vppon their Miters ; These men ●re 〈◊〉 to the Church , and to the King . These words are put downe by the French papists , in their book called the Iesuites Catechisme , 〈◊〉 3. cap. 17 , fol , 182. translated into English by the secular priests . But because our papists stand so much vppon this ●ond and most foolish distinction of the popes double person , and that hee cannot erre in his publique sentence and decrees , I will haue once a bout againe , to beate it better into the Readers head , that the Pope both may erre , and hath De facto erred , in his iudiciall sentence and publique Decree . Marke well my discourse . Pope Adrian ( saith Alphonsus , Alphons . ● Castro . lib. 3 advers. hoer . prope finem . a very learned man and a zealous Papist ) hath these expresse wordes ; Nou ss●●e fertur de Ioh●nne 〈◊〉 . q●ò● publice docuit , 〈◊〉 , & ab omnibus teneri mandauit , quò● 〈◊〉 purgatae a●te fiuale iudicium non habent stolam , quae 〈…〉 facialis visio Dei ; & vn●uersitatem Parisieasem ad 〈◊〉 duxisse dicitur , quod nemo in ea poterat gradum in Theologi● adipisci , 〈◊〉 primitus hunc errorem iurass●tse de●ens●r●m , & porpetuo ei adhaesurum .

Last of all , it is reported of Pope Iohn the 22. that hee publiquely taught , declared , and commaunded all men to hold , that the soules of the iust before the day of iudgment , haue not the Stole which is the cleare and faciall vision of God . And hee is reported to haue induced the Vniuersity of Paris to this ; that none should take degree in Theologie , but he that did first sweare to defend this error , & to adhere to it for euer . Thus writeth Adrian , who himselfe was Byshoppe of Rome . And Alphonsus a man of high esteeme in the Church of Rome , after he had reckoned vppe fiue Heresies , setteth downe this for the sixt ; ( That the soules of the iust do not see God till the day of doombe ) ascribing the said Heresie to the Arm●nians as to the Authors thereof , and to the Greekes together with pope Iohn , as to the patrons and Defenders of the same . Heere the Gentle Reader must obserue seriously , lest he be sedused with the colorable glosse of the Iesuit Bellarmine , who seeing the force of this Testimony , to ouerthrowe , the highest point in popery , bestirreth himselfe mightily in defence of the popish faith . He telleth vs forsooth , if we will beleeue him , ( as none will that haue either any wit or reason ) that pope Iohn erred in deede , as Adrian and Alphonsus witnesse , but he did that as a priuate man ( sayth our Iesuite ) not as pope of Rome . Which distinction doubtlesse , wanteth not onely a good foundation whereuppon it shoulde bee built , but also it flatly destroyeth the plaine Text ; the reason is euident , euen to euery childe .

First , because it is said , Docuit , he taught .

Secondly , because it is said ; Publice , publikely .

Thirdly , because it is said ; Mandauit , he commaunded all to hold it .

Fourthly , because none coulde bee made Graduates in the Schooles of Theologie , which helde not this Opinion .

Fiftly , because euery graduat was sworn to defend it , & to hold it for euer . So then , the pope may erre , & the pope hath erred De facto , & that not only in his priuat opinion , as a priuate man , but euen in his iudicial and publike sentence , as a publique person and pope of Rome . This argument is insoluble ; it will neuer be truely answered , while the world stands . This is enough , yet we wil be content , in way of congratulation to our Iesuit , to say a litle more . Alphons . lib. 1. cap. 4. adu . haeres . Pope Celestine the thirde of that name , erred as Pope and publicke person in his iudiciall sentence and publicke decree .

This to bee so , Alphonsus afore named , is a constant witnesse , in these expresse words ; Celestinum papam errasse circa Matrimonium fidelium , quorum a●ter labitur in haeresim , res est omnibus manifesta . Neque h●c Celestini error talis fuit , qui soli negligentiae imputari debuit , ita vt illūerrasse dicamus , velut priuatam personam , & n●n vt papam , qui in qualibet reseria definienda consulere debet viros doctos , quoniam huiusmodi Celestini definitio habebatur in antiquis decretalibus , in cap. laudabilem , titulo de conuersione infid●lium ; quam ego ipse vidi & legi ? that Pope Celestine erred about Matrimony of the faithfull , whereof the one is fallen into Haeresie , is a thing so manifest , as all men know the same . Neither was this errour of pope Celestine such , that it cannot bee imputed to sole negligence , so as wee may thinke him to haue erred as a priuate man , and not as pope , who ought in the Decree of euery serious matter , to aske Counsell of learned men . This point st●keth dead For that definition and Decree of Celestine was in the old Decretals , in the Chapter Laudabilem ; which I my selfe haue seene , and read . Out of these words of Alphonsus , ( who was a man both very Learned , and a zealous papist ) I obserue many woorthy lessons , for the good of the thankfull Reader .

First , that pope Celestine erred , and that , not as a priuate man , but euen as pope and publique person . Marke this , ( Gentle Reader , ) for it striketh dead , and clearely taketh a ●ay the friuolous distinction of the popes double person . The wordes are verie easie and plaine ; Hee erred , ( sayeth the Text , ) not as a priuate man , but euen as he was pope and Byshop of Rome , no deniall can be made .

Secondly , that the Pope erred in a very serious matter , euen in a matter of Popish faith ; ( viz. ) that Matrimony was so dissolued by reason of Heresie , that the faithfull man or woman might marry againe , the Hereticall party liuing . Which thing , sayth Alphonsus , was manifest to euery man to bee an Heresie , and the late Counsell of Trent , hath defined it to be so .

Thirdly , that this Decree and definition of Pope Celes●●●e , was in those daies enrolled in the popes Deorctals .

Fourthly , that Alphonsus saw and read the same .

Fiftly that the said Decree cannot this day be found , among the Popes Decretall Epistles . Where I wish the Reader to note by the way , that the Decrees of our holie fathers the Popes , haue beene such and so much against late Popery , that they are ashamed to bring them now to light . Canus de loc● lib. 6 , cap. ● . in fine . pagina . 189. Yea , Melchior Canus , though otherwise he be a great learned Papist , telleth vs plainly and roundly , that Iohannes Gerson , Iacobus Almanus , and Thomas Waldensis , all three being famous Papists , and very learned writers , do constantly hold and defend , that the pope as pope & publicke person , may erre iudicially in a matter of fayth . Now , where our Iesuite obiecteth Christs words , commaunding the Iewes to follow the Doctrine which the Scribes taught out of Moyses chaire ; Mat , 23 , 3. I answere , that our Sauiour Christ seeing many thinges amisse in the Scribes and Pharis●es , thought it m●ete and conuenient to giue the people warning thereof , and he wisely tempereth his admonition , least they shoulde reiect the good together with the euill . For to teach the Lawe and the prophets , which was to sit in Moyses Chaire , or to ex●cute Moyses Authority , ( which was all one in effect ) was a thing very honest and lawfull . Christ , therefore commaunded the people to obey them , and to doe whatsoeuer they bidde them do ; but this must be vnderstood with this limitation ; so long as they taught & commanded ex cathedra , that is ; agreeable to Gods Law , not otherwise . This to be the true sence and meaning of Christs words , I haue prooued not onely out of Saint Austen and Saint Hylary , but also out of Nicholaus de Lyra , and Dionysius Carthusianus , two learned Papistes , and Religious Fryers . The Reader may finde their wordes at large , in my Golden ballance of tryall ; with solutions to all other Obiections , that can be made in this behalfe . But I must needes put the Reader in mind of one thing , that euen now commeth to my remembrance , ( viz. ) of one of the Popes owne decrees , in which I find these expresse wordes ; Dist. 40. cap. multi sacerdotes . Multisacerdotes , & pauci sacerdotes . Multi in nomine , & pauci in opere . Videte ergo fratres , quomodo sed●tis super cathedram . Quia non cathedra facit sacerdotem , sed sacerdos cathedram . Non locus sanctificat hominem , sed homo sanctificat locum . Non omnis sacerdos santcus , sed omnis sanctus est sacerdos . Qui bene sederit super cathedram , honorem accipit cathedrae . Qui male sederit , iniuriam facit cathedrae . Many Priestes , and few Priestes . Many in name , and few in worke . Therefore my Brethren , beware how you sit vpon the Chaire . For , not the Chaire makes a Priest , but the Priest makes the Chaire . The place doth not sanctifie the Manne , but the manne sanctifies the place . Euery Priest is not an holy man , but euery holy manne is a Priest . Hee that shall sit well in the Chaire , receiues the honour of the Chaire , but hee that sits euill , dooth iniury to the Chaire . Thus saith the Popes owne Decree ; which would to GOD the Pope and his Iesuited Popelings , did this day put in practise christianly . Let not the Popes henceforth , boast of sitting in Peters Chaire . Let them know that they be many in name , but few in work . They haue not these hundered yeeres , preached an hundred Sermons . What ? say I , an hundred Sermons . For , so far as I can learne , not one at all . Therefore as the Popes owne Cannons tell vs , the Popes dishonour Saint Peters Chaire .

S. R.

Bell auoucheth an vntruth vppon the Rhemists , Page 418. affirming them to say , that the determination of Councels , is needlesse , because the Popes iudgement alone is infallible .

T. B.

Bell chargeth both you and your Rhemists truely ; and your religious Fryer , Alphons . lib. 1. cap. 2. fol. 4. c. 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 , comper●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 , Page 365. Saint Austen , and Ruffinus ? Whence the perpetuall virginity of our blessed Lady ? Whence 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 , when 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 , Page . 365. & 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 , Ioh. 14 , 16. 1 l● . 3. 15. 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 er●e , in things necess●●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 . Alphon. adu . haer. lib. 1. c. 6 Alphonsus that famous Popish Fryer , hath these wordes ; Ecclesiamil●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 . Who 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 , Panor . de elect . cap. signif. a Popish Arch-●ishop , and a Popish Cardinall , hath these expresse wordes ; Licet concilium generale representet totamecclesiam uniuersalem , tamen in veritate i●i non est vera ecclesia vn uersalis , sed repr●sentatiuè quia vniuer salis ecclesia constituilur , excollectione omnium sidelium ; vnde omnes sideles orbis constitunt istam ecclesiam vniuersalem , cuius cap●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 , Caus. 24. q. 1 cap. àrecta . quod hic dicitur , quod non possit errare . Siipso papa , certum est quod papa errare potest . Respondeo , ipsa congregatio sidelium hic dicitur ecclesia , & talis ecclesia non potest nonesse . I aske thee ( O pope Luci ) of what Church thou vnderstands that , which thou tellest vs in this place ? To wit , that the church cannot erre . For if thou vnderstandest it of the pope himself , it is very certaine that the pope may erre . I answere therfore , that the church is here taken for the congregation of the faithfull , & such a church can neuer erre ( indeed . ) Out of these words of these great Papistes , I note : First , that the Church is the Vnïuersall Congregation of the faithfull , throughout the whole Worlde ; whereof the head is not the Pope , but Christ Iesus our Lord .

Secondly , that this is that Church , which cannot erre .

Thirdly , that when the Pope saith , the Church cannot erre , then his owne deare and faithfull interpreter telleth him , that that priuiledge is not graunted to the Pope , but to the whole congregation of the faithfull . And the sayd Glosse prooueth the same , by many Canons of the popes owne Decrees .

Fourthly , that the church in which the truth alwayes abideth , is the congregation of the faithfull : and therefore truly said Durandus ; that the late popish church is not comparable to the primatiue . Church , which heard Christs Doctrine , saw his Miracles , and was replenished with the Holy-ghost .

S. R.

But suppose , that the present Church could not bee a fit witnes , Page 36● . as the Primatiue was . What is this to the Argument , that proueth necessity of Tradition , because without Testimony of the Church , wee cannot discerne true Scripture from false .

T. B.

The visible externall church , is only an externall mean , Instrument , or outward help , whereby we are induced to giue humaine credite , to one Scripture rather then to another . But the formall cause why we beleeue any Scripture to be Gods word , is God himselfe , and the inspiration of his holy spirit . Hereof occasion will be offered , to speake hereafter more at large .

S. R.

Bels second answere is , that as Papistes admit the Iewes Tradition of the old Testament for Gods word , Page 367. and withall refuse many other Traditions of theirs ; so Protestantes admit this Tradition of the Bible , and reiect all other . We contend against Protestants , that Scripture is not sufficient to proue all points of Christian faith , but that Tradition is necessary for some : and Bell heere confesseth it . Where is now the Downefall of Popery ? Methinkes , it is become the Downefall of protestantry . Where is now Bels first exposition ? That Scripture containeth in it , euery Doctrine necessary to mans Saluation ? Where is now , that wee must not adde to Gods word , if this Tradition must needs be added thereunto ? Where is now , that this present church can be no fit witnesse , if by her testimony wee come to know the truth ? Where is now the curse , which S. Paule pronounceth against him , that preacheth any Doctrine not contained in the Scripture ? Where is now , that Scripture is the sole and onely rule of faith ?

T. B.

Here our Iesuite in all brauery , tryumphing before the victory , exclaimeth six seuerall times , where is now this , and where is now that ? And when all is done , his exclamation is not woorth a dead Rat. Whosoeuer shall duely peruse the Downefall , will easily perceiue therein , that all which our Iesuite hath brought in all this his great glory , was soundly confuted before it came to light . Neuerthelesse , for the better contentation of the Christian Reader , I thus reply vpon our Lordly Fryer .

First , Alphons . aduers haer●s . lib. 1. ca. 8 with their owne deare Fryer Alphonsus à Castro , in the words ; Hocn . habemus ex ecclesia vt , sciamus quae sit scriptura diuina : at cum Scripturam ●sse diuinam nobis constiterit , iam ex seipsa habet , vt ei per omnia credere teneamur . It commeth from the Church , that we know which is holy Scripture : but after we know it to be the holy Scripture , henceforth it hath of it selfe , that wee are bound to beleeue it in euery point . Thus writeth this famous Papist ; and he doth illustrate his assertion , by a similitude drawn from a Creditor and a Debtor . As if ( saith he ) witnesses should bee brought for the proofe of an Instrument , in which Peter standeth bound to pay to Iohn 100. crownes , the witnesses do not make Peter to be bound to Iohn . For although Peter should deny it , and no Witnesses could prooue it , Peter for all that should owe the debt . But the Witnesses effect so much , that hee may be conuicted to owe the debt . Much more to this effect hath Alphonsus , but I desire to bee briefe . This I inferre out of his words , that though we grant the Scriptures to be known by the Testimony of the Church ; yet after that notification , it deserueth credite of it selfe , for euery iote contained in the same .

Secondly , that seeing the Scripture acknowledged for Gods word of all Christians , containeth by the Iesuites confession ( as is already prooued ) all thinges necessary for christian beliefe vnto Saluation ; it followeth of necessity , that no vnwritten Tradition is necessary to Saluation . For doubtlesse , if euery Article , and all thinges necessary to salution be written ; then can nothing at all be necessary , that remaineth vnwritten .

Thirdly , I constantly auouch and christianly affirme , ( mark gentle Reader attentiuely ) that the holy Scripture dow shew it selfe to be Gods word ; euen as the Sun and the Candle by their light , do shew themselues what they are . I proue it : First , because the Prophet cals the Scripture a Lanthorne . Psal. 119 , 105. Thy word O Lord ( saith holy Dauid ) is a Lanthorne to my feet , and a light vnto my pathes . And the Apostle confirmeth the same , 2. Pet. 1. 19. when hee saith ; Wee haue a right sure word of prophesie , whereunto if ye take heede , as vnto a light that shineth in a darke place , ye doe well , vntill the day dawne , and the day-star●e arise in your hearts .

Secondly , because Christ himselfe telleth vs , that his Sheepe do heare his voyce . Iohn , 10. 27. Iohn , 10 , 14. My Sheepe ( saith he ) heare my voyce , and I know them , and they follow me . Againe thus ; I am the good Sheepheard , I know my Sheepe , and they know me . But C●rtes , if it bee true , ( as it is most true , because the truth it selfe hath spoken it ) that Christes Sheepe heare Christ , and know Christs voyce , then must it needes be true in like manner , that when they eyther read the scriptures , or heare them read , then they know Christ speaking in the same , and heare his voyce . Toletus a Iesuite & Cardinall of Rome , T●●●t . in I●han cap. 10. hath these expresse wordes ; Electi & praedestinati dei infallibi●er cognoscunt pastorem Christum , quae 〈◊〉 ad tempus errent , tamen tandem suum verum agnoscent pastorem . Sequitur , at Christum necesse est agnoscere . Est autem haec nota effectus prioris , propterea . u. oues cognoscunt me , quia ego cogn●sco eas . Gods elect and predestinate Children , do know Christ their Pastor infallibly ; because albeit they erre for a time , yet in the ende they will know their true Sheepheard : for of necessity they must know Christ . For therefore do my Sheepe know me , because I know them . Thus writeth our Iesuite , out of whose words I note first , that all Gods children are not effectually called at one time , but erre and wander as sheepe without a s●epheard ; but euer in the end they acknowledge Christ their true Shepheard .

●●condly , that Christs Sheepe know Christ , not beecause the Church sheweth Christ to them , but because Christ knoweth them . This point must bee well marked , that Christs sheep therefore know Christ , because Christ first knoweth them ; not because the church make Christ knowne vnto them . Ergo they know the scripture to bee Gods worde , because Christ , not the church , sheweth it vnto them .

Thirdly , because the spiritual man ( as the Apostle writeth ) iudgeth al things , 1 Cor. 2 , 15 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 hom● in quo est spiritus dei , iudicat , id est , Carthus . in 1. Cor. 2 ben● discernit omnia adsalutem pertinentia , de singulis talibus verum iudicum proferendo , inter bonum & malum , verum & falsum veraciter distinguendo . The spirituall man which hath the spirit of God , iudgeth 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 . Lyran. in hunc loc●● . Nicolaus de Lyra affoordeth the same exposition to this Text of scripture . The famous popish writer Aquinas is of the same mind . Aquinas in 1. cor. 2. These are his words : Apostolls hic dicit , quod spiritualis iud●●at omnia ; quia ( s●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 ; Hosmeist . in 1. cor. 2. Spiritualis fide sua eo penetrat , vt omnia quae sunt spiritus Dei dijudicare possit , nec iudicio su● fallatur , vt bonum dicat malum , vel stultum 〈◊〉 est sapientissimum . 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 , 1. Ioh. 2. 27. 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 . Cam●● de lo. cis theol . lib. 2. cap. 8. fol. 29. b. et . fol. 30 , ● . Sequitur ; non . n. vnctio quencunque simpliciter docet de omnibus , sed quemque de his quae sunt cipropria & necessaria . Sequitur ; concedimus liberaliter doctrinam cuique in sua vita & statu necessariam , illi fore prospectam & 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 necessariam 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 , 1. Iohn 2. 27. 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 , De diuinis nomi●●b●ca . 7 as Dionisius Areopagita telleth vs . Yea , Aquinas the Popish Angellicall Doctor teacheth the selfe-same Doctrine . Non. n. fides inquit , diuina alicui assemitur , Aquinas 22. q. 1. art. 1 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 , Aug. in Ep. Ioh: tract : 3. tom. 9. 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 man . We ( Preachers ) may admonish you by sound of words , but if he be not within that teacheth , in vaine is our sounde . The outward teachings , are some helpes and admonitions , but hee sitteth in his chaire in heauen , that teacheth the hart . The maister is within that teacheth . It is Christ that teacheth . It is his inspiration , that instructeth . Where his inspiration and vnction is not , there the outward noyse of words is in vaine . Thus writeth this holy , auncient , and Learned father , with many moe words to the like effect . By whose doctrine togither with that of Dionisius and Aquinas , wee may learne sufficiently , if nothing else were saide , that howsoeuer Paule plant , or Apollo water , yet will no increase followe vnlesse God giue the same .

I therefore conclude , that we do not beleeue this book or that Booke to be Cannonical , because this man or that man , or the church saith so , but because the Scripture is ' axiopistos ; because it hath in it selfe that dignity , that verity , and that Maiesty , which is woorthy of credite in it selfe . The declaration of the church , doth make vs know and beleeue the scripture ; but is onely an externall help , to bring vs thereunto . We indeed beleeue the Scripture , & this or that Booke to be canonicall , because God doth inwardly teach vs , and perswade our harts so to beleeue . For Certes , if we should beleeue this or that booke to be canonicall , because the Church saith so ; then should the formall obiect of our faith , and the last resolution therof , be man , and not God himselfe ; as Areopagna , Aquinas , & the truth it selfe teacheth vs .

Sixtly , because we cannot be assured , that the Church telleth vs the truth . For how can the Church perswade vs , that she knoweth it to be Gods word ? If aunswere be made , that shee knoweth it of another Church ; then I demaund againe , how that other Church can performe it ? And so , either contrary to all Diuinity , Phylosophy , and right reason , Dabitur processus in infinitum ; Or else they must say , they receiued it by Tradition from the Apostles , and then are they where they began . For first , they cannot make vs know that assuredly . Againe , Page 387. 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 , Canus de Iocis , lib. 3. ca. 4 Page 101. 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 wordes 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 , 2. Peter . 1. 21. 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 , 1. Cor. 11. 23. 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 , Rom. 1. 12. S. Iohn receiued his Reuelation from Christ , which he was commaunded to write .

Lastly , Apoc. ● . 10. ( and this striketh dead ) When the rich Glutton tormented in Hell , desired of our holy Father Abraham , Luke 16. 29. Luke . 24. 44. 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 , Luke . 16 , 13 , 15 , 25 , 27. 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 , Page 369. 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 , Page 387. 2. Peter . Iohn . 2. 3. Iacob . Apocal Euseb. libr. 3. cap. 19. 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 , Page 370. 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 , A very fond saying . 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 , Aug. de trinit. 3. cap. 26. but Gods word the iudge thereof . No more than 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 , Page 371. canonicall Scripture may bee discerned of it selfe , as light from darke . He prooueth it , Psa 119 105. because Gods word is called a light and a Lanthorne which shineth to Men. 1. Pet. 1 , 19. Because spirituall men iudge all things ; because the vnction teacheth Gods children all things ; 1. Cor. 2 , 15. And Christes Sheepe both heare and know his voyce . 1. Ioh. 2 , 27. But this is easily refelled . First , because though Samuell were a faithfull and holy man , Iohn . 10 , 3. 4 , 27. 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 , ● . Reg. 3. 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 , Iudic. 6. Gods word consisteth in the sence and meaning , which the faithfull oftentimes doe not vnderstand . Act. 12. 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 , Mat. 20 some at the third , Luke 23 some at the sixt , some at the last . For though al Gods children , be elected and predestinate before all time , Rom. 9 , 10. yet are they al called both generally and effectually in time : some sooner , some later , Ephes. 1 , 12. according to the good pleasure of the caller , who calleth freely without respect of persons . Ephes. 2 , 9 Now , where our Fryer denyeth the distinction of Gods word from mans word , to be so euident as the distinction of light from darkenes , Act. 10 , 34 because then none ( as he saith ) could erre therein . Rom. 2 , 11 I answere , Ioh. 15 , 5 that as he that is blinde corporally , 1 , Cor. 3 cannot discerne colours , nor behold the bright beams of the sinne , 1 , Cor , 12 so neither can he that is blind spiritually , 2 , Cor. 3 discerne Gods word from 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 , 2 , Cor. 4 , 4 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 , 1 , Cor. 2 , 25 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 ; Page . 375. 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 , Page . 375 both because all the faithfull are not spirituall , but some carnall ; and therefore may we better inferre , 1 Cor. 3 , 1. 2 , 3 that the Gospell is not euident to all the faithfull , Gal. 6 , 1. 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 , 1. Co. 3 , 1 , 2 , 3 neyther do the places quoted by our Iesuite , Gal. 6 , 1. 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 , Iam. 3 , 2. 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 , 1. Cor. 2 , 10 , 12. 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 , Page 375. That Christes Sheepe heare and know his voice , Ioh. 10 , 3 , 4 , 24. 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 , Iohn . 10 , 14. 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 . 1. Cor. 3 , 6. 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 , August ▪ Vbi supra . and it is S. Austens Doctrin ; Many come to the Church , and heare the word of God read and preached vnto them , but beleeue it not , as their liues declare , Mat. 7 , 17. 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 , Page ●77 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 ; Cap. 5. cont. Epist. Funda men . tom. 6. pag. 80 Si ergo invenirem aliquem , qui Euangelio nondum crèdit , quid faceres dicenti tibi ; non credo ? Ego vero Euangelio non crederem , nisi me Catholicae Ecclesiae comm●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 ther●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 ; I was almost 200 , miles from london . 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 , Cap. 4. 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 , Page 381. 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 〈◊〉 p●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 persona● 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 , Vide Aug. ep. 165. and giue hearing to his fables no longer .

Secondly , the faith that proceedeth from the Church for Testification , 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 , Iohn . 1. 17. 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 , Aug. tract. 72. in Iohan. Aquin . p. 1. q. 45. art. 5. Saint Austen saith plainly , that it is a greater woorke to iustifie a man , then to create the Worlde ; 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 . 1. Cor , 15. 10. Yet not I , but the grace of God , which is with me . For though man 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 , when 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 . 1. Cor. 15. 10 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 . Vide Hier ? lib. 2. aduers. Pelag. fol. 129. D. Whereas indeed , the Apostle ascribeth the whole to God , and vtterly refuseth to take any part to himselfe . Which the Article ( ● ) 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 , Act , 19 , 12 , 11. 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 those that were to be healed in the absence of the Apostle ; that they might thereby know and perceiue , that the gift of healing ( which God for his own glory had bestowed on him ) was not tyed to the presence of his body . The like may be said , Of touching Christs Garment , and of the Clay which Christ vsed in restoring the blind man to his sight . Mat. 9 , 21. Iohn , 9 , 6. Luke . 8. 46. For the vertue was not in the garments , but in Christ himselfe . Christ said not ; Vertue is gone out of my Garments ; but ( as Saint Luke addeth ) I perceiue that vertue is gone out of mee . And all men know , that Clay was rather an hinderance , then a furtherance , to effect that was wrought in the blind man . For , if we respect the nature and operation of Clay , wee shall finde it more apt to destroy sight where it is , then to restore sight where it is not . But it pleased Christ , this way to try the faith and obedience of the blind man . For there can bee no better tryall of true faith , then when a godly mind being content with the simple word of God , doth promise that vnto it selfe , which otherwise seemeth incredible . Much more might be saide , but the Reader , ( if he shall ioyne this with the Downefall ) shall find sufficient matter , for the full confutation of the Fryer . And now I proceed in Gods holy name , to bicker and grapple with the Iesuite , concerning the last Article beeing the eyght in number .

The eyght and last Article , of the impossibility of keeping Gods Commandements in Popish sence . S. R.

WE daily acknowledge our sins , as Bell confesseth , but so as wee be free from deadly sinne , Page 422. which destroyeth charity the end of the Law , and keepe the Commandements in all great , though not in small matters . As who stealeth but trifles keepeth the Princes Laws , though not perfectly ; but if he steale great matters , he is said no more to keepe , but to breake them .

T. B.

I answere ; First , that I haue prooued sufficiently , euery sin of it owne nature to bee mortall , and flatly against Gods Commaundements .

Secondly , that whosoeuer stealeth but those thinges , which with our Iesuite are trifles , transgresseth both Gods Lawes , and the Lawes of his Prince . Gods Laws , Exod. 20 , 15 because God absolutely without exception forbiddeth to steale : The Princes Laws , because he that stealeth but our Iesuites trifles , must be stocked and whipped for his paines ; & that is inflicted , by due execution of the Princes Lawes . But our Iesuites are so acquainted with notorious Treasons , that stealing with them is but a trifle , yet not only their Angelicall Doctor Aquinas , but S. Austen also writing to Consentius , Aquin. 22. q 110. art. 3. Aug. ad Cōsent●ū , cap. 8. 9. 10. tom. 4. affirmeth most christianly ; that an officious lye ( which is the least lye that can bee committed , and one of our Fryers trifles ) may not bee made to saue the whole world . And our Maister Christ telleth vs in his holy Gospell , Mat. 12 , 36 That wee shall giue account of euerie ydle word . Well , howsoeuer our Fryer flatter himselfe in stealing strifles , Vnles he haue a dispensation . or in trifling stealing , yet whosoeuer ( vnlesse perhaps a Iesuite ) breaketh the Popes Law by eating an Egge in Lent , committeth a deadly sinne . Yea , that man , or that woman , that shall tell a hundred lyes in one day , shall not be so hardly censured with the Papistes , as one godly Christian eating an Egge in Lent , Page 423 with thanksgiuing to God for the same . Note that our Iesuite here emboldeneth to steale trifles , affirming it , not to be against the Princes law .

S. R.

First , therefore I proue it , because a young man tolde Christ , Mat. 19 , 20 Hee had kept all the Commaundementes from his youth . Bell aunswereth , that S. Hierom saith , he lyed , and S. Austen thinketh hee spake more proudly , then truely . Neuerthelesse more probable it is , that he spake truely , because not onely our Sauiour did not rebuke him , Marke 10. 21 ( as likely he would haue done , if he had told him a lye ) but as S. Marke testifieth , beheld him and loued him .

T. B.

I answere first , that our Iesuite is so troubled with the Downefall of Popery , that he begins to proue when of right he should answere , but in truth can performe neyther of them both .

Secondly , that where I haue proued in the Downfall by the Testimony both of Saint Austen and S. Hierom , that that the young man lyed , when he said hee had kept the Commaundements : our Iesuite returneth this answere , that it is probable hee spake truely . Because forsooth , S. Marke saith , Christ behelde him and loued him . But this answere is not to the purpose , ( to say nothing of our Iesuits pride , who so roundly reiecteth both S. Austens and S. Hieroms opinion ) because S. Mark speaketh only of externall shew of loue , and not of true loue indeede . The like Phrase we haue in S. Mathew , where Herod is saide to be sorry , when he was glad indeede . And therefore doth S. Hierom censure him in these words . Exod. 1 , 17 , 20 , 21 Christ as true God did this . In face tristitiam , in corde habebat laetitiam . In his face sorrow , but gladnes in his hart . Our Sauiour Christ , as hee prospered the Midwiues , and made them houses , not for their lying , but because they feared him ; euen so , did he looke chearefully vpon the young man , and in louing manner set before his eyes , what a vaine conceit he had of himselfe ; not for the lye which he boldly auouched , but because he had a desire to go to heauen . Our Iesuite addeth , that S. Chrisostom saith , the young man was no dissembler ; and that S. Hierom saith , Christ loued him , because he said he had done all . But our Iesuite is addicted to lying , and falsly surchargeth the holy Fathers . Their assertions are truly cited , in the Downfall of Popery .

S. R.

Secondly , S. Paule . saith , not the fearers of the Lawe are iust with God , Page 424 but the doers of the Law shal be iustified ; Ergo , there are some doers of the Law : And it is possible to be done .

T. B.

This obiection I both propounded and answered in the Downefall , so as our Iesuite may well struggle against it , but neuer truely confute it . He maketh a gallant shew of many verses , cited out of the 119. Psalme , that the commandements may be kept , and were actually kept of the Prophet Dauid . I haue not ( saith the Prophet ) declined from thy Law . I haue kept thy law . I haue not declined from thy iudgements . I haue not erred from thy Commandements . Verse 51. 55 102 , 110 , 157. I haue not declined from thy testimonies . But to al these & the like I answer with all facility , that the selfe-same Prophet Dauid confesseth freely , that neither himselfe nor any mortall man , is able perfectly to keepe Gods law . When the Prophet Nathan told him of his Adultery and murder , 2. sam. cap : 11. & ca. 12 he humbly confessed the same , and presently receiued remission at Gods hands .

Againe , in many Psalmes hee confesseth his owne sins , and withall , constantly affirmeth , that none liuing can be iustified by his best workes . Haue mercy on me O God , wash me from my sinnes , and clense me from mine iniquity . Psalme 51 I know my sinne , and mine iniquity is euer before me . I was borne in sinne , & in sinne hath my Mother conceiued mee , Againe , in another place thus ; If thou O Lorde , straightly markest iniquities : O Lorde , Psalme 130 who shall abide it ? But with thee is mercie , that thou mayest be feared . Againe in another place thus : Enter not into iudgement with thy seruant , Psalme 143. for in thy sight shall none that liueth be iustified . So then , as wee haue in one Psalme , that Dauid did keepe Gods commaundements , so haue wee in many other Texts of holy writ , both in the Psalmes , and else where , that neither himselfe nor any liuing , can perfectly keep the same . What must we now do ? One scripture is not contrary to another . The spirite of God speaking in Dauid , saith in one place , That he kept Gods Lawe ; in another place he saith , That neither hee nor any other can keepe his Commaundements . How stand these two together ? This is the resolution and true sence of holy writ . Dauid ( as euery childe of God in like maner ) is truely saide to keepe Gods Commaundements , when he hath an inward feruent desire to do the will of God , and chearefully applyeth his heart and all his affections to that end , Howe Gods children thogh sinners , keepe his commaundements . so farre foorth as standeth with mans infirmity , and the state in which we liue , although he be a greeuons sinner indeed , and Trangresse Gods law many waies . This I prooue to be so by many arguments : first , because the sinnes of the faithful , are not imputed to them for the merits of Christ Iesus . Therefore ( saith the Apostle ) Being iustified by faith , we are at peace with God , through our Lord Iesus Christ . Again thus ; Rom. 5 , 1. Rom , 4 , 7 , 8. Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiuen , and whose sinnes are couered . Blessed is the man , to whom the Lorde will not impute sin . By these places it is cleare , that Gods children are said to keepe his Commandements , not because they keepe them exactly and perfectly , but for that the want and defect is not imputed to them . This is it that S. Austen saith , in these golden words ; Omnia ergo mandata facta deputantur , Aug. lib. 1 〈◊〉 . cap. 19 quando quicquid non sit , ignoscitur . All the Commandements are then reputed as done , when whatsoeuer is not done ( Is of mercy ) forgiuen . Again , the same S. Austen in another place hath these words ; Beatus vir , cui non imputauit dominus peccatum . Hoc prestant viae domini , ac per hoc quoniam ex fide iustus viuit , ab ista via domini illa alienat miquitas , Aug in Pso , 118. conc. 3. pag. 925. quae est infidelit as . In hac antem via domini , id est , in fide pia quisquis ambulat , aut peccatum non operatur , aut si quid à deuiante committitur , propter viam non imputatur , & tanquam non fuerit operatus accipitur . Blessed is the man , to whome the Lord hath not imputed sinne . This the wayes of our Lord performe , and by reason heereof , because the iust man liueth by faith , that iniquity estraungeth from this way , which is infidelity . For in this way of the Lord , that is , in a godly faith , whosoeuer walketh , he either sinneth not , or if any thing be done amisse , it is not imputed by reason of the way , and is so taken as if he had not done it . Thus writeth this holy father vppon that very Psalme : out of which our Iesuite hath borrowed certaine Textes , which ( as S. Austen sheweth plainely ) are altogether applyed , contrary to the Prophets meaning , and to the truth of the matter in hand . For therfore ( as we see by S. Austens Testimony ) is not only the Prophet Dauid , but also al the children of God , thoght to keep Gods commandements , because they aplying themselues chearfully with hart , voyce , and all their power to keepe them , 1 Cor , 1 , 30. Phil. 3 , 9 2 Cor , 5 , 12 Rom. 5 , 19. the defect and want is not imputed to them . Briefely , by Gods grace , not of our selues , we keep his Commandements , though not in such perfection as his Iustice requireth ; yet , in such measure , as he of his mercy in Christ accepteth .

Secondly , because the sonne of God , hath truly appeased the wrath of God , Mat. 26 , 27 Mark 14 , 14 by once offering vppon the Altar of the Crosse , a perfect , sufficient , and absolute satisfaction for the sinnes of all the faithfull and elect people of God ; Heb. 10 , 14 and as a Creditor hauing receiued the iust and full paiment of that which was due vnto him , though by the hands of another , yet in behalfe of him who was the debtor , cannot with Iustice require the same at the Debtors hands ; no more can GOD almighty , ( who is not onely iust , but iustice it selfe in the abstract ) iustly require satissaction of his elect for their sinnes , for whose transgressions he hath receiued a most perfect , absolute , Mat. 3. 17. Apoc. ca. 7. 14 and consummate satisfaction , and attonement for euer , at the handes of his deare Sonne , In whom he is euer well pleased . This is it , that one of the Elders said to Saint Iohn ; These are they which came out of great tribulation , and haue washed their long Robes , and made them white in the bloud of the Lamb.

Thirdly , to acknowledge our sinnes , and to confesse our selues to bee grieuous Sinners , and not to trust in our owne righteousnesse ( which is none at all indeed ) but in the righteousnesse of Iesus Christ , who ( as the Apostle teacheth vs ) Is our Wisedome , our Righteousnesse , our Sanctification , 1. Cor. 1. 30. and our Redemption is in the scripture to be righteous , & to keep Gods commandements . Therfore saith S. Iohn , 1. Ioh. 1 , 8 , 9. Philip. 3. 9. 2. Cor. 5. 21. Rom. 10. 3. That if we say we haue no sinne , we deceiue our selues , and the truth is not in vs . But if we knowledge our sinnes , he is faithfull and iust to forgiue vs our sins , and to cleanse vs from all vnrighteousnesse . Loe , to confesse our sinnes , and to acknowledge our selues to be Sinners , is to be righteous in Gods sight , Hier. lib. 1. ad● . Pelag tom. 3. sol. 120. D. and to keepe his Commaundementes . This Saint Hierome confirmeth , in these Golden wordes ; Tunc ergo iusti sumus , quando nos peccatores fatemur ; & iustitia nostra non ex proprio merito , sed ex dei consistit misericordia . Then therefore are wee iust , when wee confesse our selues Sinners , and our righteousnesse consisteth not in our owne merite , but in Gods mercy . Thus writeth this holy and learned Father , shewing most euidently to all that haue eyes to see it that we may both be breakers and Keepers , of Gods Commaundementes at once ; both Sinners and Righteous at one and the same time , though not in one & the same respect . Sinners , in respect of our selues , and our corrupt Nature ; Ezech. cap. 18 , 21. Esa. 1 , 18. Righteous in the sight and iudgment of God , who of his great mercy pardoneth all penitent Sinners , and for Christs merits doth not impute their sins vnto them .

S. R.

I omit Moyses , Page 426 Aaron , Samuell , Dauid , Iosue , Zacharie , Elizabeth , and the Apostles , who are said to haue kept Gods Law , and some of them in all their hart : only Saint Paule I cannot omit , because Bell graunteth , that he was most free and innocent from Actuall sin , therefore surely he kept Gods Law perfectly .

T. B.

I answere : First , 〈◊〉 all these holy men , were in their life time sinners , and Transgressors of Gods holy Lawes , which I could easily prooue by many Texes of holy Writ , if I deemed it needfull so to doe : this onely shall suffice for the present , Iam. 3 , 2. that the Apostle saith , The best Liuers of all offend in many thinges . And that the Prophet Dauid telleth vs , Psa. 143 , 2. 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 , Rom. 7. 14. 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 Page 427. doe to attaine eternall life , aunswered ; If thou wilt haue eternall life by doing good workes , Mat 19 , 17. then must they keepe Gods commandements ; 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 against 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 . Math. 19 , 16. S. Matthew hath these wordes ; Good Maister , what good thinge shall I doe , that I may haue eternall life ? Marke . 10 , 17 Saint Marke hath these wordes ; Good Maister , what shall I doe , that I may haue eternall life ? Luke , 18 , 18. 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 heauen 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 , Page 429. 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 , Ephes. 2 , 8 , 9. 10. 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 saluation , 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 iustification , was neuer knowne to any of the holy Fathers , nor to any ancient counsel ; so wil their saluation neuer bee knowne to Gods elect , vnlesse they repent and reuoke this their damnable Doctrine .

Fourthly , that God worketh our Good Workes in vs .

Fiftly , that God hath ordained Good Workes for this end , that we walke in them . This doctrine is confirmed by the same Apostle in another place , Tit. 3 , 5 where he hath these wordes . Not by the Workes of Iustice which wee did , but according to his Mercy hee hath saued vs . Loe , the holy Apostle is still constant in his former position , ( viz. ) that We are not saued by the Workes of Iustice , but of mercy & grace . For this cause saith S. Austen , Aug. lib. 9. con . fession . cap. 13. Chrisost de compunct. cord . lib , 2. tom , 5. col . 592 Woe vnto the best liuer vppon earth , if God examin his life , his mercy set apart . For this cause saith S. Chrisostome , & si millies moriamur &c. Though we die a thousand times , and though we accomplish all vertues of the minde , yet do wee nothing woorthy of those things , which we receiue of God . For this cause saith S. Theophilact ; Seruauit nos aeternum , non ex operibus , &c. Hee hath saued vs eternally , Theophil . in 3. cap. Tit. not of the workes which we haue done ; that is , neither haue we done the works of Iustice , neither are wee saued by them , but his goodnes and his clemency , hath wrought our saluation wholly . Yea , Berna . in cant . serm. 68. tom. 1 pagina 1006. for this cause saith their highly renowned Abbot Bernardus ; Sic non est &c. So there is no cause , that thou shouldst now aske , by what merits we hope for glory , especially since thou hearest the Prophet say ; I will do it ( sayth the Lord , ) not for your sake , but for mine owne . It is sufficient to merite , to know that our merites are not sufficient . Thus write these holy fathers , with the famous popish Abbot , whose words are so plaine for the truth which I defend , as euery childe may with facility discerne the same . For I did not say , ( as our Iesuite woulde deceitfully perswade his Reader ) that Good Works are an impossible mean to come to heauen ; No , nor that the young man did enquire of an impossible way to heauen . For I know , and I haue constantly affirmed the same in the Downfall ; that Goodworkes are a meane , and the way that leadeth to heauen . But withall , I said then , and now againe ; that neither can the best liuer on earth , keepe the Commandements so exactly as the law requireth ; neither can any man for any works he doth , condignly merit eternal life . And this is the point indeede , which I defend against the Papists . Whosoeuer shall with a single eye pervse the Downfall , will find it to be so . For , it is one thing to say , that Good Workes are a meane , or the way to heauen ; another thing to say , that a man can fulfill the Law , and by his Workes condignely merite heauen . The former I graunt willingly , the latter I deny constantly ; neither is any Papist able , to answere my reasons in that behalfe . For example , the Pope ( Boniface ) sicke at Rome , of his meere good wil bequeathed by his Testament 7000. crownes of Gold , to Robert Parsons the Iesuite , lame of hands and legs at Paris ( his lamenesse not knowne to the Pope ) to be giuen to the said Parsons , when he commeth to Rome in his own person to demand the same . Now , the said Parsons hauing inteligence of the said Legacy , prouideth a good Gelding , a strong man-like fellow , and so taketh his iourney towards Rome , where he no sooner demaundeth the saide 7000. Crownes , but he in friendly manner receiueth the same , acording to the true meaning of the Popes will . In this case , the Gelding ▪ the tall fellow , and the iourney it selfe , were good & necessary meanes to receiue and possesse the said Crownes : Howbeit , neither did they merite the said Crownes , Rom. 6 , 23 neyther were they the cause of bequeathing them Euen so in our case , Ephes. 2 , 8 Eternall life ( as the Apostle saith ) is the free gift of God , Ephes. 2 , 10 it is of grace , Mat. 7. 17 not of Workes : Rom. 8 , 30 neuerthelesse , Goodworkes ( as the same Apostle telleth vs ) are the way which God hath ordained for vs to walke in ; and the vsuall , ordinary , & vndoubted meanes , by which God intendeth to bring his elect to heauen . This notwithstanding , this must euer bee a constant and vndoubted position , with all the children of God , ( viz. ) that none ( not the best liuer vpon earth ) is able exactly to keepe Gods commandements , and by the merit of his works to enter into heauen .

S. R.

Will not Christ say in his last sentence ; Page 428. Come ye blessed of my father possesse the kingdom prouided for you , Mat. 15. 34 , 35 from the constitution of the world ? I was hungry , and ye gaue me meate . As well as he will say , Go you from me you cursed into euerlasting fire ? For I was hungry , and ye gaue me not to eate .

T. B.

I answere ; first , that the word ( For ) is not heere taken Causaliter , but Consequutiue , to speake as the Schoole-doctors do , that is to say ; It doth not Connotate the cause but the euent , as was saide before of Mary Magdalen . So that the sence is not for giuing meat to Christ , when hee was hungry , or drink to him being thirsty , they did merit heauen , but that by doing such charitable works , ( which are the effects of a true iustifying faith , they shewed themselues to bee the children of God , and the heyres of his kingdome . And this sence is deduced , out of the very text it selfe . For seeing the kingdome of heauen , ( as Christ heere auoucheth ) was prepared for them before the foundation . and consequently , before they were borne , and so before they could doe any Good Workes , it followeth of necessity , that their workes could not merite heauen , but only signifie to the world , that the inheritance of heauen was due vnto them , as to the children of God the heyres of the same . For ( as the Apostle sayth ) If we be sonnes , then are we also heyres ; Rom. 8 , 17 heyres of God , and ioynt-heires with Christ . Yea ( as the same Apostle saith in another place . Ephes. 2. 4. ) As he chose vs in him before the foundation of the world , that we should be holy and immaculate in his sight through loue , who hath predestiuated vs into the adoption of children by Iesus Christ vnto himselfe , according to the good pleasure of his will . To which I must needs adde that , Rom. 8. 50. which the same Apostle saith yet in another place ; Whom he did predestinate , them also he called : and whom he called , them also he iustified ; and whom he iustified them also he glorified . Out of this holy discourse of the Apostle of our Lord Iesus , I obserue these golden lessons . Psa. 59 , 12

First , that we are the sonnes of God , not by nature ( for so we are his enemies , and the children of wrath ) but by grace and adoption in Iesus Christ .

Secondly , that God chose vs to be his Children before we were borne .

Thirdly , that he chose vs , not because wee were holy , but that we might be holy and immaculate in his sight .

Fourthly , that he predestinated vs to bee his Children by adoption , not for any Goodworkes wee eyther had done or could doe , but for his owne good pleasure to the glory of his grace . For , as to doe any workes at all before we are borne , is altogether impossible , so to doe Goodworkes when we are borne ( seeing we are conceiued in sin , born in sinne , and by nature the Children of wrath ) is impossible in like manner .

Fiftly , that all our Goodworkes , are the effects and fruits of our predestination . For , Psa. 51 , 5. if it be true , as it is most true , ( else the Apostle should be a lyer ) that wee were elected to be holy , Esa. 59 , 2. and to do Goodworkes ; it is also true , ( it cannot be denyed ) that holy life and Goodworkes , Ephe. 2 , 3 , 5. are the effectes and fruites of our election and predestination in in Christ Iesus . For this cause ( saith the Apostle ) that predestination proceeds freely of Gods eternall purpose ; Iustification , of predestination ; and glorification , of iustification . For first , hee chooseth vs in Christ ; then , Rom. 8 , 30. he iustifieth vs in Christ . Thirdly , and lastly , he glorifieth vs for his owne names sake . For this cause saith that famous Papist , Nicholaus de Lyra , in this manner ; Dicendum , quod predestinatio diuina est preparatio gratiae in presenti , & gloriae in future & ides cūsit aeterna , Lyra. in cap. 6. Mat. sicut ab aeterno predestinauit al●quem ad beatitudinem , ita preordinaui● modum quem daret sibiillā beatitudinem . I answere ( saith this Popish Doctor ) that Gods predestination is the preparation of grace in this world , and of glory in the World to come . And therefore , seeing it is eternall , as hee hath predestinated any one from eternity to endlesse blisse or beatitude ; so hath he also fore-ordayned the meane , by which hee would bring him to the same . For this cause saith the Popish Angelicall Doctor Aquinas , that predestination includeth Gods will of bestowing both Grace and Glory . Aquin. p. 1. q. 23. art. 3. ad 2. And hee addeth these words ; Nam praedestinatio ect causa , & eius quod expectatur in futura vita à praedestinatis ( selt ) gloriae , & eius quod percipitur in presenti , ( selt ) gratiae . For predestination is the cause , both of that which is expected in the life to come , that is to say , of Glory , and also of that which the predestinate receiue in this life , that is to say , of Grace . For this cause saith our Iesuite Bellarmine , that Goodworkes follow predestination , as effects follow their causes . These are his expresse wordes ; Itaque sunt opera bona effectus praedestinationis . Therefore Goodworkes are the effect of predestination . Againe , Bellar. tom. 3. col. 627. & col. 628. in another place thus ; Itaque illa propositio , ( deus ab aetet no praedestiaaut hominibus dare regnum per opera bona praeuisa ) potest & vera esse & falsa . Nam si illud ( per opera praeuisa ) referaetur ad verbum ( praedestinauit ) falsa erit , significabit . n. Deum praedestinasse homines , operaillorum bona praeuiderat ; si referatur adverbum ( dare , ) vera erit , quia significabit executionem futuram esse per opera bona , siue quod est idem , glorificationem effectum esse iustificationis & operum bonorum ; sicut ipsa iustificatio effectus est vocationis , & vocatio praedestinationis . Againe , in another place thus : Non ideo pendet praedestinatio ab operibus , sed opera à praedestinatione . Therefore predestination doth not depend of workes , but workes depend of predestination . Againe , Bellar. tom. 3. col. 626. & col. 628. in another place thus ; Alia ratio est praedestinationis , alia exequutionis ; constituit . n. in praedestinatione regnum caeloruū dare certis hominibus , quos absque vlla oper ūpraeuisione dilexit ; tamen simul constituit , vt quo ad exequ●●tionem , via perueniends ad regnum essent opera bona . There is one reason of predestination , another of execution ; for in predestination , God decreed to giue the Kingdome of Heauen to certaine men , whom hee loued without any fore-sight of workes ; Howbeit hee decreed withall , that in respect of the execution , Goodworks should be the way to come to the Kingdome . For this cause say our Rhemists , that our first iustification is of Gods Grace , and not of our deseruinges ; because none of all our actions that were before our iustification , could merite or iustly procure the Grace of iustification . Out of this discourse of the famous Popish Doctours , I obserue these memorable Lessons for the great good of the Reader .

First , that all the Grace , Faith , and Goodworkes , which we haue in this world , and the glory which we expect in the World to come , doe wholy proceed from Gods predestination without all deserts of man .

Secondly , that as God prepared the kingdome of heauen for his elect , before they were borne , or had done any Goodworkes ; so did he also prepare the way and means , by which he intended to bring them thither .

Thirdly , that no works either done , or foreseene to be doone , did mooue God to predestinate any man to the ioyes of heauen .

Fourthly , that Goodworkes are not the cause , but the effect of predestination .

Fiftly , that Goodworkes are the way and meanes , which God ordained for the execution of predestination , and for the accomplishment of glorification .

Sixtly , that not onely predestination , but also iustification , proceed of Gods meere fauour , grace , and good pleasure , without all deserts of man .

Seuenthly , that our vocation , our iustification , and our glorification , are the effects of predestination . I therefore conclude , that Good workes are not the cause , why Gods Children possesse Heauen as their inheritance , seeing it is the effect of Gods predestination ; yet that they are the ordinary way and meanes , by which God decreed in his eternall purpose to bring his elect to Heauen . For as hee ordained the end , that is to say , the kingdome of heauen or eternall life ; so also ordained he the way and meanes to attaine the same ; that is to say , vocation , iustification , faith , and Goodworkes .

Secondly , that there is great disparity betweene saluation and damnation , and therefore that Goodworkes cannot merite Saluation , though euill workes bee enough for damnation . The reason is euident , both in Phylosophy and Diuinity , because as Saint Dionysius Areopagita saith ( and the Popish Angelicall Doctor Aquinas approoueth the same ) Bonum ex integra causa existit , A●●op , de diuin 〈◊〉 , cap. 4 p 267. malum ex quolibet defectu ? ) Good , is of an intire and whole cause , but euill , comes of euery defect : yea , that more is required to good then to euill , Aquinas , 12. q. 18. art. 4. daily experience teacheth vs ; for one may soone do that hurt to his Neghbour , which cannot without great cost and long time be cured againe . This S. Austen well obserued , August . tract . 72. 〈◊〉 Ioh. tom . 9. Page . 262. when hee left in writing to be read of all posteritie , that it is a greater thing to iustifie the wicked man , then to make heauen and earth .

S. R.

I proue the conclusion , Page 429. because Christ saith , My yoke is sweete , and my burthen light . And Saint Iohn saith , his commaundementes are not heauy : Ergo , they are possible . Bell aunswereth , that these words are not meant in respect of vs , Aug. lib. 1. retr . c. 19. tom . 1 but of Christ , whose keeping the Commaundements is imputed to vs . Which Saint Austen ( saith hee ) meant , when he writ thus ; Then are all the Commandements reputed as done , 1. Iohn . 5. 3. when whatsoeuer is done , is forgiuen . But this is easily refuted , for Saint Iohn spake in respect of vs assisted by Gods Grace , when he saide ; This is the Law of God , that we keepe his Commaundements , and his Commaundementes are not heauy . He saith not ( Christ ) but ( We ) must keep Gods Commaundements .

T. B.

I answere : First , that whosoeuer readeth and marketh the Downefall , will soone perceiue , that our Iesuite is at a Non plus ; for there were these his silly Obiections solued and refuted before they came to light .

Secondly , that our Iesuite belyeth me , after his wonted manner , when he saith ; that I affirme the wordes to be meant in respect of Christ , and not of our selues . For after I had proued by many arguments drawn out of holy Writ , that the yoke of Christ is sweet to the faithfull , 1 Cor. 1 , 30 I added these words . Phil. 3 , 9 This being so , we may truely say , that in Christ we fulfill the Law : Colos. 2 , 14 Because he is our righteousnes , our sanctification , 1 Iohn 5 , 4 and our Redemption ; because hee hath ouercome death ; because he hath clothed vs with his righteousnes , Acts 15. 11 because he hath couered our nakednes with his garments ; 2 Cor. 5 , 21 because in him we haue gotten the victory , Rom. 5 , 19 ouer hell , death and damnation . Iohn 16 , 33 Thus I answered in the Downfall . Psalme 32 , 1

Now I referre my selfe to the censure of the indifferent Reader , how sufficiently I haue refuted the Iesuite , and how vniustly he hath slandered me . For it is one thing to say , we fulfill the Commaundements in Christ , another thing to say , the wordes are spoken in respect of Christ , not in respect of our selues : The latter are his , the former are mine , viz: that in Christ we fulfill the law : and I learned them , of Christs holy Apostle and chosen vessell S. Paule . Omnia possum in eo qui me confortat . I can do all thinges ( saith he ) in Christ , that strengthneth me . Phil , 4 , 13 Againe in another place , the same Apostle telleth vs , That as by the disobedience of Adam , Rom. 5 , 19 many becam sinners ; so by the obedience of Christ many shall be made righteous . Againe in another place thus ; That I may be found in him not hauing mine owne righteousnes , Phillip , 3 , 9 which is of the Law , but that which is through the saith of Christ , the righteousnes which is of God throgh faith . Again in another place thus ; They being ignorant of Gods righteousnes , Rom. 10 , 3 and seeking to establish their owne , were not subiect to the righteousnesse of God .

Againe thus ; Hee made him sinne for vs , which knewe no sinne , that we might be the righteousnes of God in him . Herevpon S. Austen that worthy pillar of Christs church , 2 Cor. 5 , 21 giueth this glosse and true meaning of these words of Saint Paule . Christum pro nobis peccatum fecit Deus , Aug. in enchir. cap. 41. tom. 3 pagina 118 cuireconciliandi sumus ; hoe est , sacrificium pro peccatis , per quod reconciliari valeremus . Ipse ergo peccatum , vt nos iustitia ; nec nostra , sed dei ; nec in nobis , sed in ipso ; sicut ipse peccatum non s●um , sed nostram , nec in se , sed in nobis constititutum , similitudine carnis peccati , in qua crucifixus est , demonstrauit . God made Christ sinne for vs , to whom we are to be reconciled ; that is , a sacrifice for sinnes , by which we might be reconciled . He therefore was made sinne , that we might be made Iustice ; not our Iustice , but Gods Iustice ; neither in vs , but in him ; as hee declared , sinne not to bee his , but ours ; not placed in him , but in vs , by the similitude of sinfull flesh , in which he was crucified . Thus writeth this ancient , holy , and learned Father . Out of whose graue Testimony , together with the Texts of holy scripture produced already , I obserue these memorable documentes , for the comfort of the well affected Reader .

First , that albeit wee are not able of our selues , nor in our selues , to fulfill the Law of God , and to keepe his commandements ; yet are we able to keepe them , and to fulfill the Law , in our Lord Iesus Christ .

Secondly , that as we were made sinners by the disobedience of one , euen Adam ; so are we made righteous , by the obedience of one , euen Christ Iesus .

Thirdly , that our formall righteousnes is not inherent in our selues , but in God , for the obedience of Iesus Christ his onely sonne and our onely sauiour .

Fourthly , that as the sinne for which Christ suffered , was ours , not his ; in vs , not in him ; euen so that iustice by which we are made righteous , is not ours , but Gods ; not in vs , but in him . I therefore conclude , that we fulfill the Lawe in Christ , not in our selues . And I adde with S. Austen , O lesuite confesse thou art confounded . ( to the euerlasting confusion of our Iesuite and al Iesuited Papists in the world ) that that Iustice , by which and with which wee are formally iustified in Gods sight , is not inherent in our selues , but in God ; not ours , but his ; not in vs , but in him ; and yet ours by imputation , as our sinnes by imputation were his . So as all the faithfull may ioyfully say with the Prophet Dauid ; Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiuen , and whose sinnes are couered . Blessed is the man , to whom the Lord will not impute sinne . And with the Apostle Paul : Psalm , 32 , 1 , 2. As many by the disobedience of Adam , were made sinners ; Rom. 5 , 19. so many by the obedience of Christ are made righteous . And heere I wish the reader to marke well : that to be iustified by imputation , is to bee made iust truely and indeed ; though not by Iustice inherent in our selues , but by the Iustice of Christ . 2 Cor. 5 , 21 For as our sinnes were truely and indeed imputed to him , so is his Iustice truely and indeed imputed to vs . I also admonish the Reader , to remember well these words of S. Austen , Aug. in ench . cap. 41. tom. 3. pagina 118. Ipse ergo peccatum , vt nos iustitia , &c. He was made sinne , that we might be made iustice : not our Iustice , but Gods iustice ; neither in vs , but in him . To remember well ( I say ) these words , beecause they are words of great consequence . These wordes strike dead . For they proue euidently , that our formal iustice is not inherent in our selues , but in God ; which confoundeth the Papists , and striketh them dead . They conuince mans inherent Iustice to be imperfect ; and their supposed condigne merit of Workes , to be plaine Hypocriticall .

S. R.

S. Iohn giueth vs a signe to try , Page 430 1 Iohn 2 , 3 , 4. if we know God ( viz ; ) if we keepe his commandements , and verse 3. affirmeth , That who keepeth not his Commaundements , knoweth not God . Wherefore eyther Bell keepeth the Commandements , or he knoweth not God .

T. B.

I answere ; Luke 18 , 13 first , that Bell humbly acknowledgeth himselfe a great sinner , and desireth pardon for his sins with the poore Publican . Howsoeuer our Iesuite like the Pharisee , glory in his condigne merites , and Workes of Supererogation .

Secondly , 1 Cor , 13 , 9. that as we know God vnperfectly , so do we keep his commandements vnperfectly . If our Iesuite say , that hee knoweth God perfectly : S. Paule condemneth him for an arrogant fellow : If hee say , hee keepeth Gods Commandements perfectly , Iames 3 , 2 S. Iames reproueth him as a proud Pharisaicall Fryer .

S. R.

As for S. Austen , Page 430. he said our defectuous keeping is counted a full keeping , when the defect is pardoned ; which is a farre different thing from saying , that Christs keeping is counted our keeping . And he meaneth , that our keeping is defectuous , because we keep not the commandements ad vnum apicem ( as he saith ) to the last iot or title , but thorough Veniall sinnes haue neede to say , Fogiue vs our Trespasses ; which Veniall Trespasses being pardoned , we are accounted to do all Gods Commandements .

T. B.

I answere ; first , that it is a meer calumny to charge me with saying , that Christs keeping is our keeping . I onely said then , and now say againe ; that wee fulfill the Law in Christ , which is such a truth , as you are neuer able to refute the same .

Secondly , that I haue proued already , that euery sinne is deadly of it owne nature : and consequently , that it is too great arrogancy in our Iesuite , to expound S. Austen after his owne fancy , hauing neyther authority , nor reason so to do .

Thirdly , that when our Iesuite confesseth that their Veniall sinnes are pardoned , he vnawares confesseth , that they cannot keepe Gods Commandements . I prooue it , because God either hath forbidden their Venials , or is well pleased with them . If he be well pleased with them , then are they no sinnes at all , for God is not well pleased with sinne . Psalme 5 , 4 This Dilemma is insoluble . If hee haue forbidden them , then are they against his precept , and consequently , seeing the Papistes graunt that they cannot liue without their Venials , they must also graunt of necessity , that they cannot keep Gods holy Precepts . And therefore it is time for all Iesuites and Iesuited Papists , to say with S. Iames , Wee all offend in many things . Iames 3 , 2 And with the Prophet Dauid , Enter not into Iudgement with thy seruants , Psalme 143 , 2 O Lord , for none liuing shall be iustified in thy sight . Aug. lib. 1. retract . cap. 19. I therefore conclude with Saint Austen ; that all the Commandements are then reputed as done , when whatsoeuer is not done , Is of mercy forgiuen . And with S. Hierome ; that the true wisedome of man is , Hier. lib. 1. aduers . Pelagioones fol. 121. Lib. 1 , fol. 120 lib. 2. fol. 130 to know that he is vnperfect .

S. R.

Saint Hierome confesseth , that God hath giuen possible Commaundements , least he should be Authour of Iniustice . He saith likewise , that he is to be detested as a blasphemer , that saith , God hath commaunded any impossible thing . S. Austen also saith , that God could not command any impossible thing , because he is iust .

T. B.

This Obiection is as a Bulwarke , for Popish supposed Condigne Merite of workes . I therefore both proposed it in the Downefall , and answered it in the same place . My answere is there to bee seene at large , to which I referre the Reader . This is the summe and effect thereof , ( viz. ) that God commaunded nothing , which was eyther impossible in it selfe to be done , or to bee doone of man as man ; The same ie there prooued at large . Touching S. Hierome , I will adde a little , because our Iesuite affirmeth him to be on his side . The truth is this ; that S. Hierom in 3. whole books against the Pelagians , hath no other scope , purpose , or intent , saue onely to proue against them out of the holy Scriptures , that none liuing doth keepe Gods Commaundements , which hee prooueth no other way , but because all haue sinned , and done euill in Gods sight . Three thinges therefore are cleere and certaine with S. Hierome .

First , that all haue sinned , and cannot bee iustified , but by the mercy and fauour of God . These are his wordes ; In multis offendimus omnes . Lib. 2. aduers. Pelag fol. 130. Non pauca peccata , sed multa ; non quorundam sed omnium posuit . Omnes n. quae sua sunt quaerunt , & non ea quae dei sunt . We all offend in many things . He put not a few sinnes , but many ; not the sinnes of some , but of all . Vbi supra , lib. 1. sol. 123. D. For all seeke the things that are their own , and not the things that are Gods . Again thus ; Neque . n. homo potest esse sine peccato , quod tua habet sententia ; sed potest si voluerit deus , hominem seruare sine peccato , & immaculatum sua misericordia custodire . Hoc & ego dico , quod deo cunct● possibilia sunt ; homint autem , non quicquid voluerit possibile est , & maxime idesse , quod nullam , ●egeris habere creaturam . For man cannot be without sinne , as thou thinkest ; but God is able , if it please him , to preserue a man from sinne , and to keep him immaculate by his mercy . This I also grant , that all thinges are possible to God ; but it is not possible for man to doe , whatsoeuer hee would ; especially to bee that , which thou hast not read any Creature to haue . Againe thus ; Vbi supra , lib. 2. fol. 129. D. Hec cuncta percurro ; vt oftendam à nullo legem , esse completam , & per legem ; mandat a omnia quae continentur in lege . Sequitur ; ergo non liberi arbitry potestate sed de clementia conseruamur . I runne ouer all these thinges , to shew that none hath fulled the Law ; and by the Law , all the Commaundements contained in the Law : Ergo , we are preserued ( Or saued ) not by the power of free will , but by the clemency ( Or mercy ) of God .

Secondly , that all the elect people of God , though they be sinfull in themselues , Vbi supra , lib. 1. fol. 120. c d. tom 3. eccles. 7 22 3. reg. 8. 46 by transgressing Gods law , yet are they iust by the mercy of God in Christ Iesus . Psal. 19. 12. The former p●rt , Psal. 43. 2. Saint Hierome prooueth thus ; Non est homo iustus , &c. There is none iust vppon the earth , none that doth good and sinneth not . Againe , There is no man that sinneth not . Againe , Who knoweth his sinnes , cleanse mee from my secret faults . Againe , Enter not into iudgement w●th thy seruant , for none liuing can bee iustified in thy sight . These and many like places ( saith S. Hierom ) are euery where in the Scriptures , by which it is manifest , that none liuing can be without sinne .

The latter part , Vbi supra . the same holy Father prooueth thus ; Audi eundem euangelistam ; si confiteamur peccata nostra , sidelis & instus est , vt dimittat nobis peccata nostra , & mundet nos ab omni iniquitate . 1. Iohn . 1 , 5. Tunc ergo iusti sumus , quando nos peccatores fatemur ; & iustitia nostra non ex proprio merito , sedex dei consistit misericordia : conclusit . n. ●●euso●ma sub peccato , vt omnibus misereatur . Rom. 11 , 31 Et haec hominis summa est iusti●a . quicquid potuerit habere virtutis , non suum putare esse , sed Domini qui largitus est . Heare the same Euangelist ; If wee confesse our sinnes , he is faithfull and iust to forgiue vs all our sins , and to cleanse vs from all iniquity . Then therefore are wee iust , when wee confesse our selues ; and our Iustice doth not consist of our owne merite , but of Gods mercy . For GOD hath shut vp all vnder sinne , Vbi supra fol. 121. ● . that he may haue mercy on all . Againe , in another place thus ; Haec est hominis vera sapientia , imperfectum esse se nosse ; atque ( vtit a loquar ) cunctorum in carne iustorum imperfecta perfectio est . This is the true wisedome of man , to know that hee is vnperfect ; and that the perfection of all the iust in the flesh , is imperfect . Out of this discourse of this holy and learned Father , I obserue these worthy documents .

First , that all men , euen the best liuers vpon earth , haue committed not a few , but many sins .

Secondly , that wee neuer read of any man , who neuer had done any sin .

Thirdly , that it is not possible for any man , to lead his life without sin .

Fourthly , that no man can be saued by his free will & holy life , but by the mercy of God .

Fiftly , that no man fulfilleth the Law , nor keepeth the Commaundements contained therein . Marke this point well . This is a point of great consequence , it would be remembred .

Sixtly , that though all men bee Sinners in respect of themselues , yet are the faithfull iust in respect of Gods mercy , who imputeth not their sins vnto them .

Seuenthly , that man is then iustified , when he acknowledgeth himselfe to be a Sinner ; and then perfect , when he acknowledgeth his own imperfection . This is a most excellent and golden Lesson . For here we see , how Sinners are iust and perfect in Gods sight . Marke well , gentle Reader . None ( saith Saint Hierom ) can fulfill the law ; none can keepe the Commaundementes ; none can liue without sinne ; and yet the greater Sinner , the more iust man , if hee with the lowly Publican doe humbly confesse his sinnes . For ( as Saint Hierome telleth vs ) to acknowledge our imperfection , Luke . 18 , 13. is our perfection before GOD , and to confesse our selues sinners , is our iustification before him in Christ Iesus . Away then with all Popish inherent iustification ; away with al Popish falsly supposed satisfaction ; away with all Popish Condigne merits ; away with all Popish supererogations .

S. R.

Saint Iohn saith , Page 429. 1. Iohn . 53. This is the loue of GOD , that we keepe his Commaundements , and his Commaundements are not heauy . He saith not ( Christ ) but ( We ) must keep Gods Commandements , and to animate vs thereto , he addeth ; that they are not heauy , ( Viz: ) to vs .

T. B.

This is answered already , August . lib. 1. retract . cap. 19 tom. 1. where I prooued out of Saint Austen , Vbi supra , lib. 2. fol. 130. B. Ibidem . C. that all the Commaundements are then reputed done , when whatsoeuer is not done , is ( Of mercy ) forgiuen . Neuerthelesse , it shall not be amisse , to adde Saint Hieroms censure to the latter member , for explication sake . These are his wordes ; Vis audire facilitatem preceptorum dei ? Ausculta quod dicitur ; quam arcta via & Angusta est , quae ducit ad vitam , & pauci sunt , qui inveniunt eam . Non dixit , quigradiuntur per eam ; hoc . n. difficillimum est , sed qui inveniunt eam . Pauci . n. inveniunt , & multò pauciores ingrediuntur per eam . Sequitur ; hac dico , & iterum iterumque ac per singulaingeram ; vt erubescas ad sententiam tuam , facilia esse dei mandata . Wilt thou heare , how easie Gods Commandements are ? Mat. 7 , 14. Hearken what is saide ; Strait and narrowe is the way , which leadeth vnto life , and few they are that finde it . He said not , which go by it , for that is a very hard thing , but which find it ; for few doe finde it , and farre fewer enter in by it . These things I say , and will vrge them againe and againe seuerally ; that thou maist bee ashamed to say , that Gods commaundements are easie . Thus writeth this holy and most learned Father . Out of whose doctrine I note thus much .

First , that the way to heauen ( that is to say Gods commaundements ) is very straight and narrow , not wide and long , or casie .

Secondly , that it is so straight and so narrow , that few find it , and fewer enter in by it .

Thirdly , that this way of Gods commandements , is so very hard ; that in S. Hieroms opinion and iudgement , he may be ashamed , that saith it is easie . Our Iesuite therfore may be ashamed of his Doctrine , Page 432 and twice ashamed to make S. Hierom a Patron of the same . Page 433

S. R.

If Bell say , Page 432 that it is impossible to loue God , as wee ought to doe : this is reproued , because hee loueth God as he should do , Deut. 6 , 5 who loueth him With all his heart , all his soule , and all his power . But Iosue so loued God , of whom it is written , 4 Reg. 23 that hee returned in all his heart , in all his soule , and all his strength . Psalme 119 Likewise Dauid sought God in all his heart , 3 Reg , 14 , 8. and followed him in all his hart . And God hath some seruants , 2. par. 6 , 14 that walk before him in all their hart , with whom he keepeth his couenant and mercy , Deut. 30 , 6 and God promiseth to circumcise the Iewes harts , that they might loue him in al their hearts , and all their soule .

T. B.

Bell saith so , and that truely , and is already proued in this discourse , 4 Reg. 23 , 25 and more at lage in the Downfall . Now to your particulars . King Iosias ( whom our Iesuite falsly nameth Iosue ) returned to God in al his hart , al his soul , and al his strength . Which is nothing else indeede , but that hereturned to God with a sincere heart , and vnfainedly , not Hypocritically . Not that he was pure and free from sin , & no part of his hart or soul defiled with corruption , which our Iesuite might haue perceiued , to be implyed in the word ( Returne . ) For , from what did he returne , saue only from sinne . If he had euer beene with God in all his heart , all his soule , and all his strength ; then doubtlesse could he not haue returned to him . For hee that is euer with one , cannot be truly saide , to returne to him . But the scripture decideth the Controuersie , 2. Par. 35 , 21 22. when it telleth vs , that Iosias hearkened not vnto the wordes of Mecho , 2 , Par. 15 , 17. ( king of Aegipt , ) de Asa. notetur which were of the mouth of God , but came to fight in the valley of Megiddo , where hee was slaine for his paines . K. Dauid likewise ( saith our Iesuite ) sought God in all his hart , which must needs be vnderstood , as I said of K. Iosias . For he was both an adulterer , & a murderer , 2. Sam. 12. thogh also the child of God . This is already proued , & plainly confirmeth the doctrin which I defend . Psalme , 51 The same may be saide of king Ezechias , who was a great sinner , 2. Par. 22 , 25 and yet is saide to haue serued God with all his heart , and to haue kept his commaundements . 4 Reg. 18. 6. 7 , 8. The same answere serueth to the rest , that God hath those , that wil serue him with their whole heart ; De Asa vide that is , vnfainedly and chearefully . 2 Par. 16 , 7 , 13 & cap. 15 , 17 & vda . For , as wee haue heard already out of the scriptures , None liuing is without sinne . Againe , The faithfull are saide to keepe Gods Commandements , and to serue him with all their heart ; Because to such as serue God vnfainedly and chearefully , whatsoeuer is left vndone , is of mercy pardoned and forgiuen . It is the flat doctrine both of S. Austen and of S. Hierom , as I haue already proued . And heere I may not forget , to put our Iesuite in mind , that concerning the circumcising of the Iewish hearts , it may please him to read the verses following , for there shall he find his sillie obiection fully answered , euen in the text it selfe . These are the words : Deu. 30 , 8 , 10 Return thou therefore and obey the voyce of the Lord , and doe all his Commaundements , which I commaund thee this day . Loe , the Iewes , whose hearts God promiseth to circumcise , haue gone from him and disobeyed his voice , and therfore must haue their harts circumcised , that they may returne to him againe , & serue him with their whole heart , that is to say , chearefully and vnfeignedly . Whosoeuer can and will read S. Hierome ( in the place quoted in the Margent ) seriously and at large , Hier. lib. 2. adverse . Pelag. fol. 133. tom . 3 shall finde this controuersie so fully decided , as hee can no longer stande in doubt thereof . For euer must this Apostolicall Doctrine , Iames 3 , 2. be holden for a most constant position : 3. Reg. 8. 46 In multis offendimus omnes . We all offend in many things . 2. Par , 6 , 36 And this likewise for a receiued Axiome , 1. Iohn 1 , 8 in the Schoole of all right Christians ; Non est homo , qui non peccauit . 2. Par. 15 , 17 & cap. 16. ver 7. & 12. There is no Man that sinneth not . If therefore our Iesuite sinne not , hee is no man , if his pope sinne not , he is not man , but either God or the Deuill . GOD ( I am sure ) he is not , if the Deuill , God blesse vs from him . In like manner , it is saide of King Assa that his hart was perfect al his dayes , and yet is he reproued both for resting vpon the king of Aram , and for not seeking God in his disease . The speech is Sinedochicall , because he was vpright in many things .

S. R.

Saint Hierome curseth this blasphemy of Bell ; Page 443 God hath giuen vs those commandements , Hier. epist. ● Damas. tom. 2 fol. 57 which we cannot possibly keepe . Likewise Saint Austen saith , that God coulde not commaund any impossible thing , because he is iust .

T. B.

I answer ; first , that the Symbole or Creed ( from whence our Iesuite will needs borrow a curse , A. Aug. serm. 61 de temp. 1. and father it vpon S. Hierom ) is not his , as the censure vpon the same doth declare . The like I may say of S. Aistens sermons de Tempore Secondly , Saint Hieroms meaning , & S. Austens also , is nothing else indeed , but that Gods commaundements are possible to be kept of man as man , though not of corrupt man after the fall of Adam . This point is handled more at large , in the Downefall of Popery . That this is Saint Hieroms opinion indeede , I haue already proued at large touching S. Austen , these are his owne expresse wordes ; Certe iustus Deus , negari non potest . Imputat autm Deus homini omne peccatum . Et hoc quoque confitendum puto , quìa neque peccatumest , quicquid non imputabitur in peccatum . Et si est aliquod peccatum quod vitari non potest , quomodo iustus deus dicitur , si imputare cuiquam creditur quod vitari non possit ? Respondemus , iam domini contra superbos esse clamatum ; Psalme 32 , 1. beatus cui non imputavit dominus peccatum . Non. n. imputat his qui sideliter ei dicunt ; dimitte nobis debita nostra , Aug. de perfect iustit . ratiocin , 15. pa. 968. tom . 7. sicut & nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris . Et iuste non imputat , quia instum est , quod ait ; in qua mensura mensi fueritis , in eadem remetietur vobis . Peccatum est autem , cum vel non est charitas quae esse debet , vel minor est quam debet , siue hoc voluntate vitari possit , siue non possit ; quia si potest , presens voluntas hoc facit ; si autem non potest , praeterita voluntas hoc fecit ; & tamen vitari potest , non quando voluntas superbalaudatur , sed quando humilis adiuvatur God doubtlesse is iust , it cannot be denyed . He also imputeth euery sinne vnto man . I also thinke that this must be granted , because it is no sinne , whatsoeuer is not imputed for sinne : and if there be any sinne which cannot be auoyded , how is God called iust , if hee impute to any man , that which cannot be auoyded ? We answere , that of olde it was proclaimed against the proud ; Happy is the man , to whom the Lord hath not imputed sin . For he imputeth not sin to them , which faithfully say to him , forgue vs our debts , as we forgiue our debtors . And iustly he doth it not , because it is iust which he saith ; In what measure your selues shall measure , in the same shall it bee measured to you againe . And it is sin when either there is not that Charity , which ought to be , or when it is lesse then it ought to be ; whether this can bee avoyded with will , or it cannot : for if it can be auoyded , then present wil hath done it ; if it cannot be avoyded , then wil past did it .

Againe , the same Saint Austen hath these words ; Ante omniainquit , interrogandus est , Vbi supra raciocin . 1. p. 965 qui negat hommem sine peccato esse posse , quid sit quodcunque peccatum ; quod vitari potest , an quod vitari non potest . Si quod vitari potest ; potest homo sine peccato esse , quod vitari potest . Nulla . n. ratio vel institia patitur saltem dici peccatum , quod vitari nullo modo potest . Respondemus , vitariposse peccatum , si natura vitiata sanetur gratia Dei per Iesum C. D. N. In tantum . n. sana non est , in quantum id quod faciendum est , aut caecitate non videt , aut infirmitate non implet , dum caro concupiscit aduersus spiritum , & spiritus aduersus carnem , vt ea quae non vult homo , faciat . He ( saith Celestine ) that saith man cannot liue without sinne , must first of all bee demaunded , what he will haue sinne to be ; whether that which can be auoyded , or which cannot be auoyded . If that which can be auoided ; man may be without that sin , which can bee auoyded . For neither reason , nor Iustice suffereth that to bee called sinne , which no way can be auoyded . We answer , that sinne may bee auoyded , if corrupt Nature bee healed by Gods grace through Iesus Christ our Lord . For infomuch it is not healed , by how much it either through blindnes sees not , or through infirmity fulfils not , what ought to bee doone ; while the flesh lufteth against the spirit , and the spirit against the flesh , so as man doth the things he would not . Thus discourseth this holy and learned Father , the most Noble Champion of Christes Church . Out of whose Doctrine , these excellent obseruations may be gathered .

First , that that is no sinne , which GOD imputeth not for sinne : and consequently , that when GOD doth not impute our sinnes to vs , then are wee truely saide to bee without sin , ( In Gods acceptation euer vnderstand ) although sin be still inherent in vs .

Secondly , that they are to be condemned for proud & arrogant persons , who thinke themselues to bee without sinne .

Thirdly , that our mercifull God imputeth no sinnes to his faithfull Children , who in the Lords Prayer humbly desire pardon for the same . This is a point of great moment ; it must bee well remembred , and neuer forgotten . The Papistes most desperately and damnably affirme , that some sinnes are Veniall of their owne Nature ; whereas the truth is this indeede , ( viz. ) that albeit all sinnes bee mortall and deadly of their owne Nature , ( as I haue proued in the Downefall ) yet are all sinnes ( as Saint Austen grauely and Christianly in this place vnfoldeth ) Veniall to Gods Children ; who in true Faith inuocate his holy Name , and humbly craue pardon for the same . So as it may truely be said ; that some sinnes are Mortall , & some Veniall , though not in Popish sence and meaning . For , though sinnes be mortall in their owne Nature , and not at all Veniall , yet are all sinnes Veniall to the Faithfull , by the great mercy of GOD , who imputeth no sinnes to his elect Children , 1. Cor. 1 , 30. when he beholdeth their Robes washed & made white , in the bloud of the immaculate Lamb. 2. Cor 5. 21. These ( I say ) must bee well marked , Rom 10. 4. and firmely imprinted in our remembrance , ( viz. ) Non●n , Phil 3. 9. imputat his qui fideliter ei dicunt , dimitte nobis debita nostra . Ephe. 1. 4. For hee doth not impute their sinnes to them , Tit. 3. 7. who faithfully desire pardon for their sinnes . Apoc. 7. 14. Sinnes therefore are Veniall , but to whom ? Not to Atheists denying God ; not to Pharisees boasting of their Condigne workes ; not to Infidels denying Christes merits ; not to impenitent persons , who eyther dispaire , or take delight in sinne ; but to the faithful , who euer haue a feruent desire to do Gods holy will , and to keepe his Commaundements . And though of ignorance or frailty they often fall into sinne , yet do they foorthwith bewayle their sinnes , humbly craue pardon for the same , and apply themselues wholly to woorthy fruites of repentance .

Fourthly , that when we either want charity , or haue it not in that degree and perfection , which the Law requireth ; we forthwith commit sinne , and become guilty in that behalfe .

Fiftly , that we sinne euen in doing that , which we can no way auoyd . Hereof Saint Austen yeeldeth this reason , ( viz. ) that if we can auoid it , then our present will is culpable & in default , if we cannot auoyd it , them will past was the cause thereof . For ( as the same holy father saith elsewhere & is to be seen in the Downefall , ) euery such sin of ours is voluntary , eytheir in the worke it selfe , or else in the Originall ; that is to say , in the Protoplast Adam ; whose will in Gods iust iudgement is reputed ours , Heb. 7. 10. because we were in his loynes as in the beginning , Lib. 3. ethicor . cap. 5. and root of all mankind . §. 27. To which I adde ; that though the Deuill cannot auoyde sinne , yet cannot our Papists deny , but he both sinneth heynously , and voluntarily : yea , the Phylopher telleth vs , That the drunken man deserueth double punnishment . For we must euer haue in minde , that our necessity of sinning , is punishment iustly inflicted vpon vs , as proceeding from our voluntary sinne in Adam . I likewise adde for a complement and consummation of the doctrin which I now deliuer and defend ; that Celestine ( against whose errours Saint Austen wrote this Booke , Deperfectionciustitiae ) defended Mordicus as a resolued & vndoubted doctrine ; That whatsoeuer Man could not auoyde , but doe of necessity , could not truely bee called sinne , nor for sinne be iustly imputed to him . To whom Saint Austen answered ; that albeit wee cannot in this corruption of Nature liue wholy without sin , but so farre onely as our nature is healed ; yet might we haue auoided sin perfectly and wholly before Adams fall , which is enough to make vs truly and formally sinners in Gods sight . Let his wordes bee well marked and remembred , and this controuersie wil soone be at an end . For it is all one , as if S. Austen had sayde ; Though we cannot now liue without sinne , but sinne of necessity ; yet are our sinnes iustly and truely imputed to vs , because we sinned voluntarily in Adam , and by that means most iustly brought this necessity vpon vs . This Doctrine the Papistes , Volentes , Nolentes , must admit ; or else accuse God of Iniustice , for condemning Infants eternally , for that sinne which they cannot possibly auoyde . For infants dying without Baptisme , they affirme to perish euerlastingly .

S. R.

As for Bels dilernma , it is easily aunswered , and might haue been better left out ( as himselfe writeth in the margent . ) For though Infantes after they haue sinned , and eaten the Apple in Adam , cannot avoyde the guilt of Originall sinne , but must needs contract it by origine from Adam : Yet becautse as Infants sinned in Adam , so they might haue not sinned in him , but haue auoided the guilt of sinne ; falsely dooth Bell say , they could not possibly auoyde it . And I wonder , why Bell hauing taught beefore , that Concupiscence ( the effect of Originall Sinne ) is voluntary , hee will now say , that Infants could not possibly auoyde Originall sinne . But it is his custome to gainsay himselfe .

T. B.

I answere ; First , Page 436. that in the Downefall of Popery , these words are written indeed in the Margent ; ( Omittatur haec clausula meo indicio . ) But I protest , that neyther did I write them , neyther did they please mee , when I espyed them . Many like faultes are in many of my Books , which I cannot deale withall . If I had Money at my will , ( as our Iesuite hath ) to defray my charges , while my Bookes were at the Presse , I could then so handle the matter , as such faults should not offend his worship . How this Marginall note crept into the place , I may coniecture and bee deceiued . This I am assured of , that our Iesuites can do greater matters . This euery child may know , that I wrote it not , but our lesuite will needes haue it so . For , if I would haue had it left out , it was in my power to haue effected the same ; this supposed ( which I deny ) that it was mine owne act .

Secondly , that our Iesuit killeth himselfe with his own sword . For , I contend against him , that all sinnes are voluntary in Adam , and the Law possible to haue bin kept in him , which the Iesuite vnawares , doth heere confesse against himselfe . This is the maine point in Controuersie , ( viz. ) whether that which we cannot auoyd , may bee sinne in vs or no. I hold the Affirmatiue , out Iesuite the Negatiue . I reply , that infantes are guilty of that sinne , which they could not avoyde ; and consequently , that that may be sinne in vs , which wee cannot avoyde . But withall I constantly affirme , that infants sinned voluntarily in Adam , because they were in his loynes ; as also , that we might haue kept the commaundements in innocent Adam , Heb. 7 , 10 though after corrupt Adam , we cannot possibly performe the same . This notwithstanding , I deny that infantes could any way haue avoyded Originall sin . For I cannot conceiue , how a childe can avoyd that sin , Qui potest capere , capiat . which was committed before he was borne . For though it was once in Adams power , to haue auoyded all sinne , and so to haue freed all his posterity from all sinne , yet was it neuer in any Infants power , to haue caused Adam to keep Gods holy precept ; which seeing no Infant was able to performe , neyther could any Infant possibly haue auoyded sin . Our Iesuite therefore must learne to know , that it is one thing to say , that it was in Adams power not to haue transgressed Gods Lawe , another thing to say , that it was in our power before wee were borne , to haue kept Adam from that transgression . Which seeing it was neuer in our power , neyther were wee euer able to haue auoyded the same ; and consequently , neither to haue auoyded sinne .

Thirdly , where our Iesuite saith , it is Bels custome to gaine-say himselfe ; if it may please his reuerence to put Iesuite for Bell , the truth then will be on his side .

S. R.

Gods Children as long as his seede abideth in them , Page 44● sin not , 1 Iohn 3 , 9 Iames 2 , 10 nor offend deadly in any one point , but abide both in the whole Law , and in euery point therof . Saint Iames speaketh of deadly sin , and of offending deadly . But there he Veniall sins ( which Bell denyeth not ) in the which iust men may offend , Page 438. and not breake Gods Law deadly .

T. B.

I answere first , that euery sinne is mortall of it owne nature ( which I haue already proued . Secondly , that all sinnes are Veniall and pardonable ( which is all one , ) to Gods children and faithful seruants ; not of their own nature , but of Gods great mercy and fauour towardes them ; who for Christs merites and satisfaction ( in whom hee is euer well pleased ) pardoneth all their offences , & imputeth no sin vnto them . Mat. 3 , 17 This is the constant doctrine of S. Austen , whose words are these ; Omnia ergo mandata facta deputantur , quando quicquid non fit , ignoscitur . All the Commaundements are then reputed as done , when what soeuer is not done , Aug. lib. 1. retract . cap. 19. is ( Of Mercy ) forgiuen . The famous Popish Abbot Bernardus , is consonant to S. Austen . These are his wordes ; Omne quod natum est ex deo , non peccat : sed hoc dictum est de praedestinatis ad vitam ; non quod omnino non peccent , sed quod peccatum ipsis non imputetur . All that is born of God , Bernard , de gra & lib. arbitr. pag. 1189 sinneth not . But this is spoken of the predestinate to life ; not because they sinne not at al , but for that sinne is not imputed to them .

Againe , in another place he sayth thus : Vtique quod factum est , non potest , non fieri : ipso tamen non imputante , erit quasi non fuerit . Bernard . serm , 3 , in annunc . Quod Propheta quoque considerans , ait beatus vir cui non imputabit Dominus peccatum . The sinne doubtles that is done , cannot bee vndone , yet because God doth not impute sinne vnto vs , we shall be as if we had not sinned . Which the Prophet considering saith ; Blessed is the man to whom God shall not impute sinne . Out of these wordes , this Corollary is clearly deduced ( viz. ) that the regenerate are saide not to sinne , not because they do no sinne indeed , or haue no sin in themselues ( for that were against the flat Doctrine of S. Iames , Iames 3 , 2 ) but because God of his meere mercy for the merits of Christ Iesus doth not impute their sinnes vnto them .

S. R.

It is an vniust law which is impossible ; and to punnish the breakers were against right and equity . As Bell himselfe would graunt , if vppon paine of death he were bid to flye to heauen , and executed if he did not .

T. B.

I answere ; First , that the Commaundements of God are not simply and absolutely impossible , but accidentally Per accidens . They are not impossible in themselues , because Christ himselfe kept them , neyther impossible to man , as man , because Adam might haue kept them : Onely they are impossible to cortupt man : which impossibility , commeth Per accidens , Deut. 30 and not Ex natura rei . Man hadde free will to haue doone Gods will , Eccles. 15. to haue kept his Commaundementes , and to haue liued without sinne perpetually ; Ephes. 4 , 24. thorough whose disobedience wee are solde vnder sinne , Rom. 5 , 18 and brought to that necessitie , Rom. 7 , 14 that we cannot possibly avoyd sinne . Heb. 7 , 5.

Neuerthelesse , wee are iustly punnished for our sins , because the necessity and impossibility , which was befallen vs , was brought vppon vs thorough our owne default , when that we were in the Loynes of Adam .

Secondly , that our Iesuites argument of my flying to Heauen , is both vnchristian and very childish : Vnchristian , because it doth equalize mans precepts with Gods : childish , because it was neuer in my power to slye to heauen , as it was once in mans power to keepe Gods commandements . Our Iesuite accuseth God of iniustice , in condemning infants for Originall sinne .

S. R.

After the fathers , he bringeth two reasons . The one out of the Lords prayer , where we are taught to ask forgiuenes . But ( saith he ) Where pardon must be demanded , there the Law is not exactly obserued . The other is out of our daily confessions , where we acknowledge our faults , and most great faults . I Answere , as the petition of forgiuing our sins , dooth euidently conuince , that wee do not so exactly keepe the Lawe , as that we neuer swarue from it ; so the other petition of doing Gods will heer on Earth as it is in Heauen , euidently conuinceth , that wee can do it without deadly breaking it . As for our confessions , wee do not confesse that our daily offences are most great faults , but daily confesse our most great falts , whether done then or before .

T. B.

I answere : first , that our Iesuite graunteth as much as I desire , as euery childe may perceiue . For his wordes are plaine , that they do not keepe the law so exactly , as they neuer swarue from it . Hold thy selfe here good Fryer , and we shall soone agree . For if you swarue from the Law , then doubtlesse , ye doth not keepe it . This is all , that I require at your hands , ( viz. ) that ye wil confesse , that ye swarue from the Law and keepe it not .

Secondly , that the other petition proueth not , that you Papists can keepe Gods commandements , and liue without sin , as the Saints do in heauen . For euery meane Logician can tell you , that the worde ( As ) doth Connotate a similitude , but not an Identity ( viz. ) that as the Angels & Saints do Gods will in heauen , and liue altogether without sinne , acording to the condition of the perfect state ; so wee may do his will in some measure and proportion , according to the imperfect state in which we liue . And thus much the word ( as ) doth import vnto vs , so often as as say the Lords Prayer .

Thirdly , that your answere is so Aenigmaticall , as my slender capacity is not able to penetrate the depth therof . You freely grant , that you daily confesse your most great faultes , but not that your daily offences are most great faults , O the depth of Iesuiticall wit ! Qui potest capere , capiat . The great God Apollo must come downe from Heauen , to vnfold this high mistery . Well , seeing it will bee no better , let vs make the best of it we can . Let vs holde fast that , which is freely graunted vs , ( viz. ) that our Iesuites commit most great faults sometimes , though not euery day Let vs likewise hold this fast ; ( viz. ) that our Iesuites confesse those most great faultes euery day , which they commit sometimes , but not euery day . This done ; let vs out of these two assertions plainely and freely confessed , inferre these two most Golden and memorable Corollaries .

First , that seeing our Iesuites freely graunt , that they commit sometimes most great faults , though not dayly ; it followeth of necessity , that sometimes they break gods holy commaundements , though not daily ; and consequently , that sometimes they sinne damnably , though not euery day ; as also , that they are so farre from louing Condigne Merites of Glory , as they woorthily demerite eternall torment in hell fire .

Secondly , that their Sacrament of Pennance doeth not conferre Grace Ex opere operato : neyther are their most great faults therein forgiuen ; seeing after their auricular confession and absolution receiued of their ghostly Fathers , they still stande in such feare of remission of their most great faults , that they must needs confesse the same daily in time of Popish Masse . To which two Corollaries , I cannot but adde this delicate Post-past for his holines , viz: That the supposed certainty of the operation of Popish sacraments , is as vncertaine as the wind . For though all Papists of all sorts be bound to beleeue , that Popish absolution ministred by a Popish priest , after Popish auricular confession , doth vndoubtedly purge them from all their sins , ( though neuer so many , & neuer so great ; ) yet after such confession , and such absolution receiued from the Priestes mouth , they are bound by Popish lawe and Doctrine , immediately to confesse their most greeuous ●aults in time of Popish Masse . Whereupon followeth of necessity , that Popish late start-vp Religion , is able to bring all Papists headlong into desperation .

S. R.

If you loue mee ( saith Christ ) keepe my Commaundements , Page 421. but how can we keepe them , if they damnably , 1 Iohn 14 , 1●● & deadly breake them ? Can true keeping ( thinkes Bell ) and true breaking stand together ?

T. B.

True keeping and true breaking in diuers respects , both may and do well stand together . For as the faithful in respect of their sinnes inherent in them , doe breake Gods Commaundements and are in state of damnation ; so , in respect of Christs merits imputed to them of mercy , they are iust and keepe Gods commaundements perfectly . For as the disobedience of Adam , made all men sinners ; so the obedience of Christ , Phil. 3. 9 made all the faithfull holy and iust . This is it that S. Iohn saith : He that is borne of God sinneth not , 1 Cor. 1 , 3 which is not meant , 2 Cor. 5 , 21 that he sinne not indeed , but ( as wee liaue heard out of S. Austen , Rom. 5. 19 and Abbot Bernard ) That his sinnes be pardoned , 1 Iohn . 3 , 9 and not imputed to him . Hitherto , we haue seene and viewed our Iesuites Diuinity : now a word or two of his great charity , and there an end .

S. R.

What sir ? Page 345. are these speeches S. Chrisostoms cited by your selse ? What neede a Sermon ? What neede a Preacher ? Surely then your preaching is needlesse , and consequently the fifty pound pension giuen to you for it , may bee well spared .

T. B.

Behold heere our Iesuites charity . He tooke in hand to aunswere the Downefall of Popery , but hauing broken his back with the fal therof , & taking to hart that he was put at a Non-plus , as not able to defend the Pope & Popery : he deuised with himselfe how hee might bee auenged of me , and so took occasion to quarrell at my pension . A rare Metamorphosis doubtles : a digression of meer foolery , to what end , it were wisedome to diuine . The question in hande , was of the Popes souer aignety : Of Religion : Of Faith : Of Saluation . All which things ( though of great consequence being set apart : our Iesuite , ( as one forgetfull of the text , beginneth sodainly to preach against my pension , telling his Reader with all grauity , that it may be well spared . It may seeme , our Iesuite would haue a begging Fryer , and so to spend my time in seeking my dinner . Bels pension greeueth the lesuite . But as it pleased most Noble Queene Elizabeth of famous memory , of her Royall bounty , to bestow the fifty pound pension on me ; and as it hath hitherto well pleased his most excellent Maiesty , to continue the same for mine honest maintainance ; so I hope , that notwithstanding all the Iesuites pratling , ( I would say preaching , ) I shall still enioy the same . Soli Deo vni & trino , honor & Glorìa .

FINIS .

GEntle Reader by reason of the Authors absence and mis-vnderstanding the Copy in the 49. page , these two lines are thus rightly to be corrected . Ex conclusione posita , & probationibus , quae à patre à Castro affirmantur , colligitur , cautè legendum esse Caietanum dicentem , &c.

Notes, typically marginal, from the original text

Notes for div A07868-e100

Notes for div A07868-e1390

Notes for div A07868-e9260

Notes for div A07868-e14780

Notes for div A07868-e15080

Notes for div A07868-e18510

Notes for div A07868-e19810

Notes for div A07868-e22760

Notes for div A07868-e38670