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.) Bell, Thomas, fl. 1593-1610. 1608 Approx. 498 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 120 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2005-12 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A07868 STC 1824 ESTC S101472 99837286 99837286 1601 This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal . The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A07868) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 1601) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1475-1640 ; 1057:07) 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.) Bell, Thomas, fl. 1593-1610. [8], 184, 193-224, 229-231, [1] p. Printed by VVilliam Iaggard dwelling in Barbican, At London : 1608. Dedication signed: Thomas Bell. A reply to: Smith, Richard. An answer to Thomas Bels late challeng named by him the Downfal of popery. Text continuous despite pagination. Running title reads: The Iesuites antepast. Reproduction of the original in the British Library. Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford. Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO. EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor. The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines. Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements). Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site . eng Smith, Richard, 1566-1655. -- Answer to Thomas Bels late challeng named by him the Downfal of popery. Catholic Church -- Controversial literature. 2005-03 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2005-04 Aptara Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2005-05 Rachel Losh Sampled and proofread 2005-05 Rachel Losh Text and markup reviewed and edited 2005-10 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion 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 , 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 , and to professe and beleeue it to bee the Catholique and Apostolique Faith ; whereas the truth is farre otherwise , as ( God willing ) shortly will appeare . Which if the Vulgar sort did once vnderstand , they would no doubt stand at defiance with the Pope , and from their hearts detest his late start-vppe Romish Doctrine . There is a Sect of Fryers at Rome , called the Franciscanes , who haue by little and little swarued from their first institution , and become so licentious and dissolute , that another sort of Fryers commonly called the Capucheues , haue accused them to haue departed from their Ancient and Primitiue order ; and therefore do the Capucheues tearme themselues , the reformed and true Franciscanes indeede . This is this day our case in the Church of Noble England , and in many other Churches within the Christian World. The Capucheues hold fast , keep still , and constanty defend , all the Ancient Orders of the first Franciscanes , they onely reiect and abandon that , which by litle and little crept into their Order , ( viz : ) superstition , abuses , and neglect of Discipline . Euen so is it this day with our Church of England , she holdeth-fast , keepeth still , and constantly defendeth all and euery iote of the old Romane Religion , reuerencing it , as Catholique and Apopostolique Doctrine , she onely reiecteth and abandoneth Heresies , Errours , superstition , and intollerable abuses , by little and little brought into the Church . For neither did most Noble Queene Elizabeth in her time , neyther doth our most gratious Soueraigne King IAMES ( who this day most happily raigneth ouer vs ) set vp or bring into the Church any new Religion ; but onely reformeth the Church , by the example of King Iosaphat , King Ezechias , King Iosias , and other godly Kinges in their dayes , and reduceth it to the Primitiue order and purity of the old Romaine Religion . This to be so , none can in conscience deny , that will with a single and vpright eye this day behold , the godly setled Canons of this Church of England . For , the late Bishops of Rome haue in many points of great importance , swarued and departed from the Doctrine of their Ancestors ; whereof no doubt many Papists , euen at & about Rome it selfe , would this day ( if they durst for fear of fire and Fagot ) accuse the Pope himself . What shall I say of Hieronymus Sauonarola , that famous Preacher and Dominican Fryer ? Was not be burnt with Fire and Fagot , because he preached openly in the famous Citty of Florence , against the licencious liues of the Pope and his Clergy , and against superstition and abuses crept into the Church ? I wote it was so , it cannot be denyed . What ? Did not Iohannes Geilerius a famous Popish Preacher at Argentorate , oftentimes complain to his trusty friends , ( not daring to acquaint otheres therewith ) that the Thomists and Scotists had brought auricular confession to such a miserable point , as none possibly could performe the same ? He did so , their owne good friend Beatus Rhenanus doth contest the same with me . What ? Did not Franciscus à Victoria , that ●amous Popish Schoole-doctor , complaine grieuously in his time , of Popish intollerable dispensations ? Did he not publish to the view of the world , that the Church was brought to such a miserable state , as none were able to endure the same ? Did hee not cry out against the late Bishops of Rome , and desire Clements , Lines , & Siluesters ? His own Book is extant in print , the world knoweth it to be so . What shall I say of the Popes errors in Faith and Doctrine ? Was not Pope Liberius an Arrian Heretike ? Was not Pope Anastasius a Silestorian Hereretique ? Was not Pope Celestine condemned for erronious doctrin ? did not Pope Iohn the 22. of that name , teach publikely a most notorious heresie ? Did he not commaund the vniuersity of Paris , that none should be admitted to any degree in Theologie , but such as would sweare to defend that heresie perpetually ? Did not the King of France with the aduise & consent of the whole vniuersity , for that end , cause his dānable opinion to be cōdemned with the sound of Trumpets ? Adrianus ( who was B of Rome himselfe ) Alphonsus à Castro , Melchior Canus , and Viguerius , all foure being very learned and famous Papists , are constant witnesses of this truth . Doth not Nicholaus de Lyra , a famous and learned Popish Writer , boldly and constantly affirme in his learned Commentaries , that many Popes haue swarued from the Faith , and become 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 frō our holy Mistris Iohn Pope , cannot possibly be of force . Yet is this story confirmed to be true , by the vniforme assent of many Papistes of great esteeme , euen in the Church of Rome , ( viz : ) of Sigebertus Gemblacensis , Marianus Scotus , Matheus Palmerius , Martinus Polonus , Philippus Bergoniensis , Baptista Platina , Bartholomeus Carranza , and others . Was not Pope Iohn the twelft , made Pope by violent meanes ? Did not his Father Albericus being a man of great power and might , enforce the Nobles to take an oth , that after the death of Pope Agapitus , they would promote his Son 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 ? 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 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 ; 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. VVhat hee hath performed in his supposed aunswere , and my selfe in this my Reply ; 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 , 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 . 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 : Similiter de iudicio summi pontificis alicui disputare non licet . In like maner , no man may dispute of the iudgment of the Pope , or high-priest . The fourth , because neyther any of the layty , nor yet of the Cleargy , can vnder paine of Excommunication , read eyther the olde or the new Testament translated into the vulgar tongue , or any other booke of Controuersie or Diuinity , set forth by any not professed Vassall vnto the Pope ; vnlesse such person or persons be especially licenced of the pope so to doe . Aphorisme second . The multitude of the vulgar and rude people , become Papists , vpon this false and sandy foundation , supposed of them to be a receiued Theologicall Maxime , viz : that the late start vp Romish Doctrine , is the auncient Catholike faith , and the olde Roman religion : And therefore , when soeucr they speake of any Papist , meaning to expresse his sect and profession ; they tell vs , he is one of the old Relion : but they are grossely deceiued herein ; they may haue zeale , I grant with the Apostle , but not acording to knowledge . For , the doctrine this day taught and defended by the Pope , his Iesuites , and Iesuited Papists , is indeed the new Religion , and farre different from the true , catholick , and olde Roman religion . Would to God all simply seduced Papists , would deepely ponder this point , and seriously meditate vpon the same . I doe with all my heart reuerently receiue and admit , the old Roman religion preached by Saint Paule and S. Peter , in their daies at Rome ; but withall , I vtterly abhorre and detest , that Doctrine , which the late Popes and Byshops of Rome deliuer for the same . In regard hereof , I neuer in any one of my Bookes , oppugne simply and absolutely the Roman faith and religion , but the late Romish faith and doctrine . Where I wish the Reader to obserue and marke attentiuely , this word ( Late ) for it doth significantly declare a cleere difference betweene that doctrine which is novv taught in the church of Rome , and that which S. Paule and S. Peter , deliuered to the Romans in their life time . Which , because the common vulgar sort of people cannot distinguish ( such is their ignorance ) they are perforce carried away with the sway of the time . Marke the next Aphorisme . Aphorisme third . We know , and the Papists knowe , that theyr reformed Franciscans ( now commonly called Capuchenes ) can tel right well , that their other dissolute Franciscans haue swarued from their auncient order , albeit they can neither tel whē , 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 vvriting to all posterities . Obserue diligently the next Aphorisme . Aphorisme fourth . First , Popish primacie began , in the yeare 607. Secondly , Priestes mariage was neuer prohibited , till the yeare 385. Thirdly , Popes pardons were neuer heard of , till the yeare 1300. Fourthly , popish Purgatorie tooke no root in the Romish Church , till the yeare 250. Fiftly , inuocation of Saintes , & adoration of Reliques , was not known , till the yeare 370. Sixtly , Popish pilgrimage began in the yeare 420. Seuenthly , the merite of Workes de condigno , was disputeable about the yeare 1081. Eightly , the communion vnder both kindes , was neuer thought vnlawfull , till the yeare 1414. Ninthly , the Popes Bulles were not authenticall , till the yeare 772. Tenthly , Auricular confession was not established , till the yeare 1215. Eleuenthly , Generall Councels , were euer summoned by the Emperours . That all these heads of Popish doctrine , crept into the Church , by little and little in the yeares aboue named , I haue proued at large ten yeares agoe , in my Booke of the Suruey of Popery , as also partly in my Booke of Motiues , to which bookes I referre the Reader , for better satisfaction therein . This creeping of late Romish religion into the Church by little & little , Victoria a Popish fryer & famous school-Doctor , witnesseth in these wordes ; Paulatim ad hanc , &c. By little and little we are brought to these inordinate dispensations , and to this miserable state , where we are neyther able to endure our owne griefes , nor remedies assigned for the same : and therefore must wee perforce inuent some other way , for conseruation of the Lawes . Giue me Clements , Lines , Siluester , and I will commit all thinges to theyr charge . But to speake nothing grieuously against these latter Popes , they are doubtlesse inferiours to Popes of old time , by many degrees : Thus writeth this learned Popish Fryer ; who if he durst haue spoken plainly , would haue told vs mirabilia . But it sufficeth that Popes were worse and worse , and that errors by little and little crept into the Church . Aphorisme fift . The vsuall practise of Papists in their Commentaries , Bookes and Glosses , haue beene such , and so intollerable , in wresting the holy scriptures , that their owne deere brethren and great Doctors , cannot for shame deny or conceale the same . Polydorus virgilius , a famous Papist , hath these wordes ; Non secus isti , &c. These ( Popish ) Legists , and Canonists , doe now and then so wrest and wrieth the holy Scriptures , to that sence which themselues like best ; euen as Coblers doe gnaw with theyr teeth , and stretch out their filthy skinnes . This is that , which the famous Papist Doctor Fisher , the late bishop of Rochester , did freely confesse , in his answere to the Articles of maist . Luther , which he could not in truth withstand or gain-say ; These are his expresse wordes : Contendentibus itaque nobiscum haereticis , nos alio subsidio nostram oportet tu●re causam , quam scriptura sacra . Therefore when hereticks contend with vs , we must defend our cause by other meanes then by the holy Scripture . These are the expresse wordes , ( I neyther adde any thing , nor take any thing away ) of their famous popish Byshop ; of their holy saint ; of their glorious martyr ; a learned man indeed , who laboured with might & maine for the Popes vsurped soueraignty , and defended the same in the best manner he was able , and to the vttermost of his skill ; and yet for all that , he hath bolted out vnawares , & against his will ( such is the force of truth ) so much in plain tearmes , as is enough to ouerthrow all Poperie for euer , and to cause all people that haue any care of their saluation , to renounce the Pope and his abhominable Doctrine , to their liues end . For our learned Popish bishoppe being put to his best Trurmpe , telleth vs very plainely , and without all dissimulation ( his mouth being now opaned by him whoe caused Balaams Asse to speake , ) that they must not ( because forsooth they cannot ) defend and maintaine their popery by the authority of the Scripture , but by some other way and meanes ( viz : ) by mans forged inuentions , and popish vnwritten vanities , which they terme the Churches Traditions . Now ( gentle Reader ) how can any Papist ( who is not giuen vppe in reprobum sensu , for his former sinnes and iust deserts ) read sueh testimonies against Popery , freely confessed , and plainly published to the world , and that by the pennes of most learned and renowned Papists , euen while they bestir themselues busily , to defend their Pope and his popish doctrine , and for all that continue Papists still , and carryed away headlong into perdition , beleeuing and obeying that doctrine , which ( as themselues confesse ) can not be defended by the holy Scripture ? Methinkes they should be ashamed , to hold and beleeue that doctrine , in defence whereof , they can yeeld no better reason . Covorruvius a famous Canonist , and reuerend Popishe Byshop , hath these wordes : Nec me latet , &c. Neither am I ignorant , that Saint Thomas affirmeth , after great deliberation , that the byshop of Rome cannot with his dispensation , take away from Monkes their solemne vow of chastity : this notwithstanding , we must defend the first opinion , least those things which are practised euerie where , be vtterly ouerthrowne . Behold here ( gentle Reader ) that howsoeuer the popes opinion be , the same we must defend of necessity : and the reason is added , because otherwise , popery cannot consist . Fie vpon that Religion , which must haue such poore and beggerly shiftes for the maintenance thereof . Much like stuffe I might recount of Popish pardons and Purgatorie , &c. but for those matters , I referre the Reader to my Booke , Intituled , The wofull cry of Rome . CHAP. 2. ¶ Conteining a sound confutation of the Iesuites answere , framed to my argumentes against the Popes primacy . THe Iesuite S. R. in the first Chapter against my first Article , is so troubled to answer my reasons , grounds , and authorities , that one while hee affirmeth , otherwhiles denyeth the selfe-same thing , so mightily confounding both himselfe and his Reader . In the down-fall of Popery , I proued euidently , that the Pope taketh vpon him to depose Kings and Emperours from their royall thrones , and to translate their Empires and regalities at his good will and pleasure . To which S. R. answeareth , that I belie the Pope : but let vs heare his owne wordes . S. R. I must needes tell him , that he vntruly auoucheth vs to say , that the Pope is spiritually aboue all powers and Potentates on earth . T. B. I must needes tell you ( Maist. Iesuite ) that you vntruly charge me with vntruth : yea , that you roundly controule your selfe , and giue your selfe the lye . I proue it ; first , because your selfe confesse the wordes , which I alledged out of Bellarmine , that Popish and Iesuiticall Cardinall , to be truly fathered vpon him ( viz : ) that when any Prince , of a sheepe is made an hereticke , or swarueth from the Romish religion , which is all one with you Papists ; then the pope may driue him away by excommunication , and withal cōmaund the people not to obey him , and therefore depriue him of his dominion ouer his Subiects . Secondly , because you M. Iesuite ) confesse freely , that Pope Zachary did iustly depose Childrick King of Fraunce . Thirdly , because ye likewise grant freely , that the Pope deposed king Henry the eight , and Queene Elizabeth , and for better assurance hereof , you tell vs the same tale in another place . But let all indifferent Readers hearken seriously , what the Popes owne deare Fryer telleth vs , his wordes are set downe in the Down-fall of Popery , but S. R. could not see them , because he knewe not what to say to them : thus doth he write . Vt pace omnium , &c. To speake by the fauour of all good men , this sole nouelty . I will not say heresie , was not yet knowne in the worlde , that his priests who maketh an hypocrit to raigne for the sinnes of the people , should teach the people , that they owe no subiection to wicked Kinges ; and that although they haue taken the Oath of fealty , yet do they owe them no allegiance , neyther are periured that thinke ill against the king : yea , he that obeyeth the king , is this day reputed an excommunicate person : and he that taketh part against the king , is absolued from the crime of Iniustice and periury . Thus writeth Sigebertus a Learned popish Fryer , so liuely painting out our very case this day in England , as if hee were liuing euen now amongst vs. Where we see , that the popes own Monks & friers haue thought as il of the popes dealings in former times , as we think of his proceedings in these latter daies ; as also , that to absolue Subiectes from their allegeance , is not onely a Nouelty , but euen a flat Heresie . Let all popish Recusants marke this point well , and defie the Pope and all his absolutions from their allegeance : for as the secular popish Priests haue truely written , Popery is this day inseparably linked with Treason . But what saith S. R. Let vs heare him againe . S. R. And much lesse did we euer tell you , that the pope hath temporall superiority ouer all Princes on earth , but teach the quite contrary . Againe , if Bell reply , that some Cannonists haue affirmed the pope to be Lord temporall ouer the world , let him challenge them , & not like a wise man strike his next fellowes the English papists , who maintaine no such opinion . T. B. I proued first out of the Popes owne decrees , that pope Nicholas affirmed Christ to haue committed to S. Peter , & consequently to himselfe , the right both of earthly and heauenly Empire . Secondly , out of the popes glosse , that the Popes hath both the Spirituall and Temporall sworde , and by right thereof , did translate the Empire . Thirdly out of the popes decretals , that pope Boniface challenged the Royall right and Authority of both swords , and made a flat decree for the confirmation thereof . Fourthly , out of Appendix fuldensis , that the same pope Boniface the 8. affirmed himselfe both Spirituall and Temporall Lord of the whole world , and thereupon he required of Phillip king of France , that he would acknowledge his Kingdome from him , which thing the King scorned to do . All this notwithstanding , our Iesuite S. R. aunswereth roundly , that I must challenge them , and not strike their fellowes . Marry sir , this is a short answere indeede ; but as much to the matter , as if you should say , your heart doth pant and bleede : But let vs be content with this answere , seeing the silly Iesuiticall Fryer , was not able to afford vs any better . S. R. English Papists attribute to the pope , no other authority ouer Kings then spirituall , but do with tongue & heart , and with the popes good liking confesse , that our Soueraigne Lord King Iames hath no superiour on earth , in Temporall matters . T. B. What a Masked , lying , and Trayterous Iesuite is this ? We haue heard already , that the Pope deposed both King Henry the 8. and most Noble Queene Elizabeth , and yet heere the 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 ; Bell sayth , hee may depose them at his pleasure : As if matters of Heresie , were the Popes pleasure . T. B. Here we haue freely granted once againe , that the pope by Popish doctrine , may depose Princes for heresie : only this is denied , that he deposeth them at his pleasure . To which , I thus reply ; First , that euery heresie is voluntary , and consequently , seeing many popes haue been heretiks , ( as Pope Adrian himselfe , Alphonsus de Castro , Melchior Canus , Vignerius , Nicolaus de Lyra , and many others freely grant ) it followeth of necessity , that heresie is the Popes pleasure . Secondly , that when I say , the pope taketh vpon him to depose Princes at his pleasure ; I meane nothing else , but that the pope will depose Princes , whensoeuer they refuse to embrace and beleeue , his late start vp Romish religion ; that is to say , that doctrine , which is added to the olde Roman religion at his pleasure . For all that which the Church of England this day reiecteth of the Romish religion , is added , to the old Romish religion at the Popes pleasure . This subiect is proued at large in my Motiues and Suruey . But our Iesuite vrgeth further , that Bell disproueth himselfe in these wordes : Secular Priests ( saith Bell ) write plainly and resolutely , that the pope hath no power to depriue Kings of their royall sceptars and regalities , nor to giue away their kingdomes to another : in which opinion likewise the French Papists concurre and iumpe with them . Item , the Seculars , although they acknowledge the popes power supereminent in Spiritualibus , yet doe they disclaime from it in Temporalibus , when he taketh vpon him to depose Kinges from their Empires , and to translate their kingdomes . And least we should thinke these few priests who write so , were no Papists , Bell himselfe testifieth , that they are the Popes deare vassals , and professe the same Religion with other Papistes . By these words , our masked Iesuit , ( as we see ) wold gladly impose vpon me , that I haue slandered them and their Pope . First , because the secular priests deny the Popes power in deposing Kings . Secondly , because I graunt those seculars to be papists , but this slander is easily returned to the Iesuite himselfe . For first , our Iesuites holde , that the Pope may depose Kinges from their Dominions and regalities . Againe , the secular priests are of a contrary opinion . Neyther for all that doth it follow , that they are not papistes : For it is very vsuall and common to Papists , to dissent one from another in matters of Religion . This is prooued in my Motiues . Our masked Iesuit spendeth the whole chapters following ; ( viz ) the second , third , and fourth , not in answering me and my proofes , but in meere impertinent matters ; of the opinion of Knox and his fellow-ministers in Scotland , and such like stuffe : wherefore omitting his impertinent verosity in the saide three Chapters , I come vnto the fift next following the same . CHAP. 3. ¶ Conteining a confutation of S. R. his answere to the proofes of my assumption . S. R. POpe Gregory saith Bell , writing to the Emperor Mauritius , calleth him soueraign Lord , and professeth himselfe subiect to his command , and to owe him obedience . Wherupon Bell inferreth , that for 600. years after Christ , popes liued in dutifull obedience vnder Emperors . T. B. I proued out of Pope Gregories wordes , these three speciall points ; ( viz ) that Pope Gregory freely and willingly acknowledged the Emperour to be his soueraigne Lorde . That he confesseth himselfe to be the Emperours subiect . That he yeelded loyall obedience to the Emperor , and for that respect , thought himselfe bound in conscience to publish the Emperours law , although in some part it seemed to disagree with Gods Law ; and that forsooth , least hee should be found guilty of disloyalty toward his prince . S. R. As for the place which Bell citeth , he speaketh not there of the subiection , duety , or obedience of a subiect to his prince , but of a seruant to his maister , ( as he had bene to Mauritius whiles they were both pruiate men ) which himselfe plainely professeth in the beginning of his Letter in these wordes ; In this suggestion I speake not as Byshop , nor as subiect , by reason of the common-wealth , but by priuate right of my owne , because you haue beene my Lord since that time when as yet you were not Lord of all . And therefore by the foresayde words he meaneth no otherwise , then a louing seruant doeth , when vpon curtesie to his old maister , though he haue left him , yet he still calleth him maister , and offereth himselfe and his seruice at his command . T. B. My reply standeth thus . First , that Pope Gregory or Gregory then Byshop of Rome , spake of that obedience which a subiect oweth to his prince . I proue it ; first , because hee saith , he rendred his obedience to the Emperor , and concealed not what he thought on Gods behalfe . Secondly , because a few lines afore , hee telleth the Emperour vvhat preferment Christ had bestovved on him , and what honor he had done vnto him ; among which this was one , that he had committed his priestes to his charge , Sacerdotes meos 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 vvithdrawe your souldiors from my seruice ? By vvhich words it is apparant , that Gregory yeelded his obedience , as he vvas a Byshop or priest ; and it skilleth not , that he saith in the beginning of the Epistle , I speake not as Byshoppe , but in mine ovvne priuate right : the reason is euident , because the publishing of a vvicked Lavv , did not pertaine to him as hee vvas a Byshop ( whose office is to preach Gods word , and to administer his Sacraments ) but as a priuate man subiect vnto his prince : And therefore he answered in his ovvn priuate right , that it was not agreeable to Gods vvill , yet did hee publish the same , to shevv his allegeance to his soueraign . S. R. Moreouer , Bell writeth that Barbarians possessed all Italy from the yeere 471. vntill Charles the great 801. how then saith he heere , that Popes liued vnder Emperors vntill the yeare 603. T. B. First , our Popes liue not alwaies at Rome , for they haue many times beene driuen from thence , & liued els where : and shall we thereupon conclude , that therefore they ceased to be Popes ? no papist will admit it . Secondly , though the Aliens and Barbarians did a long time possesse all Italy , yet did the Byshops of Rome euer acknowledge their duety and allegeance vnto the Emperour . Thirdly , when the Pope is deade , in the Interim while another is chosen , doe not the papistes acknowledge the Popes supremacy ? I weene they do . If S. R. shall denie it , I vvill vse another argument against him . Euen so , when the Emperors were not at Rome ; yea , when there was no Christian Emperour at all , the Byshops acknowledged the right of his soueraignty . Fourthly , vvhen I say , that Popes or Byshops of Rome liued in duetifull subiection , to the Emperours of Rome , more then six hundred yeares after Christs sacred incarnation , euery childe knovveth the meaning ; viz. that no Bishop during that time , denyed the Emperours supereminent power ouer him . Lastly , the Iesuite to further his lying , hath falsifyed both my words and my meaning . Now , where I cited S. Ambrose , Euthymius , Hugo Cardinalis , Lyra , Aquinas , and the popish glosse ; our masked Iesuite ansvvereth roundly , though impudently and vnclerkly , that all the said writers speake of superiority in Temporall matters ; but hee can bring for himselfe , neither Scripture , Counsell , Father , nor reason . We must accept and be content with his bare word : For to the Pope and his Iesuites , no man may say , Curitafacis ? Why dost thou so ? The Popes owne decrees tell vs plainly , that though the Pope be neuer so vvicked , though he carry thousands of soules with himselfe head-long into hell ; yet for all that may no man take vpon him to iudge the Pope , vnlesse he be an Hereticke : the reason is yeelded by their own deare Doctor Gerson , because forsooth Christ hath written in his thing , ( the King of Kinges and Lorde of Lords ) to whom no man may say , why dooest thou so . Of whose power it is sacrilege to reasō or dispute . To thee alone ( saieth Cardinall Hugo ) haue I sinned , beecause there is not any aboue mee , but thy selfe alone , that hath power to punish me . For I am a King , and so besides thee ( O God ) there is none aboue me . Al the aforenamed writers teach the felfesame Doctrine , viz. that the Pope or Byshop of Rome , is so farre from hauing power to depose Kings and Emperors , that hee himselfe ought to bee subiect to them , & hath no authority at al to punish them . What can be more plainely spoken ? What Testimonies can be more manifest ? What Doctrine can be clearer ? for if none but God be superior to the king ; if none but God can iudge the King ; if none but GOD can punnish the King , all which , both Auncient Fathers and the Popes owne deere Doctors affirme , as I haue often proued at large in the Downfall of Popery ; then doubtles can not the Pope depose the king ; then can he not absolue his subiects from their allegeance ; then can hee not translate Empires and Kingdomes , and bestowe the same at his owne pleasure . This notwithstanding , the popes parasites to his good liking , tell vs another tale in these wordes . Sicut non est potestas nisi à Deo , sic nec aliqua temporalis vel ecclesiastica , imperialis vel regalis , nisi à papa . As there is no power but of God , so is there neither any temporall , nor Ecclesiasticall , neyther imperiall nor Regal , but of the Pope . S. R. ONly I say , that Iosue was no king , nor the Scripture affordeth any colour of saying , that any High-priest was deposed by any of the saide Kinges , except Abiath●r by Salomon : and yet as it is gathered out of the fourth ch . ( where he is accounted priest in Salomons raigne ) Salomon deposed him not , but only for a time confined him to his house , for his conspiracy with Adonias , and so debarred him for executing his priestly function : And though hee had deposed him , he had not done it as King , but as Prophet , fulfilling ( as the scripture testifieth ) the prophesie against the house of Hely , from whence Abiathar discended . T. B. AFter I had proued at large by many authorities , that Kinges haue supereminent power ouer Byshops , not Byshops ouer Kinges ; I added for a confirmation thereof , that the good Kinges , Iosue , Dauid , Salomon , Iehosophat , Ezechias and Iosias , knew ●ight well , that they had authority aboue all the priestes ; and therefore they tooke vpon them , not only to command and controll the priestes , but also to depose them from theyr places and functions : yea , euen the High-priests themselues , when their desertes did so require . Which point I auouched to be proued at large , in my Golden ballance of tryall . To this discourse S. R. answereth foure thinges . First , that Iosue was no king . Secondly , that no High-priest was deposed by any of the saide Kinges . Thirdly , that Abiathar the High-priest , was not deposed by king Salomon , but onely confined to his house . Fourthly , that if king Salomon had deposed Abiathar , yet had he not done it as king , but as Prophet . My reply is this . First , that to deny Iosue to be king , is a vaine cauill , and argueth lacke of matter in our Iesuites answere : for Iosue had the thing , though not the name : he was the Ciuil independent Magistrate , and had the chiefe and supereminent power ouer the Isralites his Subiects ; as Moses whom he succeeded had , and the other Kings , Dauid , Salomon , Iosaphat , Ezekias , and Iosias . In regard whereof , he was and may bee truely reckoned , with and among the other kings . But when good reasons cannot bee had , such Beggerly cauils must supply the want . Secondly , that it is a most notorious slander against the holy Scripture , and consequently á notable blasphemy against God himselfe ; to say , and desperately to avouch in a printed Booke , that no High-priest was deposed by any of the said Kinges . These are the expresse wordes of holie writ . Eiecit ergo Salomon Abiathar , vt non esset sacerdos domini . Therefore Salomon cast out or deposed Abiathar ( the high Priest ) that he should not be the Priest of the Lord. Again holy writ hath these expresse wordes . Et Sadoc sacerdote posuit pro Abiathar , and the King put Sadoc the Priest , in the roome of Abiathar . Loe the holy scripture telleth vs two things most plainly and expressely ; and that is done euen in that Latin 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 , that king Salomon deposed Abiathar , and for confirmation heereof , the same scripture addeth , that Sadoc the priest , was set in his roome . Fourthly , to say as the Iesuite doeth , that Salomon deposed Abiathar not as King , but as prophet , is to speake at randon , and to make of scripture a nose of wax , for no one Text from the first of Genesis to the last of the Apocalipse , doth iustifie this fond and sottish answer of the masked Iesuite ; albeit , I know this to bee true , that he wanted not the aduise and counsell of his best learned Brethren . Whosoeuer desireth further in sight into this subiect , and of the soueraignty of kings ouer priests and Byshops , which are their subiects ; if he peruse my Golden ballance of tryall , I hope in God , it will satisfie his desire . CHAP. 4. ¶ Containing a confutation of the sixt Chapter of the masked Iesuite . THe Iesuite in his sixt Chapter and first article , is wholly occupied in impertinent matters , and foolish demaunds , not once touching directly ought that I haue written : but let vs heare him once againe , and so proceed to another Chapter . S. R. Because the question is not , vpon what cause Kings and Emperors humbled themselues to the Popes , but whether they did or no : And because they haue so done ( as Bell confesseth ) Catholicks infer the Pope to be their superior . Vnlesse perhaps Bell thinke blinde zeale to disanul euery fact or guift ; and so say , the Iewes persecuted not the Church , because they did it vpon blind zeale ; nor our Catholique ancestors gaue any liuings to Churches , because they did it vpon blind zeale ( as Bell must thinke ) for maintainance of Papistry . T. B. O shamelesse and impudent Iesuite ? Is the question only what was done ? Where is thy wit ? Where is thy faith ? Where is thy Religion ? Doth not your Angellicall Doctor Aquinas teach you , that all morall Acts haue their specification of the end and finall cause ? Doth not Scotus , Ockamus , Gabriel , Iosephus , Durandus , and all the rest approue the same Doctrine ? How sayest thou then , O blind Iesuit , that the question is not vpon what cause kinges humbled themselues to the Popes , but whether they did or no , ô Tempora ! ô Mores ! Doth not alms ( otherwise a commendable act ) degenerate into sinne , when it is giuen for vaine glory ? And this onely , because the ende and cause for which it is giuen , is nought and vnlawfull ? Dooeth not Christs Apostle tell thee , that whatsoeuer is not of fayth is sinne ? That whatsoeuer is done , ought to bee done to to the glory of God ? Alas , alas , euery childe that hath but learned the rudiments of Christianity , can roundly tel our Iesuite , that we must not so much respect what is done , as what ought of right to be done . We may not reason as our Iesuite Parsons doth ( for he is the man ) the thing was don , therefore lawfully done . Kings yeelded supreame authority to the Pope , therefore they did it lawfuly . By that kind of Logicke or rather Legierdemain , all theftes , all robberies , all Rebellions , all mischiefes vnder heauen , may bee iustifyed and defended . You Iesuites , and your Iesuited pope-lings , do take part with the Pope against your annointed Soueraigne ; and so by this new ( no Diuinity ) the pope is our King and Superiour . For thus you reason , beecause Kings haue so done , the Pope is their Superiour . For the question is not , vpon whose grounde they did so , but whether they did so or no. For by your Theology , if the thing be done , it is lawfully done , but what ? Bell perhaps thinkes , that blinde zeale dissanulleth euery fact , and so neither the Iewes persecuted the Church , nor our papistes gaue any liuing to the Church , because they did it ( as Bell must thinke ) vpon blind zeale . O monster of al Monsters ? ô Child of perdition ? ô sonne of the Deuill ? Bell saith not , that blind zeale disanulleth any act . Bell saith not , that papists gaue no liuings to the Church . Bell saith not , that the Iewes did not persecute the Church . No , no , it is the deuill in our Iesuite , that mooues him thus falsly to slaunder Bell. It is one thing to say , the papists gaue liuinges to the Church vpon a blinde zeale ; another thing to say , they gaue nothing at all . The former I say , the latter I denie : & therefore , when you papists labour to proue the popes soueraignty ouer Kings , because some Kings , haue acknowledged it , vpon a blind zeale ; I answer , that your proofe is of no force , not for that such thinges haue not bin done ; but because they were not done , as they should , & ought to haue bin done . You papists haue submitted your selues to be the Popes , and the King of Spaines subiects , as Story alledged for himselfe at his arraignment ; and consequently by Popish Diuinity , you may take vp armes against king Iames our most gracious Soueraigne , and bee no Traytors in so doing . For as you write with your pennes , so doe you beleeue in your harts , and practise in your liues . Your late Treason of Gunne-powder , to say nothing of all the rest , makes it euident to the world . God saue our Noble King Iames , & deliuer him from your bloudy hands : for though you speake well of him with your tongue , yet do yee wish in your harts to do him the greatest wrong . S. R. THat Emperours haue acknowledged the Popes superiority , Bell himselfe confesseth , where hee saith , that some Christian Kings and Emperours , haue vpon a blinde 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 , vvho haue humbled themselues , and yeelded their Soueraigntie to him ? T. B. This is my reply . First , that one may yeeld vp some part of his Soueraignty to another , and for all that remaine & still continue that others Superior . The case is cleere , it needeth no proofe . If the Iesuite will not yeeld to this , he must perforce yeeld to that , which will confound both him and the Pope , viz : that the pope is superior to the Emperor , euen in Temporalibus . The reason is euident , because the Pope challengeth the Temporall soueraigne right of Italy , and the free donation of the Emperor . Secondly , if euery one that humbleth himselfe to another , becommeth by and by that others inferiour ; then doubtles , the priest that is confessary to the Pope , becommeth the popes superiour : For to answere , that the Pope doth not humble himselfe to his ghostly father , is not onely absurd , but flat against the Popes religion : And yet our Iesuite disputeth thus . Catholiques argue , that Kinges and Emperors haue acknowledged Popes their superiors . This Bell graunteth , in confessing their humiliation to Popes , which is neuer done but to superiors . Alas , alas , I pittie the Iesuites folly . For first , in Popery , euery king humbleth himselfe to a silly priest : Ergo , the priest is the kings superiour . Againe , euerie papist humbleth himselfe , to Images ▪ dead bones , and especially to the wood of the crosse ; yea , sometimes to the bones of an Heretique , as I haue proued in the Article of traditions . Ergo , Images , dead bones , wood , &c. are superiors to the Papists . Thirdly , the Papists are commanded to humble themselues to that , which the Priest holdeth ouer his head at Masse ; which by their Doctrine , if it lacke consecration , ( as it may many waies fall out , ) is but a bare piece of bread . Ergo a piece of Bakers bread , is their superior . Fourthly , Pope Siluester the second sometime a Monke , a Frenchman borne , Gilbertus by name , humbled himselfe to the deuill , & yeelded homage to him , so long as the deuill accomplished his desire . This story is set downe at large in my Suruey of Poperie . Now , that the deuill of hell was and is his superior , both to this Pope and to many others , I admit your argument with all applause . Fiftly , kings do often humble themselues to their subiects : Ergo , their subiects are their superiors . Sixtly , the Emperor humbleth himselfe many times , euen vnto those that owe duety to him : Ergo his inferiors , become his superiors . Lastly , Absalom when any man came neere vnto him and did him obeysance , put forth his hand , and tooke him , and kissed him , and on this manner did Absalom to al Israel , that came to the King for Iudgement . Ergo , euerie man in Israel , was Absaloms superiour . But the contrarie is the truth , and our Iesuite a most notorious lyar . CHAP. 5. ¶ Conteyning the confutation of the seuenth Chapter of S. R. that masked Iesuite . S. R. VIctoria saith , that the glossers of the Lavve haue giuen this Dominion to the Pope , they being poore in substance and learning . Here insteede of proofes , I find an vntruth . For neyther doth Victoria in these wordes speake of many things , but onely of Dominion , meaning Temporall ouer the whole world ; neyther yet doeth hee call it absurd . T. B. I answere ; first , that I cited Victorias words truely after my wonted manner , neuer adding or changing one word in my Author . Secondly , that I added these wordes ( and these Lordly Titles ) not in the Latine , but in the English ; not simplie , but with a parenthesis ; that the Reader might know , I did it for explication sake : which thing is vsuall , not onely to our Iesuite , but to all other writers . Thirdly , Victoria ( as I haue expresly shewed elsewhere ) speaketh of many Lordly titles , ascribed to the Pope . But our Iesuite granteth enough , ( viz : ) the dominion ouer the whole world , and all power both Ecclesiasticall and temporall on earth . For if the Pope haue all , Kings can haue none . Fourthly , maister Gerson , a man of high esteeme in the Popish church , saith plainly , ( as our Iesuite granteth ) and I affirme ; that all power both in heauen & on earth , which Christ himselfe had , is giuen to the Pope . What needes more ? This is flat blasphemy against the sonne of God. Fiftly , our Iesuite denyeth in one page , that which hee granteth in another , concerning the Popes power . The sound of the Bell , maketh him forget himselfe . Chapter . 6. ¶ Containing the confutation of the 8. and 9. chapters of the Iesuite S. R. touching eight steps of the Popes ladder . S. R. COnstantine ( saith Bell ) at his departure did as the popes Parasites tell vs , giue large guifts to the Pope , euen his whole power , dominion and territories , both in Rome , Italy , and all the West . Behold a man hauing a Wolfe by the care , which he dare neyther hold , nor yet let go . For , if he graunt , that Constantine gaue the Pope his whole power and dominion , ouer Rome , Italy , and all the West , he must needes grant , that the Pope of right hath Imperiall power ouer all the west : if he deny it , he sheweth not how Constantines departure , was a step for the Pope to climbe to higher authority . T. B. If Robert Parsons that Trayterous Iesuite , who dareth not tell his name , but hydeth it vnder S. R. be a wolfe indeed , as I suppose he is ; then doubtlesse I haue him by the eares , legges , nose , and all , and so fast bound with linkes and chaines of yron , as the Pope and all his Iesuited Vassals , are neuer able to deliuer him out of my handes . For albeit Constantine that most Noble Emperor , gaue not the Pope his whole power and Dominion ouer Rome , Italy , and all the West , nor any part thereof ; yet doth it follow consequently , that his departure from Rome to Constantinople , was the first step to Popish falsly supposed Primacie . The reason is euident , because the Emperor being farre off at Constantinople in the East , the false pretended donation frō 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 ; ) that whosoeuer the Clergy , 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 , 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 . 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 actū erat , nisi eius electionē imper . approbasset . This was one cause , why Pelagius was thē 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 in the East , about the yeare 756. at what time Pipin being called into Italy by Pope Steuen 2. to deliuer Rome frō 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 , 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 : 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 , Leo pontifex Rom considerans imperatores Constantinopolitanas agre ad nomen tueri , & ob eam rem vrbē 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 , 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 , 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. 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 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 , 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 , 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 . 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 ) 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 . 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 , 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 , 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 deū 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 , 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. 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 , 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 autē 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 vvere 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 , vanity , and leasinges . His first lye is this ? That the glosse saith not , de nihilo , but , de nullo . The second lie is this ; that I affirme the glosse to say , in all cases , and at all times . The third lye is this ; that the words by me alledged are taken out of Iustinian . The 4. lie is this , that the glosse speaketh of Ciuill contracts . Lies abundant for one short sentēce . And why doth our Iesuit thus shamefully heap lyes vpon lyes ? Doubtles because he now seeth the halter about the Popes necke , & the Pope ready for his trechery to be hanged on the Gallowes ; as one that is conuicted , by the flat Testimony of his owne sworne Vassals , of most notorious blasphemy against the sonne of God. For first , to make of nothing something , is vndoubtedly propper to the blessed Trinity , the Father , the sonne , and the Holy-ghost , three in distinction of persons , and one in Vnity of substance . And consequently , if the Pope can make something of nothing , he must perforce be another God. This consequence our Iesuit and his Pope dare not admit in verball phrase , although they practise it in reall act ; and that the truth may euidently appeare , beecause it is a matter of great consequence , I will examine euery parcell of the Iesuites aunswere , seuerally by it selfe . S. R. The glosse saith not , the Pope can make de nihilo aliquid , but , de nullo aliquid . T. B. This is a most notorious lye , & I referre my selfe for the truth hereof to al indifferent Readers , that haue the popes decretals , and can read and vnderstand the same . And if the glosse say not de nihilo , as I affirme , but de nullo , as our Iesuite saith ; let me be discredited for euer . Oh sweet Iesus ? Who could euer thinke that the Papists would bee so impudent , as to deny the expresse words of the text . Nay , I will proue it by the circumstances , to the Iesuites euerlasting shame and confusion . For first , if the assertion were borrowed from the ciuill law , and meant of ciuill contracts , pacts , or stipulations , as our Iesuite impudently auoucheth , ( but against his owne conscience , if he haue any left ) then shuld it not be aliquid , but aliquod ; as euery meane Gramarian , can and will testifie with me . Againe , the glosse saith , the Pope can change the Nature of thinges , by applying the substance of one thing to another . But doubtlesse , when the Emperor maketh that to be a ciuill contract , which afore was none ; hee doeth not apply the substance of one thing to another , but onely commandeth his subiects to accept that for a law , which before was none . Thirdly , no mortall man can apply the substance of one thing to another , and so change the nature thereof . Although the Pope take vppon him , to chaunge bread into Christs body . And therefore , when the glosse addeth immediately ; ( and of nothing he can make something , ) hee meaneth of that diuine power , which is propper to GOD alone . Like as Antoninus affirmed , ( as is already proued ) that the Pope doth challenge power , super omne quodcunque est , ouer euery thing whatsoeuer is and hath any being ; and consequently , ouer God himselfe . And so , whether he be Antichrist or no , I referre it to the iudgement of the Reader ; for if the Pope be aboue God , I dare not take vpon my selfe to bee his iudge . Neither will it serue to say , that Saint Antoninus doth not affirm the Pope to be aboue God. For though he say not so expressely , yet doth hee affirme so much virtually ; when he telleth vs , that hee is aboue euery thing that hath being . For God hath not only a being , but such a supereminent being , as surpasseth all intelligence , and is the cause of the being of all creatures . S. R. Neither yet in all cases , and at all times , as Bell addeth . T. B. If our Iesuite were not intrinsecally as it were made of lying , he would neuer for shame delight so much therein . These are my wordes in my Booke ; and yet the truth is , that as man can in some cases at some time make one thing of another ; so in all cases , at all times , to make something of nothing , is proper to God alone . Yet the lying and impudent Iesuite , not able to encounter me , nor to gainesay my proofes and reasons , laboreth with might & maine to disgrace me with the Reader , & to get the victory with flat lying . Our slanderous and rayling Iesuite , reporteth my wordes in this manner ; for saith Bell ) it is a thinge proper to God , to make something of nothing in al cases , and at al times . So then , all that I said was this ; ( viz ) That though man can at sometime in some cases , make one thing of another ; yet to make of nothing something , is proper to GOD alone , neither is man able to performe the same . S. R. The foresaide words are taken out of Iustinian , where the Emperor saith , that because he can make to be accounted a stipulation , where none is , much more hee can an insufficient stipulation to be sufficient . T. B. The foresaid words cannot bee found in Iustinian : it is a lye with a witnes . The Popish Religion cannot be defended , but with falshood , deceit , and leasings . The residue is confuted already . S. R. Which Bell would apply to creation , and the making of Creatures of nothing , as God made the world . T. B. I both would and haue applyed it so in very deed ; and I haue proued it so sufficiently , as the Iesuit cannot tel what to say to the same : and therefore did he bethink him , to betake himselfe to his accustomed art of Lyeng . The second Article ; Touching the Masse . Chapter first . ¶ Of the reall presence of Christs body in the popish Masse . S. R. THough saint Thomas teach , that Christes quantity is also in the Sacrament ; yet affirmeth hee it not as a point of faith . In like manner Bellarmine , in the place which Bell citeth , teacheth ( and truly ) that Christes quantity is in the Sacrament , but not with Bels addition , As a point of Fayth . T. B. Here I perceiue , I haue an Eele by the tayle ; Anguis est , elabitur . Doe our Papists teach that , which they beleeue not to be true ? And doe they that in the Sacrifice of their most holy so supposed Masse ? Who would haue beleeued it , if our Iesuite Parsons had not said it ? But good Sir , tell me this ? Doe you teach that of your reall presence , in your holy Masse , which ye beleeue not to be true ? Then doubtlesse your silly subiects , your Iesuited Papists , haue neede to looke to your fingers . Then must they remēber Christs rule ; Beware of false prophets , which come to you in sheepes cloathing , but inwardly are rauening Wolues . And if you teach vs as ye beleeue , then must your doctrin be an article of your faith . Againe ; two Popes , Vrbanus the fourth , and Innocentius the fifth haue confirmed Aquinas his Doctrine for Authenticall ; and strictly commaunded to admit and receiue all that he hath written , for a meer vndoubted truth . It followeth therefore by a necessary consecution , that the quantity of Christs body to be in the Popish Masse , is an article of popish faith . S. R. Let vs see therefore , how Bell disproueth it : Forsooth , because it implyeth contradiction for a greater body as Christs is , to be contained in a lesser , as in a Cake . Behold the foundation of Bels faith . We bring Christs expresse wordes , that what he gaue to his Apostles at his last supper , was his body giuen , and his bloud shed , for remission of sinnes . T. B. Our Iesuite flyeth quite from my argument ( because it striketh him dead ) and laboureth to proue that Christes body is in the Sacrament . But all in vaine : For first , that is not now in question . Againe , he is to answere me , and not to wander about impertinent matters . Thirdly , I haue answered all that he obiecteth here , as also all that can be obiected on their behalfe , in my Suruey of Popery many yeares ago : to which no Papist durst euer frame an answer vnto this day . Fourthly , I willingly grant , the holy bread in the blessed Eucharist to be Christes body , and the holy wine to be his bloud ; yet not really and substantially , as the Papists hold ; but mystically and sacramentally , according to the truth of Gods word . And I retort the Iesuites reason out of Christes wordes , against himselfe . For , if Christ had not meant , that his body was then giuen sacramentally , and not really ; he would haue said ( which shall be giuen ) not which is giuen , in the Present tense . I proue it ; because , if Christs body had then beene giuen really , and his bloud then shed really for the sinnes of the world ; no other Sacrifice , attonement , satisfaction , or reconciliation had beene needfull on our behalfe : which how absurd it is , euery childe can discerne . Christs meaning therfore is this ; This is my body sacramentally , Or this is the sacrament of my body and bloud : but not , This is my naturall body , and my reall bloud . He that desireth the profe hereof at large , I refer him to my Suruey of Popery . S. R. But to come to Bels reason : How proueth he it to bee contradiction , for a greater bodie to bee contayned in a lesse ? T. B. Heere our Iesuite bestirreth himselfe to proue if it wold be , that Christs body is not both contained and not contained in their Sacrament ; but all in vaine . For his proofes ( if they were true , as they be falfe ) would onely conclude this , and nothing else ; viz. that God is able to do it . S. R. For albeit it be contradiction for a greater body occupying a place proportionate to it greatnes , to be conteyned in a lesse , ( for so it should both be contained and not contained in the lesse , ) yet no contradiction at all it is , for a greater body retayning it greatnes , to be so coarcted by Gods omnipotency , that it fill a place farre lesse , then is naturally due or proportionate to it greatnes . For in this case it followeth not , that it should both be contained , & not contained in the lesser bodie , ( as in the former case , ) but contained onely . And thus we say , hath Christ disposed of his bodie in the Sacrament . Wee proue it by manie waies . T. B. I aunswere , with all subiection and due reuerence vnto Gods omnipotent power , that God cannot doe any thing which eyther implyeth contradiction in it selfe , or imperfection in God. Not because there is any defect in GOD himselfe , ( God forbid wee should so thinke ) but because there is defect in the thing that should so be done . By reason of the former , God cannot make a dead man remayning dead to be liuing ; albeit he can raise a dead man to life againe . So neyther can God make a blinde man remaining blinde to see , nor a deafe man remaining deafe to heare ; nor a dumbe man remaining dumbe to speake ; albeit he can restore seeing to the blinde , hearing to the deafe , and speech to the dumbe . By reason of the latter , God can neyther make another God , nor any creature equall to himselfe , nor commit any sinne , nor faile in his promise , nor repent of any thing that he hath done . Now , to coarct a great body so , retaining it greatnes still , that it may be conteined in a lesse body , implyeth flat contradiction ; not for the reason which our Iesuite bringeth , but because it is against the intrinsecall reason and the very Essence of quantity , which is to haue partē extra partem , one part without another . And consequently , our Iesuits supposed coarctation , implyeth flat contradiction . For it is impossible to conceiue or vnderstand , how a body eight cubits long , and eight cubits broad , remaining so long & so broad , hauing euery part without other , to be contayned of another body , being but seuen cubits long , and seuen cubits broad . It implyeth as flat contradiction , as to make a deafe man remaining deafe to heare . It is therefore impossible to all power , both create and vncreate ; to make Christs body to be contained in a little round cake , in the Popish Masse . S. R. First , because Christs body in his natiuity , opened not his Virgin-mothers wombe . Ergo , then it occupyed not a roome , naturally proportionate to the greatnesse . The consequence is euident , and the antecedent is proued by many fathers . T. B. I deny both the consequence , and the antecedent . The consequence , because if it were as the Iesuite supposeth , ( which I deny ) yet should Christes body haue occupied a roome , naturally proportionate to the greatnes thereof . And our Iesuite denying it , vnawares affirmeth all Children to be vnnaturally in their mothers wombes . The antecedent , because Christ opened his mothers wombe as other children do . For first , Christ was presented to the Lord according to the Law , as the Holy-ghost dooth record ; yet the Lawe required such presentation , onely of them , which opened their mother wombe . Secondly , Christ was made like vnto his Brethren in all things , sin onely excepted . Thirdly , the auncient Fathers , Tertullian , Origen , Ambrose , and Hierome , are of the same opinion . Their expresse words are set downe at large in my Suruey of Popery . And it will not serue the turne , to say as some do , that though Christ was borne of a Virgin , yet should she haue bene corrupted , & no Virgin , if her wombe had beene opened in the byrth of Christ. For first , not onely holy writ , but the auncient Fathers also , and other learned Deuines , are to be heard before all Physitions , in the misteries of our faith . Secondly , Fernetius maketh nothing for the Papistes , as who speaketh only of the dilatation of the Matrice , & that after the naturall and ordinary course . Thirdly , albeit it be most true , ( as all holy Writers with vniforme assent do contest ) that Christs holy Mother the blessed Virgin Mary , was euer a pure Virgin , before his birth , in his birth , and after his birth ; yet it is likewise true , that her wombe was opened in his byrth , as is already proued . For as their owne Angellicall D. sayth , ( whose Doctrine sundry Popes one after another haue confirmed ) Virginity is not lost by fraction of the signacle , but by corruption of the minde , and purpose of the will. Saint Augustine hath a learned and large discourse , concerning this onely point of Doctrine ; wherein he sheweth grauely , that the apertion of the matrice , may bee done , sundry waies ; ( viz : ) either by Arte in the way of medicine , or by violence of the corrupter , or by other accidentall means ; and that Virginity this notwithstanding , may be free from all corruption . Much more might Christes most holy mothers wombe , bee opened by his diuine power , and neuerthelesse her most sacred wombe , still remaine inviolable . S. R. God can by his omnipotency bring a Cammell through a Needles eye , as well as a rich man into heauen ; but he can bring a rich man to heauen keeping his riches : Ergo , a Cammell , keeping his greatnes through a Needles eye . T. B. I answere first , that this sillogisme is vnfitly couched , & hangeth together , as Yorke and fowle Sutton . Secondly , that the consequence is so against all rules of Logicke , as the framer thereof , is worthy to be hissed out of all schoooles . Thirdly , the Gospell saith indeed , it is easier for a Cammell to passe through the eye of a Needle , then for a rich man to enter into the kingdome of heauen . But no Prophet , no Apostle , no Epistle , no Gospell sayth , as our Iesuite doth . For as these wordes , ( keeping his riches ) are the Scripture of our sawcie Popeling , but not the holy scripture ; so also are these words , ( keeping his greatnes , ) the inuention of his own brain . And therfore I must salute him with these words of the holy Apostle ; though we , or an Angell from heauen preach any other Gospell to you , then that which we haue preached to you , let him be accursed . Fourthly , that by the word ( Camell ) may be vnderstood a cable rope , and not a beast . For the Greeke word is indifferent to them both . Cauinius obseruerh out of the Thalmudists , that it is a prouerbial phrase , by which Christ doth insinuate vnto vs , that rich men do not without great difficulty enter into heauen . Fiftly , that a Camell keeping his greatnes still , cannot possibly by any power passe through a Needles eye , the Needle still keeping the former quantity . The reason is euident , because it implyeth flat contradiction , as is already proued . Not for that there is any defect in the omnipotency of God , ( who is able to do more , then mans wit can comprehend ) but because there is repugnance in the thing that should be done . Sixtly , that God can dilate the eie of a Needle so , as a Camell may passe through the same , and that without any preiudice to the naturall quantity of his body . S. R. GOD made the furnace of Babylon , though neuer so hot , not to heat , yea to refresh the three children . Why then can hee not make a great body , to occupy but a smal roome ? For to occupy place is an effect and accident of quantity , as to heat , is of heate . T. B. I thus reply ; first , Scripture is to our Iesuite as a nose of wax . He addeth to it , and taketh away from it , as seemeth good in his owne conceit . For , that fire did refresh the 3. Haebrewes , no Scripture doth affirme . Secondly , whether to occupy place be an effect and accident of quantity , or no , because it is diuersly holden of diuers learned men , and nothing pertinent to our controuersie , transeat for the present . For , whether occupying of place be intrinsecall or extrinsecall to quantity , it skilleth not for this matter , and this question nowe in hand . The reason is euident , because to haue partem extrapartem one part without another , is by vniforme assent of al learned Writers , as well of Phylosophers as of Diuines , so intrinsecall and essentiall vnto quantity , as it can by no power , neither create , nor vncreate , be taken away from it . And this is the cause , not occupation of place , why christs body beeing greater , cannot bee contained in the Popish round cake . This was my former reason , and it stands stil vntouched , neither can all the Iesuites in the worlde , euer yeelde a sound answere to the same . For if they could , it shoulde now haue beene performed . Because our Iesuite hath had the best aduice and helpe , that any of them could possibly make him . Heere by the way I 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 . 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 propriē : sed tenendū hoc esse solum authoritate Ecclesiae , quae ita verba consecrationis declarat . We gather out of the conclusion and proofes which father à Castro bringeth , that Caietane must be read warily , who saith , that there appeareth not any coactiue thing in the Gospell , by which we may conuince Heretiques to vnderstande these wordes , This is my body , properly . But wee must hold this to be onely of the authority of the Church , which so declareth the words of consecration . Thus writeth Iosephus Angles , out of whose words , I note first , that Caietane who was a learned man , a Domincan Fryer , and sometime Cardinal of Rome , must be read warily . Secondly , the cause for which he must be warily read , and that consisteth of these two heads . First , that no Text in the whole Gospel can be produced , which conuinceth these words ( This is my Body ) to be vnderstood properly . Marry sir , it is high time indeed , to read this Cardinal warily , for if his words were wel knowne and marked of all Papists , I weene they would forsake the Pope , thicke and threefold ; If these words ( this is my body ) be not vnderstood properly , as Cardinall Caietane telleth vs ; then doubtlesse farewell the Popish reall presence : then downe with the Pope , then downe with Popish Masse and at all . Secondly , Cardinall Caietane telleth vs plainely , that it is not the scripture , but the authority of the Pope or Church ( which is all one in effect ) that causeth vs so to vnderstande these words ( this is my body . ) If this Cardinall durst haue sayde all he thought against the Popes doctrine , it seemeth , he would haue tolde vs more . Now , let the Reader Iudge , whether I haue wronged Caietan and Angles , or the Iesuit hath wronged me . S. R. Aquinas ( saith Bell ) affirmeth constantly , corpus christi non esse in pluribus locis simul , secundum proprias dimensiones . That Christs body is not in many places at once , according to the proper dimensions thereof . Whose assertion ( sayeth Bell ) is my flat position . T. B. It is most true , that both Aquinas teacheth so , & that Bel flatly holdeth the same Doctrine . And it is also true , that Aquinas elsewhere contradicteth himselfe , as God willing , shall by and by appeare . S. R. But Bell herein , 1. contradicteth himselfe . 2. belyeth S. Thomas . 3. vnderstandeth him not . T. B. Let vs heare his dispute , And marke it well . S. R. He contradicteth himselfe . For before he said , Aquinas holde constantly as an Article of the Christian fayth , that the true body of Christ is truely and really in the Sacrifice of the masse ; and now he saith , that he affirmeth constantly an assertion , which is Bels flat position to the contrarie . Howe can Aquinas holde constantlie two contradictorie points ? T. B. Marke gentle Reader , for Christes sake , and then shalt thou see , that our Iesuit hath nothing in him but falshood , lying , and Hypocrisie . The Iesuite will needs haue me to contradict my selfe , because Aquinas contradicteth himselfe . What equity ? What charity ? What reason is in this man ? I charge them in my Motiues and elsewhere , with manifold dissentions and contradictions : plainely telling them , that if they would be consonant to their writinges , then we and they should soone agree . But our Iesuite cannot endure , to heare himselfe and his fellowes confounded by their owne writings . Now let vs see , who vnderstandeth Aquinas aright . Aquinas holdeth , that Christs body is in the popish cake , and withal , that one body cannot be in two places at once . Our Iesuite would reconcile this apparant contradiction thus . Aquinas meaning saith he , is plaine and euident . For hee thinketh Christs owne dimensions to bee the cause of his being in that place , where he is naturally ; and the dimensions of the bodie which is Transubstantiated , the cause of his being , where he is Sacramentally . Here our Iesuite first taketh vppon him , to tell what men thinke ; which is proper to God alone . Then he feyneth a distinction , of a double being of Christes body . For if we once take away feyning , Popery will soone come to mourning . Christes owne dimensions , sayth our Iesuite , are the cause of Christs naturall being ; but the dimensions of the bread changed and Transubstantiated into Christs body , ( O horrible blasphemy , ) are the cause of Christes sacramentall being . The Papists hold generally , that the accidents of bread in their consecrated host or cake , remaine there without a subiect . But heere we haue another tale : viz. That they are in Christs body . Most miserable is that Doctrine , which must be maintained with such beggerly shifts . Well , I will prooue with one insoluble argument , that Christs body cannot be in many places at once . Vnum est indiuisum , in se , & diuisum à quocunque alio . One , ( as all lerned men do grant , ) is that which is vndiuided in it selfe , and diuided from euery other thing . But , if Christs body can be in many places at once , it is both diuided in it selfe , and vndiuided from other things ; Ergo , it neither is nor can be in many places at once . When our Iesuite shall truly answere to this argument , he will deserue a Cardinalles hat ; and I verily thinke , that the Pope for the time being , will willingly bestowe it on him . Marry withall I adde this ; that I would not for the Popedome , be bounde too fast till that time . Here for the better clearing of this controuersie , I will propound an Obiection , which seemeth to make for the Papists , at least in Popish sence and meaning . The Obiection . Two adequate bodies may be in one place at once , and yet neither the place be deuided into two places , nor yet the bodies transformed or confounded into one body : Ergo , à simili , one body may be in two places at once ( as Christs body in many thousand Altars at popish Masse , ) and yet neyther the body deuided into two places , neyther the two places contracted into one . T. B. When you ( O Iesuite ) shall be able to proue the Antecedent , which will be ad Calendas Graecas , when men vse to clip Pigges and Rats ) I will yeeld vnto you . S. R. First , in Christs natiuity , two bodies were in one place at once , because Christes body opened not his mothers wombe . 2 Againe , Christ arose out of the sepulchre , the stone not being roled away . 3. Christ came to his disciples when the doores were shut , and so both his body , and the wood of the doore , were in one place at once : Ergo , two bodies may bee in one place at once : and consequently , one body may be in two places at once . T. B. Concerning the opening of the Virgins wombe , I haue answered sufficiently already . For the rolling away of the stone from the Sepulchre ; I answere , that the Angell of God had done it away before Christs resurrection , and had brought it to the mouth of the sepulchre againe . What need many wordes ? the answere of the Angell to the women , doth fully determine this question . He is not here ( saieth the Angell ) for he is risen as he saide . Loe , Christs body was not in the Sepulchre , because Christ was risen : so doeth the Angell reason . But Gods Angell must goe to the schoole againe , to learne to frame his argument in better manner , if one body can bee in two places at once . And why ? for the women might haue said to the Angel. What if he be risen ? Yet may his body be heere stil in the graue . For one body may be in two places at once . But the Angel reasoned thus . He is risen , therfore he cānot be here . Or he not heere , because , he is risen . These are the words of the Ang. oukestin oode , egerthe gar , kathoos eipe . He is not heer , for hee is risen , as he said . Where I obserue , first the assertion simply in it selfe . Secondly , the cause and reason of the same assertion . The assertion is this ; Christ is not in the Sepulchre . The reason heereof is this ; because Christ is risen . Now then , since Christ cannot be in the sepulchre , because he is risen ; it followeth of necessity , that eyther the Angell of God inspired with Gods holy spirit , made a very foolish and friuolous argument ( which to affirme is void of all Christianity ) or else , that Christs body cannot be 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 , 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 . Saint Austen writing to Durandus , hath these words ; cū 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 , 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 . 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 , 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 , 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 occisionē 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 mutationē & destructionem ordinatur , 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 , 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 , 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 . 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 , thē 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 , 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 mās 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 vvhen 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 , ( which doubtles is as foolish as it is old ) that the priest in the popish masse can create his God. God so blesse me and all good Christians , that we neuer harken to such Theology . CHAP. 4. Containing the confutation of the lesuites fourth Chapter of the second Article . IN this fourth Chapter , our Iesuite rehearseth sundry absurdities , which are found in the Popish Masse . But the more hee busieth himselfe to discharge their Masse thereof , the more the same absurdities do increase . Let vs take a tast of one for all . Bell ( saith he ) inferreth , that either Christs Sacrifice was vnperfect in his last Supper , or else that it was needles in his bitter passion on the crosse . To which he answereth , that neyther of both dooth follow . For ( saith he ) Christs Sacrifice at his Supper , was a most perfect vnbloudy Sacrifice ; and yet his Sacrifice on the Crosse was needfull , as the peculiar price which GOD exacted at his handes , for the redemption of the World. Loe , he granteth freely , that Christs Sacrifice at his Supper was most perfect , and yet the heathen Philosopher can tell him , that Perfecto nihil addi potest ; To that which is perfect , nothing can bee added . This notwithstanding , he affirmeth these three things . First , that the Sacrifice on the Crosse was needfull . Secondly , that it was the peculier price which GOD exacted . Thirdly , that it was for the redemption of the world . Which three points being as truely marked and remembred , as they are truely granted ; all but such as are Sensus communis inopes , men without all , both sense & reason , will plainely perceiue , and constantly hold , that Christs Sacrifice at his last Supper , was either imperfect ( vvhich our Iesuite denieth ; ) or else no real sacrifice at al ( which I defend . ) All the rest of the chapter is full of the like vanity ; for consideration whereof , it is enough to peruse The Downefall of Popery . CHAP. 5. Containing the Iesuites confutation , touching Berengarius . VVHere in The downefall of Popery , I related truely the cruell dealing of the Pope and his Popish councell with Berengarius ; our Iesuite would gladly excuse the Pope and his Sinod , but it will not be . S. R. Bell exclaimeth mightily , because Berengarius was compelled to beleeue , that Christ in the Eucharist is sensibly touched , broken with the hands of Priests , & torne with the teeth of the faithfull . T. B. Bell doth so , Idque merito . He hath iust cause so to do . R. S. Neuerthelesse Christes body is said to be toucht , broken , and chewed in the Eucharist , because the signe of bread in which it really is , is so vsed . As GOD is said to haue beene crucified , because the humanity in which hee was , was so handled ; and Christ touched , when his garment was touched . T. B. Heere is all that confessed , which I intended for to prooue . ( viz : ) That the bread of the Eucharist is called Christs body , because it is the signe and Sacrament of his body ; And therefore , that Berengarius was most cruelly and villanously dealt withall , when he was enforced eyther to bee burnt with fire and Fagot , or else to sweare , that he beleeued in his hart , that Christs body was truely touched and broken with the hands of Priests , and truely torne with the teeth of the faithfull . When for all that , many learned Papists , Bellarmine , Melchior Canus , and others , with this our Iesuite , ( who would and dooth say the best he can for the Popes defence , ) do freely graunt , and plainely confesse , that Christes body can neither bee broken with hands , nor yet torne or chewed with teeth . Loe , Berengarius was compelled to beleeue , as an article of his faith , that Christes body was truely , ( in veritate , ) broken with the hands of Priests , and torne with teeth ; and yet the truth is farre otherwise , as both Bellarmine ; Canus , and our Iesuite do confesse . Fie on such religion , hang vp such Popish Faith , accursed be such doctrine . S. R. The holy Fathers , Saint Cyprian , Saint Chrysostome , and others , do teach vs plainlie , that Christs body is broken with hands , and chewed with teeth : yea , Christ himselfe saith , This is my body which is broken . VVill Bell now condemne Christ and these holy Fathers of wickednesse , villany , blasphemy , and horrible impiety ? Nay , will he condemne both English & many forraine Protestants , whose doctrine ( saith he ) is , that Christs body is broken , torne , and consumed with mouth and teeth . Behold ( good Reader . ) For Papists to say , Christs body is touched , broken , and torne , is villany and horrible impiety ; but for Protestants to say the same , and adde consuming too , is good doctrine . T. B. I prooued out of Cardinall Bellarmine , that famous Iesuiticall Fryer , that Christs body cannot bee broken and torne , saue only in a figure or Sacrament . And that by his doctrine , it may be sayd to bee broken and torne , when the signe thereof is broken and torne . Out of whose doctrine , I inferred this golden Colorrary : ( viz : ) that if it be true to say , Christs body is broken and torne , because the signe of his body is broken & torne ; then truely may we say , and truely do we say , that Christes body is in the Eucharist , because the signe of his body is there , because the Sacrament of his bodye is there , because the representation of his body is there . And much more truely might Christ himselfe say , This is my body , when he gaue the signe and Sacrament of his body . I then added , that it is the constant doctrine of the church of England , ( which also many other reformed Churches approoue therein ) that Christs body is receiued , broken , torne , and consumed with mouth & teeth , figuratiuely , significantly , mystycally , sacramentally . And consequently , if the Papistes would be iudged by this doctrine , which by the pen of the Iesuite Bellarmine they heere deliuer , the controuersie would soone bee at an end . Now , I referre my self to the indifferent Reader , whosoeuer he be ; whether the Iesuite S. R. bee an honest man , or no. For first , hee beareth the Reader in hand , that I condemne Christ and the holy Fathers . Secondly , that I condemne both the English Churche , and many forraine Christians . Thirdly , he chargeth mee to hold the same Doctrine , which I vtterly condemne in Popery . Fourthly , he iustifieth the condemnation of Berengarius ; whose doctrine for all that , both Bellarmine and Melchior Canus do iustify , and himselfe vnawares in this chapter . If I should deale with the Papists in this manner , all the world would exclaime against me . If any indifferent Reader shall 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 , 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 , 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 ; thē perforce Iudas should also haue receiued Panē dominū ; thē Iudas could not by any possibility , haue barely receiued Panē 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 , 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 , 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 . 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 figurā 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 brokē 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 , 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 slat 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 , and yet doth things worthy of stripes , shal be beaten with few stripes . 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 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 , 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 , 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 . 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 . 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 vvere 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 , eyther in the act , or else in the Originall . S. R. Saint Austen is so farre from thinking , 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 , that saith he is so holy , that he neede not say the Lordes prayer for himselfe , but for others . S. R. Saint Austen saith , 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 , I haue proued at large in the Downfall , out of fiue seuerall places of his workes , that it is both the punnishment of sinne , the cause of sinne , and sinne it selfe . S. R. As blindnes of hart ( saith Bell out of Austen ) is sinne , punnishment of sinne , and cause of sinne , so concupisence of the flesh is sinne , punnishment , and cause of sin . But I aunswere , that Saint Austen compareth concupisence with blindnesse of heart , in the materiall disorder of sinne . T. B. I answere ; that I know not whether I should pitty the ignorance of our Iesuite , or exclaime against his mallice . For first , Saint Austen cannot bee expounded , as Maister Fryer saith , though Bellarmine his Brother hath lent him his solution . For if Saint Austen had meant materially , & not formally , he would neuer haue called it sin the thirde time , after hee named it twice sinne matterially before , ( viz : ) when he called it the cause of sinne , and the punnishment of sinne . Yet after both these , he addeth , that it is sinne formally . For else he had saide no new thing . Secondly , because our Iesuite confuteth himselfe vnawares , when he writeth thus ; Saint Austen prooueth by the blindnesse of hart , that it was not onely punishment and cause of sinne , but also sinne ; that is , naught , cuill , and disorderly ; because it is against the rule of reason , which is to be sinne materially , though it want the form of sinne , which is voluntarines . This is his answer : Now I pray you Gentle Reader , iudge indifferently between mee and this Fryer . First , hee graunteth that Originall concupisence is naught , euill , and disorderly . Secondly , that it is against the rule of reason , and all that he can say for himselfe is this , that it is indeede sinne materially , but not formally . Where if I may finde an indifferent Reader , the victory is mine own : GOD is my iudge , I speake as I thinke . For to be against the rule of reason , is formally sinne . Which Saint Austen ( as is already proued ) declareth euidently , when he defineth the eternall law to be nothing else , but the reason or will of God. The reason is confirmed , because Saint Austen compareth it with the blindnes of hart , which ( as euery good Christian knoweth , ) is sinne most formally . For if master Fryer Parsons , shall deny blindnesse of heart , thorough which man beleeueth not in God , to bee sinne formally , he will be hissed out of all good schools ; howsoeuer our holy Father the Pope , sitting in his chaire vppon men● shoulders , giue him ten hundred thousand yeares pardon for the same . Nay , I will yet say more to our holy Fryer maister Robert Parsons , ( the Author of this fond presensed answere to the Downfall of Popery , ) ( viz : ) that in the last precept of the Decalogue or Ten commaundementes , ( Thou shalt not lust , ) is prohibited not onely actuall and voluntary concupiscence , but the very Originall and Fountaine of all concupiscences with all her involuntary branches . I prooue it first , because that concupiscence actuall , wherewith wee couet that that is another mans , and not our own , is forbidden , by all the sixt , seuenth , and eight precepts of the second Table . This doeth our maister Christ teach vs , when hee saith ; That whosoeuer shall see a woman to lust after her , hath already committed adultery with hi● in his hart . The same doctrine teacheth S. Iohn , when hee sheweth the hatred of our brother to be agaiust this precept ; Thou shall not kill . Secondly , because if no other thing were prohibited in this commandement , but actuall concupiscence , there shoulde bee but nine precepts in the Decalogue ; seeing the last shoulde bee no newe Commaundement , but only a bare recitall or repetition of the nine former precepts . Thirdly , because S. Paul granteth himselfe to be carnally sold vnder sin , by reason of original concupiscence , and not actuall ; against which he fought stoutly , and neuer gaue consent vnto it . Fourthly , because that which the Saints of God detest , & call sin by the iudgement of the holy ghost , must needs be sin properly . But so it is , that S. Paul in the name of all the Saints of God , detesteth this Original cōcupiscence , calleth it sin , and mourning , tearmeth himselfe vnhappy for it , and desireth to be deliuered from it : Ergo , it must needs be sin properly . Fiftly , to say that it is called sin figuratiuely and vnproperly , is against that generall rule which all Diuines haue deliuered , when the scriptures must bee vnderstood properly , and when figuratiuely , viz : that then they are taken figuratiuely , whē the sence , which the words in their proper signification yeeld , do not agree with other scriptures , and the Analogy of faith , but are repugnant vnto the same . Now , no scripture can bee produced , which denyeth that Originall concupisence with the involuntary motions thereof , is properly sin : Nay , the Apostle aboue twelue times in one Chapter , plainely and simply calleth it sin , neither will it helpe to say , that the scripture freeth Gods children from sinne . For as saint Austen sayth , they are not deliuered from sinne so , that it is not in them , but that it is not imputed to them . And the Prophet teacheth the same doctrine , when he pronounceth The man blessed not who hath no sin , but to whom the Lorde imputeth no sinne . And the Papists must either recall their doctrine in this point , or else cry fire and faggot for their chiefe maister Petrus Lombardus , sur-named the Maister of sentences ( whose Booke to this day is publikely Read in the schoole of Diuinity , for thus doth he write : ) Secundum animas vero iam redempti sumus &c. But touching our soules , wee are redeemed in part , not wholly ; from the sinne , not from the paine ; neyther wholly from the sinne or fault : For we are not so redeemed from it , that it be not ( in vs ) but that it rule not ( ouer vs. ) Lo , Maister Lombard that famous Writer , graunteth first , that we are redeemed in part , but not in the whole . Secondly , that wee are not wholly redeemed from sinne . Thirdly , he telleth vs , how we are redeemed from sin , viz : that albeit sin shall remain in vs , yet hath it not such dominion ouer vs , that it can enforce vs to consent therevnto . Lo , the greatest and best learned Papists , teach the same doctrine that I do . Sixtly , Saint Austen affirmeth plainely , that Originall Concupiscence is prohibited by this Precept ( Thou shalt not Lust ; ) and not onely the habituall concupiscence it selfe , but also all the actuall involuntary motions thereof ; Thus doeth hee write , as the Iesuire Bellarmine alleadgeth him ; These thinges ( saith Bellarmine ) are spoken after Saint Austens mind , who by this precept ( Thou shalt not Lust ) vnderstandeth all the motions of concupiscence , euen the involuntary , to bee prohibited in some sort ; and that the consent to these motions forbidden by that other precept ; follow not thy concupiscence . Thus writeth our Iesuiticall 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 . Heere S. Austen vttereth his owne meaning , cōcerning 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 ; Come Lord Iesus . For , if the World shall continue , and Iesuitisme bee permitted to raigne , 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 ; Enter not into iudgmēt , with thy seruant ( O Lord ) for none liuing shall bee iustifyed in thy sight . Therefore wisely , and most christianly sayth Saint Austen ; 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 , vvhere hee findes it ? Then a sharpe Vae vobis will fall vppon our Iesuite , vnlesse hee bee holyer then eyther Saint Peter or Saint Paule . But Sir ; Heard you neuer of a King , whose Seruant ought him tenne thousand Talentes , which hee vvas not able to pay ? Knovv yee not , that the King his Lord imputed not the debt vnto him ? But yee vvill 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 vvill , ) 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 vvell as vvhen he imputeth them to vs. For , as the King knew right vvell that the debt vvas vnpayde , iudging rightly that it vvas vnpayde , and vvithall accepted of it as if it hadde beene payde , not imputing the debt to the debtour ; euen so , our mercyfull GOD and louing Father , knovveth right vvell , Originall Concupiscence remayneth really and formally in vs , rightly iudging that sin to bee in vs , and vvithall accepting vs as if vvee 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 , in whom hee is well pleased . So then , we see heere , 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 vvhich 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 , notvvithstanding his forbearaunce in not imputing the breach of day vnto him ? I cannot tell , I am not skillfull in the Lavve ; but I feare mee , Thomas Bell might bee intreated of S. R. as the Fellow-Seruant that ought an hundred pence , of whom we haue mention made in the holy Gospell . S. R. The second thing which Bell inferreth , and biddeth vs marke it vvell , is , that the tenth Commaundement forbiddeth Originall lust vvithout 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 ; 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. ) VVhere wee see , that not onely Bellarmine theyr Cardinall , but Saint Austen that woorthy Piller of the Church , affirmeth both Originall concupiscence , and the involuntary Motions thereof , to be forbidden in this precept . Where I may not forget to tell the Reader , that though Bellarmine to make his matter good , ( if it would ) addeth to Saint Austens wordes ( In some sort , ) yet dooth Saint Austen write very simply , and sayth flatly , that they are prohibited , and addeth not ( Quodam modo , In some sort . ) That is Bellarmines addition , it is not in Saint Austen . Secondly , that habituall Originall Lust is not idle , but woorketh ill desires in vs continually agaynst our vvill . So sayth S. Austen , in these words ; Agit . n. Aliquid concupiscentia carnis , &c. For concupiscence of the flesh worketh somthing , euen when there is not giuen vnto it , either the consent of the heart , where it may raigne ; or the members as VVeapons , which may accomplish what it appointeth . And what doth it , but the very wicked and filthy desires ? For if they were good and lawfull , the Apostle would not forbid to obey them . Marke these wordes , gentle Reader , for they are of great consequence , and giue a deadly blowe to the Papistes . Two thinges are cleered by this Testimony of Saint Austen ; the one , that Concupiscence to which consent is not giuen , bringeth foorth ill desires ; the other , that the sayde desires are vnlawfull , and prohibited by the Law of GOD. And so wee haue euidently prooued , that habituall Concupiscence , to which the regenerate yeelde no consent , but stoutly resist the same , is so farre from beeing meritorious , as the Papists would haue it , that it is sinne formally , and properly so called . And wee haue further , that habituall concupiscence worketh ill desires in vs against our will , and therefore that those desires are truely called originall , because vvee doe them not , but rather suffer them to bee doone in vs. Thirdly , that though the Law in saying , Thou shalt not lust , seemeth by the force of the word which signifyeth action , to prohibite onely the voluntary act of concupiscence ; yet dooth it forbidde the very Originall Concupiscence it selfe , withall the braunches , effects , and involuntary motions thereof , as is already prooued at large : Yea , Saint Austen doth vnderstand it , as Bellarmine himselfe doth grant . Heere for the help of the Reader , I note , that a threefold Concupiscence is forbidden by the tenth Commandement . The first , is meerely called Originall . This is that vvhich vve all contracted of Adam , and which is the Fountaine of all concupiscences and sins , and therefore truely called of the Apostle sin . The second , is partly Originall , and partly Actuall . Originall , because it yssueth naturally from the Originall prauity of our nature . Actuall , for that we couet in act , albeit against our wil , and because it is against our wil , it is more properly & truly called Originall , then actuall . The third , is meerely actuall , because it is voluntary . S. R. I must note Bels important vntruths . First , that Pope Vrban and Pope Innocent confirmed Saint Thomas his doctrine for authenticall . Secondly , that Pope Vrban gaue it the first place after cannonicall scripture . T. B. This Fryer seemeth to bee framed of lying , and as hee hath vsually spent his whole dispute , so in the end of the article he closeth it vp with leasing . Whosoeuer shal pervse The Downfall of Popery , wil soon espy , how this Fryer loadeth my back with slaunderous speeches and false reports . I will heere in regard of breuity , onely set downe the Testimony of a famous Papist Augustinus Hunnaeus , by name , in that Epistle which he sent to Pope Pius the fift . These are his words ; Vrbanus &c. Vrbanus that worthy Prelate of the Apostolique sea , admiring the excellent doctrine of this man , ( he speaketh of Aquinas ) & beholding it as fallen from heauen to driue away the naturall mist of ignorance from mens minds , doth grauely exhort to the study thereof , and commaundeth the vniuersity of Tholouse to follow it as the cheefe , in all their disputations and aunsweres concerning faith and manners . Innocentius the fift of that name , esteemed the same mans Doctrine so greatly , that hee doubted not to giue it the first place after the Cannonicall scripture . Thus writeth Hunnaeus . By whose words it may appeare , in what reuerence the Doctrine of Aquinas is with the Papists ; as also that our Iesuite cannot answere me , but by lying . And thus I will end this article , with these words of our Iesuite ; Habituall cōcupiscence includeth not only pronesse to euill , but also difficulty to do good : and want of habibituall order in the inferior powers , and therefore is both positiue and priuatiue euill . Thus writeth our Iesuite ; who after he hath long wearied himselfe in struggling against the truth , doth at the length vnawares confesse the same . For doubtlesse , when he graunteth , that habituall Concupiscence in the regenerate , includeth want of habituall order in the inferior powers , and therefore is both positiue and priuatiue euill ; he graunteth in substance & in the truth of the matter , as much as I desire . He denyeth in wordes , that Originall concupiscence , is formally sinne , but in effect and substance , hee graunteth the very same . Whosoeuer shal seriously ponder both my discourse heere and in the Downefall , especially concerning the Nature , definition , and essence of sinne ; he will perceiue with all facility , that the Iesuite woulde say as I write , if hee were not affrayde to displease the Pope . The fift Article , of the merite of Good workes . S. R. BEls first position containeth two partes ; the first is , that good workes , neither do nor can goe before Iustification . Behold Bell euen where he would proue himselfe a friend to good workes , sheweth himselfe to be an enemy , and excluding them from any going before , or any way concurring to iustification ; to which they so concurred in Saint Mary Magdalen , as our Sauiour saide , Many sinnes are forginen her , because shee loued much , making her loue a kind of cause , ( viz : ) disponent of her Iustification . T. B. Our Iesuite wold gladly perswade his reader , that I am an enemy to good workes . The best mean he hath to defend himselfe and Popery withall , is cogging , lying , and false dealing . I must needs be an enimy to Good workes , because , I will not admit euill workes for good . I say with S. Austen ; Sequuntur , iustificatum , non precedent iustificandum . Good. Workes follow him that is iustified , but they go not before him that is to be iustified . Behold here , gentle Reader , that S. Austen is the same enemy to Good workes that I am . He affirmeth them to follow iustification , and so doe I. Hee denyeth them to goe before iustification , and so doe I. What a thing is this ? Our Iesuite dareth not call Saint Austen an enemy to Good Workes ; and yet doth he call mee so , 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. 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 ; 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 aunsvvered , that he to vvhom more vvas forgiuen . Christ approued Peters ansvver , 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 cānot 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. 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 , 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 condignū ; 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 , 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 , 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 , for it is the gift of God ) not of workes , least any man shoulde boast himselfe . 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 . Whē God crowneth our merites , 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 , because he sayth , Saint Paule called eternall life Grace , and not a Reward , as though he had sayd , It is not the reward of our labors . But this is nothing against vs , who willingly confesse erernall life to be grace , and not to proceede of our owne labours done by our selues , but done and wrought also by the grace of Christ. T. B. Our Iesuite is so pinched and nipped by my Authorities and reasons , that he had rather say any thing then acknowledge the truth that I defend . Here as we see , hee is become a Semi-pelagian Heretique , for he affirmeth eternall life to bee wrought and doone of our selues , yet not wholly of our selues , but partly also of the holy Ghost . And after such a silly manner , he is enforced to answer all the rest , viz : euer against himselfe . S. R. True it is , that Augles as a follower of Scotus , seemeth to thinke that the condignity of Good Workes , riseth not of any equality which is in them vnto glory , but of Gods promise to reward them . T. B. It is well , that ye wil once seeme to graunt a truth . The truth is this ; that both Iosephus Angles , and your Cardinall Bellarmine , do freely grant being ouercome with the force of trueth , that Good workes can merite nothing , but by reason of GODS promise freely made vnto men . I haue prooued the Controuersie so euidently , that our Iesuite doth nothing else but weary both himselfe and his Reader , in writing most friuolously against the same . I referre the Reader to The Downfall it selfe ; where hee shall find euery Argument and peece of reason soundly answered , before our Iesuite had published the same . And therefore for mee to vse any further reply therein , were but Actum agere . For doubtlesse , whosoeuer shall duly ( all partiality set aside , ) peruse The Downfall as it came from my penne , and lay downe this Iesuites aunswere to it in euery place , and compare them together ; he will ( I am fully perswaded ) freely confesse , that no further reply is necessary in that behalfe . The sixt Article , of the destinction of mortall and veniall sinnes . S. R. ALl his proofes may be reduced to this Syllogisme . What is against Gods Law is mortal sin ; all sin is against Gods law , Ergo all sinne is mortall . Beholde , Bell here absolutely concludeth all sinne to be mortal , and after calleth our veniall sinnes cursed and deformed : which argueth , that he thinketh all sin to be indeed mortal , notwithstanding Gods mercy . The propositiō 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 , 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 differētly , some by denial of the proposition , others by denial of the assumption . Some say , that euery sin which is against the Law is not mortall , but onely that which is perfectly against it . Others say , that veniall sinnes are not against the Law , but besides the Law. T. B. Heere is an answere , aunswerelesse . For first , our Fryer graunteth , that I haue prooued by the Scripture , by Saint Ambrose , by S. Austen , by Bellarmine , their famous Cardinall , by the Rhemists , their learned bretheren , by Iosephus Angles , their religious Fryer , and reuerend Byshop , and by Durandus , their famous Schoole-Doctor ; that euery sin , more and lesse is against the Law of God ; and consequently , mortall of it owne nature . Secondly , our Fryer freely confesseth , that this argument of mine , doth so trouble the Papists , that they cannot agree among themselues , how to answere the same . Some sayth he , deny the proposition , some deny the assumption , other some say they cannot tell what : and our Iesuite himselfe standes amazed , whether it is better to yeeld to the truth , or to face it out desperately , and impudently with Legierdemain , iugling , falshood , and deceitfull dealing . S. R. Yet better it is to say , that veniall sinnes are beside the Law , then against the Lawe . T. B. Our Iesuite being in perplexity , ( like as Buridanus his Asse ) what to answere to my argument , resolueth to take the best way as he supposeth : for , he thinketh as felons & Traytors standing at the barre in their arraigment , that it is the best to plead ( not guilty . ) But I must tell him two things : The one , that to be beside the Law and against the Law , is al one in effect . For as our master Christ saith , Hee that is not with him , is against him , and consequently , if he do besides Christs commaundement , hee doth against the same . The other , that Durandus , and many Popish Schoole-Doctors confesse resolutely , that euery sinne is against Gods law . And Iosephus Angles affirmeth constantly , that Dwrands opinion is now adaies the Doctrine of theyr Schooles . Where I wish the Reader to note by the way , the mutability of late start vp Romish Religion . Read the Downefall , where this point is set downe at large . S. R. Therefore if Bell graunt indeede ( as he doth in words ) that by Gods mercy some sins are made veniall ; he must also confesse , that by Gods mercy , they are not against his charity and friendship . T. B. I graunt , that as all sinnes is mortall of their owne nature , ( which I haue prooued copiously in The Downefall , euen by the testimony of very famous Papists : ) so are all sins veniall by Gods mercy for the merits of his sonne Iesus , to the regenerate his elect children , and consequently , though all sins bee against Gods friendship ( who hateth and detesteth all sinne ) in their owne nature , yet are all the sins of Gods elect , reputed not onely as veniall , but none at all in Christ Iesus , & they receiued into Gods fauour for Christs sake . S. R. Bell prooueth out of Saint Ambrose , that sin is defined the transgression of the law . And out of S. Austen , that it is diuine reason , or the will of God , commaunding the order of nature to be kept , and forbidding it to bee broken . But these Fathers define onely mortall sin . T. B. Mark 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 , that Saint Paule saith ; The reward of sinne is death . They knew , what God saith by his Prophet Ezechiell ; The Soule that sinneth , shall dye the death . They knew what God saith by his Prophet Dauid ; 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 , that veniall sinnes breake not friendshippe with God. Well , let him stand in iudgment against God for his venials ; 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 cōformity 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 ; 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 . 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 Christiā world . For the Pope & his flattering Parasites beare them in hand , that the late start vp Romish doctrin , is the old Roman religion , which S. Peter and Saint Paule , preached to the Romanies in their life time : But my life and saluation I gage for the triall , it is not so . No , no , It is a New Religion , crept by little and little into the Church of Rome . To which doctrine if the vulgar people would once hearken , all partiality and sinister affection set apart ; they would vndoubtedly vtterly forsake the Pope , and detest from their hearts all Popish faction . Here our Fryer Iesuite threatneth me , to bring an action of the case against mee ; for that ( as hee saith ) I slander their Religion . He would haue me to tell him and his Pope , when , wherein , and by whom , the late Romish Religion corrupted the purity of the old . I answer , first , that I desire to know our Iesuites name , because we may perhaps agree without suite in Law. Secondly , that I haue in a printed Booke published many yeares ago , to the view and iudgment of all the Christian world , shewed in plaine and expresse tearmes , at what times , in what points , & by what persons , the old Roman Religion taught by Saint Paule , ( as holy Writ telleth vs ) and by Saint Peter , ( as Histories Ecclesiasticall doe relate , ) was successiuely corrupted , errours embraced , superstition nourirished , ignorance countenanced , and false Doctrine decreed for the truth . This Booke is intituled the Suruey of Popery , published about tenne yeares agoe , in the yeare of our Lord God , 1596. I haue challenged all Iesuites and Iesuited Papists , ioyntly and seuerally , to answere it , and all my other Bookes . They haue oftentimes in many of theyr slaundrous Libels , made mention both of the Suruey , and of my other Bookes , and promised aunswers to the same , but while the Grasse growes , the Horse dyes . This is the first answer , that euer I receiued to this day . Which how silly it is , let others iudge . For their late forerunner did but snatch here and there , and aunswered directly nothing at all . Our Iesuite heere insinuateth something , which hee cannot well tell how to shuffle vp . I also alleadged out of Iosephus Angles , a famous Popish Schoole-Doctor and Byshop , that the Popish Doctrine daily altereth in their Schooles . S. Thomas ( sayth he ) and his followers hold ; That a 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 . Bell applyeth it to the Romaine Religion , as if it consisted of Schoole opinions , which may be held Pro & contra with vnity of Faith. T. B. If Schoole opinions be mutable , then Popish Religion is mutable of necessity . For how dare the Schoole-Doctours teach publiquely , contrary to the Popes minde ? VVas not your famous Doctour Michael at Louain , threatned to frame his opinion to the Popes liking , or else yee 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 , 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 confessiō , according to their Traditions . Thus writeth Rhenanus . Out of whose words I note . First , that the vain , curious destinctions of the Schole-doctors , haue brought much mischeefe into the Church of GOD. Which thing if a Papist had not spoken it , would seeme incredible to the world . Secondly , that it is impossible for a Papist to make his confession , acording to the Popish law ; and consequently , that all Papists by Popish doctrine , must perish euerlastingly . Marke well my words ( Gentle Reader ) the Papists teach vs to hold for an article of our beleefe , that we are bound to make our confessions as the Popish law prescribeth ; that is , as Aquinas and Scotus haue set downe the same . And for all that Gielerius a Papist himselfe & a great diuine , complained often to his frends , that no man could possibly performe the same . Now then , since on the one side , Popish confession must be made vnder pain of damnation ; and since on the other side , none possibly can make the same as it is required ; it followeth of necessity by Popish Doctrine , that all Papistes must be damned eternally . O miserabie Popery , coufounded by thy selfe ! O late start-vp Religion , patched like a Beggers cloke ! Thine own Doctors , O Popery , ( such force hath the truth ) haue bewrayed thy treachery to the world . Thirdly , that many likewise among the Papists , do externally obey the Popish Law ; who for all that , in their hearts , detest the late hatched Romish Religion . This is euident by the secret complaint of the learned man Gielerius , who tolde that to his trusty frends , which he durst not tell the pope . S. R. Their canonized Martyr Byshop Fisher ( sayth he ) and their Popish Byshop Gerson wrote , that Veniall sinnes were such onely by the mercy of God. Heere Bell for one truth , vttereth two vntruths . True it is , that Byshop Fisher & Gerson were in that errour ; but that was both before it was condemned in the church , as it was since by Pius the v. & Gregorius , 13. Neyther did they account involuntary motions of Concupiscence for Veniall sinnes , as Bell doth ; but such as Catholickes account Veniall . But vntrue it is , that eyther Byshop Fisher , is cannonized , or Gerson was a Byshop . T. B. Heere our Iesuite graunteth freely , that both the famous learned Byshop Fisher , and that excellent Doctour Gerson of high esteem in the Counsell of Constance , helde 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 . O Popery ! thou art but a childe , thou must neuer from this day , be called the old Religion , for heere our Iesuite confesseth thine Nonage , and proclaimeth thee to bee the Nevv religion . I must likewise insinuate to the Reader , another point of great importāce ( 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 . 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 , amōg 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 , 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 , thē 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 , if wee respect the sin in it owne Nature . 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 , 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 , the Prophets and Euangelists , writing their Doctrin for our remembrance , would omit no one point , which was necessary to be actually known of euery one ; especially , seeing they haue written many thinges , which are not so necessary . And this thing teacheth S. Austen , when he sayth ; those thinges are written , which seemed sufficient for the saluation of the faithfull . T. B. This Doctrine I likewise approue ; it is the verie same that I defend . Keepe thee heere Iesuite , and we shall not contend . S. R. Methinks S. Austen plainly auoucheth , that God hath procured euery thing to be clearly written , which to know is necessary to euery mans saluation . The same teacheth S. Syril saying ; Not al things which our lord did are written , but what the writers deemed sufficient , as well for manners , as for Doctrine ; that by right saith and workes , we may attaine the kingdome of Heauen . S. Chrisostome sayth ; what things soeuer are necessary , the same are manifest out of the scripture . T. B. This doctrine I still approue , as which the Reader may find , to be taken out of the Downfall . And so our Iesuite doth heere subscribe vnto my Doctrine , though hee take vpon him to oppugne the same . For the truth is mighty , & will in time preuaile . This being so , I haue no neede to stand long vpon this point . For as the Reader seeth , the Iesuite approoueth that Doctrine , which I in the Downefall do defend . S. R. Truly said Saint Ephiphanius , that we may tel the inuention of euery question , out of the consequence of Scriptures . He saide not , out of the Scripture . For all cannot be taken thence , as himself writeth ; but of the consequence of them . Because all questions are resolued out of the scriptures , or out of that which followeth of them , as the effect of the cause . T. B. This also is sound Doctrine , and the very same which I defend in the Downfal . And consequently , the very weapons which our Iesuite hath put into our hands , are sufficient to defend vs and our cause against him . For if the Reader shal remember these grounds , and these positions freely of him granted , and withall haue recourse vnto the Downfall ; he shall be able with all facility , to answere to all that the Iesuite obiecteth in this Article . S. R. All points of Christian faith , cannot be sufficiently and immediatly proued out of scripture . For there is no place of all the scripture , which sufficiently proueth all the rest to be cannonicall ; our B. Lady to be a perpetuall Virgin , and. the Sabboth to be lawfully translated from Saturday to Sunday . T. B. Now our Iesuite forgetteth himselfe , and what doctrin he hath already deliuered . It were a sufficient answere to tell him , that hee heere confuteth himselfe . But for the Readers helpe , I will breefely aunswere his particulars . To the first I say , it is soundly and largely answered in the Downfall of Popery . In regard of breuity , I referre the Reader to the place quoted in the Margent . To the second , I answere first , that I willingly acknowledge the most blessed Virgin , to be the Mother of true God and true man , and to haue bin a perpetuall Virgin , both before Christs byrth , and in his byrth , and after his byrth . Secondly , that albeit I defend ( as our Iesuite also hath granted ) all things necessary to be beleeued vnto saluation to be contained in the holy scriptures ; yet do I not deny , but willingly graunt , and reuerently admit many things , receiued by the perpetuall consent of the church , and not repugnant to the written word , as true , wholesome , and godly . For I am perswaded with S. Austen , that whatsoeuer is neyther against Fayth , nor against good manners ; may indifferently be obserued for their society amongst whom we do conuerse . Againe , it is one thing to say , that all necessary points of fayth and Doctrine , are contained in the holy scriptures ; another thing to say , that nothing not contained in the scripture , hath bin receyued by tradition , & may be admitted for a truth . It cannot be convinced out of the scriptures ( and therefore no matter of fayth ) that Saint Peter and S , Paule dyed together at Rome ; yet do I admit it for a truth , as receiued by Tradition from the Primatiue Church , and testified by vniforme consent of al approued antiquity . To the third , I haue already said inough both in my Booke of Suruey , and also in the Regiment of the Church . For in things indifferent , the Church may determine what is most expedient , for the due circumstances of times , places , and persons . S. R. God ( sayth Bell , ) forbiddeth vs to adde to his word . I answere , that such places make nothing against Traditions , which are necessary to mans saluation , because such are indeed Gods word , though vnwritten . T. B. I answere our Iesuite with his owne words , which follow immediately , and are these ; for the two first places onely forbid , adding to Gods word any thing of our own heade , or which is mans word , as may be proued by the reason of the forbiddance ; viz : least we be disproued , & found lyars as no doubt we might , by adding mans word which is subiect to lye ; but not by adding Gods worde , which neuer can proue vntrue , though it be not written ; Thus writeth our Iesuite , confuting himselfe so sufficiently , as more needs not be required . In these words he telleth vs two things , the one quite opposite to the other . First , he truly saith ( confuting himselfe ) that the Scripture forbiddeth , to adde of our owne head , any thing , which is but mans word , and subiect to falshood and lying . This is good . But secondly hee addeth , that to adde Gods word though vnwritten , is a lawfull thing : but this is a silly begging of the question , as the Schooles tearme it . For I deny that vnwritten Word to bee Gods Word , which our Iesuite should prooue , but cannot . And our Iesuite hath already confessed , that all necessary pointes of faith , are contained in the Scriptures & written Word . And consequently , it is to late to tell vs now , of adding or admitting the vnwritten Word . I admit his former assertion , as consonant to the Scriptures ; this latter I reiect , as childish , vaine , and friuolous . I proue it , because euery word of God is to be admitted as a matter of faith ; and yet all matters of Faith are written , as is already proued and granted . This therefore not being written , must be hissed out of the Schoole of Christians . S. R. Bell alleadgeth the Prophets words ; To the Law rather , and to the Testimony . This place maketh nothing for him . First , because the Prophet nameth not onely the Law , but Testimony also , which comprehendeth Gods vnwritten word . Secondly , because Esay doth not absolutely bidde vs recurre to the Law and Testimony , but rather to them , then to Witches ; of whom he had immediately forbidden vs to enquire . T. B. I answere , that our Iesuite maketh no conscience how hee interpret the Scripture , so he may any way make it seeme to serue his turne . For hee desperately heere affirmeth without all reason and authority , that by Testimony , is vnderstood the vnwritten Word . Whereas indeede it is the written Lawe , added onely for explication sake : as if he had sayde ; Ye must not seeke helpe at the dead , which is the illusion of Sathan , but yee must seeke remedie in the word of God , where his will is reuealed : ye must in all doubtes and difficulties haue recourse to the Law of God , which is the testification of Gods will towards man. In it ye shall find , whatsoeuer is necessary for you to know . Breefely , as if he had sayde ; Ye must euer haue recourse to the Law , as to the Testimony of Gods holy will. Saint Hierom yeeldeth the same exposition of this place , in these words ; Si vultis noscere quae dubia sunt , magis vos legi & Testimoniis tradite Scripturarum . If ye will know the thinges that are doubtfull , yee must haue recourse to the Law , and to the Testimony of the Scriptures . Loe , hee ioyneth the Testimony with the Law , not as a thing distinct from it , but as an explication of the same . This reason is confirmed , by the coronation of King Ioas ; who receiued at his coronation these three things ; Vnction , the Testimony , or the Law ; and the Diademe , or Crowne . Where the Latin Vulgata editio ( to which the Pope hath tyed all Papists ) expoundeth the Testimony to be the Law. Which glosse striketh our Iesuites exposition dead . So then , by the Popes own approbation , the Testimony is taken for the written word of Gods Law , and his Iesuite hath here proued himselfe , to be a very Daw. And where our Iesuite weeneth to find some helpe in the word ( Rather ; ) It seemeth to mee , that it doth him hinder : For , if his sence bee admitted , it will bee lawfull in some cases and times , to haue recourse vnto Witches . But I will leaue him to himselfe , as a carelesse and fond Disputer . S. R. Esay indeede bids vs go to Gods written word , which we refuse not to do in all doubts , wherein it resolueth vs , but forbids vs not to go to any other , which is as he saith , agreeable to this word . Wherfore either must Bell proue , that the Churches Traditions are not agreeable to Gods written Word ; or he must know , that God not onely not forbids vs , but rather commands vs to seeke after them . T. B. Heere our Iesuite seemes to correct himselfe , and to grant , that the Prophet speakes of the Written Word . But he addes of his owne head , that the Scripture will not resolue them in all thinges ; and that therefore they must haue recourse , to their Vnwritten Traditions withall . Yet like a good Fellowe , hee makes one exception , which is this ; Vnlesse I prooue their traditions not to be agreeable to Gods word . Which thing God bee thanked , is already done in the Downefall it selfe . Touching the time , when Saint Iohn the Apostle dyed ; seauen famous Chronologers will contest with me , that he liued an hundred years after Christs sacred incarnation ( though the Printer negligently put downe Ascension amisse , as many other things ; ) ( viz : ) Eusebius Caesariensis , Iohannes Nauclerus , Rhegino Prumiensis , Marianus Scotus , Martinus Polonus , Pontacus Burdegalensis , and Hermannus Contractus ; that Saint Iohn the Apostle was liuing almost 32. yeares after that our Iesuite saith hee was dead . Now , whether our Fryer bee skilfull in Chronology , or no ; that will not I define , let the Reader iudge . Hee himselfe boasteth of his skill ; what hee hath perfourmed , we see : But whatsoeuer his skill be , his lying is in the highest degree . S. R. But omitting these errours , as Testimonies of Bels , ignorance in Histories , which I regard not , to his Argument I answere . T. B. They are not mine errors , but your owne lies . You are full of boasting and bragging , but truth haue ye none , & all good conscience from you is quite gone . Let vs heare your graue answer . S. R. I answer , that those words ( These are written ) are meant onely of Miracles done by Christ , and written by Saint Iohn , to moue vs to beleeue that Christ was God. T. B. It troubleth our Iesuite more then a little , that I affirme Saint Iohn to haue written his Gospell , about 100. yeares after Christs ascension into Heauen . And for that end ( as we haue heard ) he hath addicted himselfe wholy to cogging , falshood , and lying ; in so much as he would needs haue Saint Iohn dead , while hee was liuing : and wherefore is al this huge Masse of lying ? forsooth , because these wordes of Saint Iohn ( These 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 , they onely are helpes and meanes to confir me it in vs. Therefore saith Saint Luke , The Apostles went forth , and preached the word of God , and the Lord wrought with their preaching , and confirmed it with Miracles following . And so do Saint Austen and Saint Cyrill , vnderstand these words of Saint Iohn , affirming all thinges necessary for saluation , to be conteyned in the holy scriptures . Theyr words are set downe , in The Downefall of Popery . S. R. We confesse scripture to be an infallible rule , but not the totall rule , but as Bellarmine saith , the partiall rule . T. B. What is this , but to confesse Christ an vnperfect workman ? But to confesse Christ , to haue set downe an vnperfect rule of Faith ? But to confesse , that the Scripture containeth not all things necessary for saluation ? Which for all that , you haue confessed again , and againe . As before like a Pelagian , you said , Eternall life was not meer grace , nor the meere guift of God , but dependeth partly to mans merit ; So now you say heere , That the Scripture is not a totall rule of Fayth , but must haue some helpe from mens Traditions . But I will confound you with your owne wordes , which before came from your owne Pen. Thus doe you write ; For surely , the Prophets and Euangelistes writing their doctrine for our better remembrance , would omit no one point , which was necessarie to bee actually knowne of euery one ; especially , seeing they haue written some thinges which are not so necessary . Againe , in another place you haue these expresse wordes ; All such points of Christian Faith , as are necessary to be actually beleeued , of euery one that hath vse of reason , are actually contained in the Scripture . Now , out of these wordes I note : First , that the Scriptures were written for our remembrance and good . Secondly , that nothing is omitted in the Scripture , which is necessary for our saluation . Thirdly , that the Prophets and Euangelists wrote many things not so necessary for vs , and therefore , would in no case omit those thinges which were necessary for our soules health . Fourthly , that all thinges which euery one is bound to beleeue actually , are actually set downe in the Scripture . This being true , as it is most true indeed ; I am content to stand to the censure of euery indifferent Reader , whether by the Iesuites confession and free graunt , the Scripture be a totall rule of our Faith , or no. For doubtlesse , that which containeth all necessary points of Christian Faith , cannot be a partiall rule , but a total and consummate rule of our faith . S. R. The most that Bell hath out of S. Cyprian , is , That what is no true Tradition , must be prooued by Scripture , which I willingly graunt . Saint Cyprian thought the Pope onely to er●e in a Commandement to be done ; Bell condemneth him , in his iudiciall sentences of Faith. Whereas S. Cyprian professeth , that false Faith can haue no accesse to S. Peters Chaire . T. B. I haue prooued in the Downefall , that though our Papists of late daies do impudently affirme , that their Pope cannot erre , when hee defineth iudicially ; yet this notwithwithstanding , Saint Cyprian teacheth and telleth vs plainly and roundly , that in his time the Byshop of Rome had no such authority , as this day he proudly , & Antichristianly taketh vpon him . For he roundly withstood the decree of Pope Stephanus , who was then the Bishop of Rome , and both sharpely reprooued him , and stoutly contemned his falsely pretended authority . And for all that , Saint Cyprian was euer reputed a very holy Byshoppe in his life time , and a glorious Martyr beeing dead . But , if the Byshop of Rome had beene Christs Vicar , and so priuiledged , as our Papists beare the World in hand hee is ; then doublesse Saint Cyprian must needes haue beene an Heretique , and so reputed and esteemed in the Church of GOD , For , if any Christian shall this day do or affirme , as Saint Cyprian did in his time , or publiquely deny the Popes falsely pretended prymacy in any place , Country , Territories , or Dominions , where Popery beareth the sway ; then without all peraduenture , he must bee burnt at a stake , with fire and Fagot for his paines . Now , what doth our Iesuite answere to this discourse ? Forsooth , that whatsoeuer is no true Tradition , the same must be tryed by the Scripture . Alasse , alasse , Who seeth not , that our Iesuite , ( and consequently all Papistes , seeing hee hath the aduise of all the learned among them , ) is at a Non plus ? I contend , that Traditions ought to bee tryed by the Scripture , whether they bee true and sound , or no : Our Fryer answereth , that false Traditions , and such as bee not true , must be so tryed . What a iest is this ? The Scripture is the Touch-stone , by which wee must try false and true Traditions ; and so we cannot know them to be true Traditions , before we try them by the Scripture . How fondly therefore aunswereth our Fryer , that if they bee not true , they must be tryed by the Scripture ? We deny these , and these Traditions to bee true , and therefore appeale to the Scripture for the tryall thereof . No , no , saith our Iesuite , these may not bee tryed by the Scripture , because they are true Traditions . Marry Sir , this is indeed an aunswere answerlesse . For ye take all the tryall to your selfe , and leaue none at all to the Scripture . You will first set down in your iudgements , which be true Traditions , and which be false ; and that done , we must goe try those to be false by the Scripture , which you hold for false ; but with the other , we must not deale at all . By this kind of dealing , I must needes say , the Scripture is but a partiall rule of Faith indeed . And what shal be the total rule of our saith ? Our Iesuite here tels vs , that it is the Popes iudiciall sentence , whose faith cannot faile . For false Faith ( saith he ) can haue no accesse to Saint Peters chaire : as though forsooth Saint Cyprian did thinke , that the Byshop of Romes Faith could not faile , where hee meaneth nothing lesse , then to ascribe such a priuiledge to the Church of Rome . For , if he had beene of that minde , he would neuer haue vrged Pope Stephanus , to be tryed by the Scriptures . No , no , Saint Cyprian speaketh not of errour in Faith or Doctrine , but of neglect of discipline and false dealing of Schismatiques , to whose false tales and reportes , the Romaines would neuer yeelde their consent . As if he hadde said ; The Schismatickes which wee haue driuen out of Affrica , seeke intertainement at Rome , but the Romans ( whose Faith the Apostle praised , ) will neuer hearken vnto them , or giue credite to their reportes . He speaketh of one Felicissimus , and other bad fellowes his Companions , whose naughty dealing Saint Cyprian thought Cornelius and the godly Romaines would neuer fauour . But such beggerly shifts as these be , are good enough for Popish falsly pretended prymacy . Of which subiect I haue written at large , in the Hunting of the Romish Foxe . S. R. Bell citeth Saint Ambrose , who biddeth vs not beleeue Argument and disputations , but to aske the Scriptures , Apostles , Prophets , and Christ. But it maketh for vs , because it alloweth enquiring of others besides the Scriptures : namely , of Apostles , from whom the churches Traditions came . T. B. Our Iesuite is a notable couetous Fellow ; he will haue all to make for him , though it bee neuer so much against him . Because Saint Ambrose , after hee hath willed vs to haue recourse to the Scriptures , and there to know the resolution of all doubts , doth forthwith name the Apopostles , Prophets , and Christ , he will haue S. Ambrose , ( Will he , Nil he ) to send vs to others besides the scriptures , vvhereas Saint Ambrose dooth onely explicate himselfe , telling vs vvhat Scriptures wee shall search ; ( viz : ) not O●ids Metamorphosis , nor Tullies Offices , but of the Prophets , of the Apostles , of Christ himselfe . S. R. Bell citeth S. Chrysostome , who saith , that if any thing be spoken without Scripture , the hearers mind wauereth , somtimes doubting ▪ somtimes assenting , otherwhiles denying . But maruell it is , that he would touch Saint Chrysostome who Hom. 42. Thessal . Vpon these wordes , ( Hold Traditions ) saith . Hence it appeareth , that the Apostles deliuered not all things by Letters , & that one aswell as the other are worthy of the same credite . Wherefore we thinke the Churches Traditions to deserue beleefe . It is a Tradition , aske no more . T. B. Here I might tell our Iesuite , that Saint Chrysostome hath but fiue Homelies in all , to the second of the Thessalonians , though he name it the 42. Our Fryer would exclaime , if he could ●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 thē , to whom the chiefe care of the church is committed , that it is a Tradition of the Elders : and so haue I answered enough to all friuolous obiections of our Iesuite ; especially , if The Downefall be well marked . The rest which I let passe , is sufficiently confuted there . Saint Chrisostoms meaning , is plainely ( as I haue said . ) Hence it may apeare , because , in the former part of this Obiection , he will admit , nothing without the scripture ; ( In thinges concerning faith , and Doctrine , euer vnder stande ; ) in the latter part of the Obiection , he admitteth vnwritten Traditions , and wil not haue vs too curious in receiuing them ; ( In thinge which are indifferent , euer vnderstand . ) S. R. Bell citeth Byshop Fisher because in one place , hee calleth the Scripture the store-house of all truths , necessarie to be knowne of Christians : and in another sayeth , that vvhen Heretiques contend with vs , wee must defend our cause with other help , thē by the holy scripture . His meaning is , that when we dispute with Heretiques , we ought to haue other helpes beside scripture . T. B. His meaning is as you say , and I approue the same . But why doth he require other helpe then the scripture , seeing the scripture as he graunteth , is the store-house of all necessary truths ? Shall I tell you ? You will not thanke me for my paines . I haue set downe at large in my Booke of Motiues , what this your holy Byshoppe hath written of Purgatory and Pardons . I will now recount the argument , onely referring the Reader to the place . First , Maister Fisher telleth vs , that the Greeke church neuer bel eeued Purgatory . Secondly , that the Latine Church and Church of Rome did not beleeue the sayd Purgatory , for many hundered of yeares after S. Peters death , whose successor for al that , the Pope boasteth himselfe to be . Thirdly , that this Purgatory was not beleeued of all the Latine Church , at one and the same time ; but by litle & little . Where I wish the Reader to note by the way , that Popery crept into the Church by little and little , and not all at one time , which is a point that galleth the papistes more then a little I weene . Fourthly , that Purgatory was beleeued in these latter dayes , by speciall reuelation of the holy Ghost . Fiftly , that Pardons came not vp , till Purgatory was found out , for in Purgatory resteth the life of Pardons ; as which ( if ther be no Purgatory , ) are not worth a straw . Sixtly , that Purgatory was a loug time vnknowne . Seauenthly , that Purgatory could not be found in the Scripture , of a very long time . Eightly , that it was not wholly found out by the scriptures , but partly by Reuelations . And heere wee see that verified , which our Iesuite out of Bellarmine telleth vs , ( viz : ) that the holy Scripture is but a partial rule of faith . For , if it be a totall rule of fayth , the Pope ( as Maister Fisher affirmeth ) must both want his Purgatory , and be bereaued of his pardons . Ninthly , that pardons were not heard of , or knowne , to the Primatiue Church . Tenthly , that then Pardons began , when men began to feare the paines of Purgatory . This is the summe of that worthy Doctrine , which Byshop Fisher hath published to the world ; euen at that time when he defended the Pope and Popery , after the best manner he could . He that shall read his words in my Motiues at large , cannot but detest the Pope and all popish faction . Hence it is most apparant , why the Byshop sayd that they must vse other helpes then the holy Scripture , for the maintenance of their Religion , for the Scripture is but a partiall rule of popish faith , as wee haue heard alreadie . S. R. Bell citeth S. Thomas , that whatsoeuer Christ woulde haue vs to read of his doings and sayings , he commanded the Apostles to write , as with his own hands . But this maketh nothing against vs , both because S. Thomas saith not , what Christ would haue vs beleeue , but what hee would haue vs read , and Traditions be such , as Christ would haue vs beleeue , though we read them not . As also because S. Thomas speaketh not of all points of beleefe , but onely of Christs sayings & doings , besides which the very sayings and dooinges of the Apostles recorded in their Acts and Epistles , or testified by Tradition , are to be beleeued . T. B. I answere ; First , that Popery is this day a most miserable Religion , and woe vnto them that do beleeue and obey the same . This is , or may bee euident to euery one , throughout this whole discourse . Secondly , that Aquinas auoucheth very plainely ( as I sayde in the Downefall ) that all things necessary to our saluation , are contained in the Scriptures . For in Christs deeds are contained his myracles , his life , his conuersation ; in his sayinges Semblably , are contained , his preaching , his teaching , his doctrine , and consequently , whatsoeuer is necessary for vs to know . If then this be true , as it is most true , ( for the papists may not deny the doctrine of Aquinas ) that whatsoeuer Christ would haue vs to know , of his myracles , of his life , of his conuersation , of his preaching , of his teaching , of his doctrine , the same is written in the Scriptures ; then doubtlesse , none but such as will Cum ratione in sanires , can deny all thinges necessary for our saluation , to be contained in the holy scriptures . Yea , if our Iesuite will stand to his owne doctrine , plainly auouched in this present Pamphlet , this Controuersie is at an end , for we agree therein . These are his expresse words : For surely , the Prophets and Euangelists writing their Doctrine for our better remembrance , would omit no one point , which was necessary to bee actually knowne of euery one ; especially , seeing they haue written many things , which are not so necessary . And this teacheth S. Austen when he sayth , that those things are written which seemed sufficient for the saluation of the faithfull . Thus writeth our Fryer Iesuite : Out of whose words I note first , that the Prophets and Apostles wrote their doctrine for our good . Secondly , that they left no point vnwritten , which was necessary for vs to know . Thirdly , that he yeeldeth a reason why all thinges necessary are written ; ( viz : ) because the Prophets & Euangelists haue written many things which were not so necessary for vs to know . Fourthly , that S. Austen teacheth vs the same doctrin , ( viz : ) that all things necessary for our saluation are committed to writing and set downe in the Scripture ; yea , the Iesuite affirmeth in another place , out of the same Saint Austen , that all things are plainly set downe in the Scripture , which concerne either faith or manners . Fiftly , that our Iesuite granteth al things to be written of Christs both sayings , and doings , which Christ would haue vs to read . Marry , hee addeth three worthy exceptions . First , that though all Christs sayings and dooings , be written , which Christ would haue vs to read , yet not all which he would haue vs to beleeue . As thogh forsooth Christ would haue vs beleeue something , which we may not read . What a fond saying is this ? Nay , what a fond Religion is Popery ? All things necessary for vs , are written ( saith our Iesuite , ) and yet he telleth vs withall , that we must beleeue things which are not written . And consequently , we must beleeue thinges which are necessarie for vs. Nay , which is more , that Articles of the Christian fayth are not necessary for vs. Loe , Popery is a very strange Religion . Secondly , that we must beleeue Traditions , which Christ would not haue vs to read , and consequently , that Christ would not haue vs to read our beliefe . Lord haue mercy vpon vs , and keepe vs from this doctrine . Thirdly , that we must beleeue many vnwritten Traditions of the Apostles , which are neither contained in Christs sayings , nor in his dooinges . But the holy Ghost came downe from Heauen , not to teach the Apostles new Reuelations , saue those thinges onely which Christ had foretold them , and which they did not perfectly vnderstand . But the comforter the holy Ghost ( saith Christ ) whom the Father will send in my name , he shall teach you all things , and bring all thinges to your remembrance , whatsoeuer I haue saide vnto you , so is the Originall in Greeke . Panta ha eipon humin . But the Latine Vulgata editio , to which the Pope hath tyed all Papists , readeth thus ; Whatsoeuer I shall say vnto you . And hence it is , that they would establish their vnwritten Traditions . But the truth is , as we haue seene , ( viz : ) that Christ hath commanded his Apostles to 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 , that Aquinas vnderstandeth Saint Iohns words , ( These thinges are written ) aswell of Christes Doctrine , as of his Myracles . S. R. Bell citeth an Apocryphall sentence out of Esdras , 3. 4. vnder the name of the wise man , as if it were Salomons . T. B. If our Iesuite were not at a Non plus , he would neuer be so friuolously occupied . I name the wise man , of whome I spake ; euen Esdras , as our Iesuite graunteth . If our Fryer , denie all men to bee wise ( Salomon only excepted ; ) then doubtles , not onely himselfe is a foole , as it well seemeth by his Writing ; but his Pope also ( for he is not Salomon ) and so all Papists must bee ruled by a Foole , and beleeue that a foole , cannot erre . And in the end , they 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 , ( sayth Victoria ) though all Writers affirme it , which is not contayned in the scripture . But Vistoria meaneth of thinges spoken , not by Tradition , but by propable Opinion , as the conception of our Lady without Originall sinne , and such like ; or he meaneth of thinges , neyther actually nor virtually contained in Scripture , as Traditions bee , according to our second conclusion . T. B. If I should answere fully to all our Iesuites fonde sentences ; my reply would grow to a bigger booke , then is the great Bible . For our Iesuite thinketh himselfe a verie wise man , though before hee would haue none wise but Salomon . First , our Fryer telleth vs , that Victoria meaneth not of Traditions , but of probable opinions , yet secondly hee graunteth , that hee cannot tell what Victoria meaneth , But perhaps ( sayth hee ) he meaneth of thinges , neyther actually nor virtually contained in scripture . 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 : All points ( sayth our Fryer ) of Christian faith , are virtually contained in scripture . Thus I nowe frame an Argument , against Popish vnwritten Traditions , to which when our Iesuite shall aunswere soundly , I will thinke him woorthy to bee Pope of Rome . All pointes of Christian fayth , are virtually contained in the Scripture ; but Popish vnwritten Traditions are not contained virtually in the Scripture , Ergo Popish vnwritten Traditions , are no pointes of Christian fayth . The consequence is good , and cannot bee denyed . It is in the second figure , and moode , called Baroco . The assumption is the Iesuites owne , in the Page quoted in the Margent ; ( viz : ) 329. The proposition also is the Iesuites , in another place ; ( viz : ) Page 290. and so I inferre this Golden and ineuitable Corollary ; ( viz : ) that 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 . What is this to the purpose ? Let Bell prooue , that wee eyther for Opinions , or any thing else depart from Scripture . T. B. Bell hath proued your departure from the holy scripture , in many of his Bookes many yeares ago published to the view of the world , yet to this day , this is the first answer , the last , and al , that euer came from your pens . But to satisfie your itching eares a little , I must put you in minde , what lately you haue heard in this short reply . First , that the Greekes neuer beleeued your Popish Purgatorie , as which cannot bee prooued , out of the Scriptures . Secondly , that the Byshoppe of Rome to challenge power to depose Kings , is against the holie Scripture . Thirdly , that to acknowledge sinnes Veniall of their owne Nature , is to depart from the scripture . Fourthly , that to giue Pardons as the Pope doeth , is to depart from the scripture . Fiftly , that to establish Workes of condigne merite , is to depart from the Scripture . And so in the rest , as I haue both heere and else where prooued at large . For the Reading of Holy Scripture , and the facilitie thereof touching thinges necessary for saluation , our Iesuite bestirreth himselfe more then a little ; but the bare pervse of the Downefall , will bee a sufficient reply to the same . Once let vs heare him in this point . S. R. The first point is not against vs , who graunt that in Reading the Scripture , wee may find all things necessary . T. B. You told vs euen now , ( Good Sir Fryer , ) that your popish vnwritten Traditions , are neyther actually nor virtually contained in the Scripture ; Ergo , by your Doctrine now deliuered , they are not necessarie . Beholde heere , ( Gentle Reader , ) howe vncertaine Popish Doctrine is , and into what Fooleries and Contradictions the Papistes fall , while they busie themselues to fight against the truth . S. R. Bell Obiecteth out of Theodoretus , that the Haebrewe Bookes were Translated into all Languages . This is nothing against vs , who deny not but Scripture hath bin and may bee , vpon iust and vrgent causes , translated into all languages , so it be not vulgarly vsed , and common to all kind of vulgar people . T. B. You say , you deny not , but Scripture hath beene , and also may bee Translated into the vulgar Languages : yet you adde two restrictions , by which , you in effect vnsay that , which you had saide before . First , you say , it may be in the Vulgar languages , so it bee not vulgarly vsed . What is this ? Fast and loose , your Legierdemaine ? To what end I pray you , shall it and may it bee turned into the vulgar Languages ? That the vulgar people may Read it , or no ? If you say , yea ; then may it be vulgarly vsed . For that is to bee vulgarly vsed , to be read vulgarly . If you say , no ; then in vaine do you graunt it to be Translated into the vulgar tongue . Secondly , you say , it may also be Translated , so it be doone vppon iust and vrgent causes . You should haue doone well , to haue named those iust and vrgent causes . But Sir , seeing the thing may bee doone , and seeing also there may bee iust and vrgent causes , why it should bee doone ; how commeth it to passe , that none may doe it , vnlesse the Pope licence him thereunto ? How happeneth it , that none may read it when it is translated , vnlesse hee haue the Popes licence so to doe ? How chanceth it , that it was neuer done , since the Bishop of Rome aspired to his vsurped prymacy ? This would I learne . S. R. The Holy Fathers affirme , that there are vnwritten Apostolicall Traditions ; Bell and some few start-vp Heretiques deny it . Whether beleeue ye Christians ? T. B. Bell denyeth not simply , that there bee no vnwritten Apostolicall Traditions . It is a notorious calumny ; sor I willingly admit vnwritten Traditions , as is apparant by my Bookes published to the World. But I constantly reiect all vnwritten Traditions whatsoeuer , which are obtruded as necessary to saluation , or as necessary parts of doctrin , because al such things are contained in the written Word . Other Traditions not contrary to Gods Word , which the Church obserueth , I am so farre from condemning them , that I both willingly admit them , and highly reuerence the same . And if you were constant to your own writings , you would subscribe to this my doctrine . For you graunt in many places , that all thinges necessary for saluation , are contained in the holy Scripture . Which being granted , you contradict your selfe , when yee vrge vnwritten Traditions , as necessary points of Christian Faith. S. R. There are certaine and vndoubted Apostolicall Tradions . This is against Bell. T. B. It is not against Bell , for Bell admitteth ( as we haue seen already ) such vnwritten Traditions , as are repugnant to the holy Scripture , and haue euer beene approued of the whole Church . But such neither are Articles of the Chrian faith , neither necessary to Saluation . S. R. But I prooue it , because the Traditions of the Bible to be Gods word , of the perpetuall virginity of our blessed Lady , of the transferring of the Sabboath , and such like , are certaine , and vndoubted . T. B. Crambe bis posita mors est , saith the Prouerbe . This Cuckow song , soundeth often in our eares . This irkesome Tautology of yours , doth you good seruice . The perpetuall virginity of the most blessed Virgin , I admit with all reuerence ; and semblably , I approoue the translation of the Sabboath . As this is not the first time ye vrged thē , so neither the first time I answere them . But neither are they repugnāt to the holy Scripture , nor necessary points of Doctrine . To the Tradition of the Bible ( which is euer your last and best trump , ) aunswere shall bee made God willing , in the ende of this Article . It is the most colourable thing , you can alleadge , and the onely foundation , vppon which you continually relie . I therefore reserue it for the vpshot , and to entertaine you with such a collation , as may be to your best liking . S. R. Bels conclusion is , that Traditions are so vncertain , as the learnedst Papists contend about them : and hee prooueth it , because S. Victor contended with the Byshop of Asia ; Saint Policarpe with Saint Anicetus . Surely , he meaneth , that these men were Papists , or else his conclusion is vnprooued : and consequently , Papistes and Popery were 1400. yeares agoe . T. B. Two thinges our Fryer vrgeth , neither of which vvill do him any seruice , ( viz : ) my meaning , and the proofe of my conclusion . My meaning is cleerely vttered , when in the Downefall I affirmed Saint Policarpus , Saint Policrates , and other holy Fathers , to bee so farre from acknowledging the Byshop of Rome to bee the supreme head of the Church , and that he could not erre ; that they all reputed themselues his equals , touching gouernment Ecclesiasticall ; that they all reprooued him very sharpely ; that they all with vniforme assent , affirmed him to defend a grosse errour , & to hold a false opinion ; and therefore they with might and maine withstand his proceedings . Whereas this day , if any Bishops , Magestrates , or other Potentates in the World ( where Popery beareth the sway ) should doe the like ; they might all roundly be excommunicated , and not onely deposed from their iurisdiction , but also to be burnt with fire and Fagot for their pains . Thus I then wrote , so as our Fryer could not doubt of my meaning , but that malice carryeth him away to lying . Well , but how is my conclusion proued ? Thus forsooth ; I alleaged this great contention among the holy Fathers , to proue the vncertainty of obtruded vnwritten Traditions in these our dayes . My Argument was , A maiori ad minus , as the Scooles tearm it , ( viz : ) that if the Fathers of the most ancient Church , when she was in good estate , and stained with very few or no corruptions at all , could finde no certaintie in vnwritten Traditions ; much lesse can wee trust to vnwritten Traditions in these dayes , when the Pope and his Iesuited Popelinges , employ all their care , study , & industry , to bury the truth of Christs Gospell vnder the ground . And so haue I both prooued my conclusion , and also our Fryer to be either full of malice , or a very foole . S. R. Bell denyeth the keeping of Lent to be Apostolicall , because Saint Crysostome writeth , That Christ did not bid vs imitate his fast , but be humble ; and to bee certaine , because Eusebius out of Ieremy writeth ; That in his time some thought wee ought to fast one day , some two daies , others more , and some fortie . Here Bell sheweth his lacke of iudgment , in citing a place clearely against himselfe . For here Saint Ireney & Eusebius affirme cleerely , that at the beginning there was one manner of fasting Lent appointed , though some afterward , either of ignorance or negligence , did breake it . Which prooueth not the said Tradition to be vncertain in the whole Church , vnlesse Bell will impute the fault of some few to the whole . And by this is aunswered , vvhat 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 , 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 cōfirme Socrates his affirmation ; for there is it thus written ; Si quis dominicū diem , aut Sabbathū , vno solo dempto , 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 , 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 , 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 . 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 , 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 cōstantly 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 , 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 , 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 , that Popish faith is as vnconstant as the wind , and let vs adde withal , that it is execrable blasphemy against the sonne of God , to make mans Traditions a partiall rule of our faith . For , as Christ teacheth vs , they worshippe him in vaine , that for doctrines , deliuer the Precepts of men . Read the Downfal . Saint Paule telleth vs ; That the Scriptures are able to make vs vvise vnto saluation . Which being so , we stand in need of no more , it is enough . Let vs reply vppon the written truth , and let the Papistes keepe their vnwritten vanities to themselues . Nay , let vs remember what our Iesuit hath told vs already , euen in these expresse wordes ; For surely the Prophets & Euangelists writing their Doctrine for our better remembrance , would omit no one point , which was necessary to be actually knowne of euery one ; especially , seeing they haue written many thinges not so necessary . These are the Iesuites owne words , in the Page quoted in the Margent . And yet they containe fully as much as I desire , and the whole trueth now in Controuersie , whereby the Reader may perswade himselfe , that it is the truth that I defend , and which the Papistes oppugne maliciously , confessing the same vnawares . S. R. Bell saith , Saint Iohn bids vs Try the spirites ; but he speaks not of Apostolicall spirits , nor of Traditious . Besides , hee bids vs not try them onely by scripture , and therefore hee maketh nothing for Bels purpose . T. B. What an aunswere is this ? Saint Iohn saith our Iesuite , speakes not of Apostolicall spirits , nor of Traditions . Saint Iohn speaketh of doubtfull spirits , and consequently of al spirits & all Doctrines , not grounded & contained in the holy scriptures . Againe , our Iesuite sayth , Hee bids not trie them by the scripture . Saint Iohn indefinitely bids try the spirits , and seeing he nameth not the way , ( though after he giueth some generall markes thereof ) we haue to follow the infalliable rule of Iudging aad defining euery thing , which Rule or Canon ( as our Iesuite hath freely granted ) is the scripture . S. R. Bell saith , the Berhaeans examined the truth of S. Pauls Doctrine . I aske of him whether they were faithful whilst they examined it , or faithlesse ? If faithlesse ? why proposeth hee them to vs , an example to imitate ? If faithfull , How coulde they examine whether that were true or no , which they assuredly beleeued to be Diuine truth ? Wherfore they examined not the truth of S. Pauls Doctrine , but searched the scriptures for confirmation and encrease of their faith . And this kinde of examining , which disallow not . T. B. I answere , that the faithfull though they beleeue the Articles of the Christian faith , yet may they without doubting or staggering , examine vnwritten Traditions and what Doctrine els soeuer , not expressed in the Holy scripture . Take heed of false Prophets , which come to you in sheeps clothing . Search the scriptures : try al things : hold fast thaet which is good : Beleeue not euery spirit , but try the spirits if they bee of God. The spirituall man Iudgeth all things . By these Textes of holy writ , it is very cleere , that we are not bound rashly to beleeue all preaching , and much lesse all vnwritten popish Traditions . If wee do , we shall vnawares adore the deuill in Hermannus , as is already proued . Neither did the Berhaeans search the scriptures , onely for the confirmation of their faith ; but for the Tryall of the trueth , as the Texte auoucheth . And they searched the scriptures daily , if those things were so . Loe , they examined the Doctrine , if it were consonant to the scripture . But heere it may bee obiected , that if euery one be a Iudge , confusion will abound in the Church . To this Obiection I haue answered at large , in my Booke Intituled the Golden Ballance . To which place , I referre the Reader , which shall desire satisfaction in that behalfe . S. R. Bell faith , that in S. Cyprians dayes , neyther tradition was a sufficient proofe of Doctrine , nor the Popes definitiue sentence a rule of fayth . These be both vntruths . For he onely thought , that humane and mistaken tradition was no sufficient rule , as hath bin shewed before . T. B. S. Cyprian was resolute , that all traditions must be exactly tryed by the Holy scripture , as is proued at large in the Downfall , and partly in this reply already . It is needlesse heere to iterate the same . S. R. S. Hierom writing to Damasus , saith thus ; Decree I pray you , if it please you ; I will not feare to say three Hypostases , if you bid . And hee requested him to giue authority , either to affirme or deny three Hypostases : and darest thou Bell , make no account of the Popes sentence , when so great a Doctor so highly esteemed it ? T. B. I answer , first that if we beleeue Fryer Austen de Aneona , the Pope in these dayes , hath Vniuersal iurisdiction ouer all Kingdomes and Empyres . Secondly , that as Antoninus saith , He hath power ouer all things , that haue any being . Thirdly , that as Aquinas saith , Hee hath as much power as Christ himselfe had , and can giue as large Pardons , as Christ himselfe gaue . Fourthly , that as Siluester saith , One may haue so large a Pardon from the Pope , that if he chance to die the same houre he hath it , he shall go to heauen out of hand . Fiftly , that as Gratianus telleth vs , Hee beareth the keyes of eternall life , the right both of earthly & heauenly Empire . Sixtly , that as the Popish Glosse saith ; Hee hath both swords , the spirituall and the Temporall , and by that meanes , hee can translate Empires . Seauenthly , that as Nicolaus de Lyra his owne deare fryer telleth him ; He may be an Apostata , and forsake the faith , as many of his predecessors haue done . Eightly , that as Fryer Caranza saith , He may enter into the Popedome as a Fox , liue in it as a Wolfe , and dye as a Dogge . Ninthly , that as his owne Decrees tel vs , though he be so wicked that he carry many thousands to Hell with him , yet may no mortall man Iudge him . No maruell therefore , if our Iesuite demaund of one , how I dare controule his dealing . Yet by his fauour , I may tell him with humility , that Damasus was a Vertuous , Wise , and Learned Byshop , and of great Authority by reason of his place , and for that end did S. Hierome thinke it fitte in the troublous state of the Church , ( when the Arrians did euery where molest the Christians ) to haue his counsell and assistaunce , in the cheefest point then in controuersie . Like as in these our dayes , greater personages , and better learned , will not sometime disdaine , to haue the opinion and Iudgement of meaner men . I adde , that Sa. Hierome knewe right well , that it was a thinge meerely Adiaphoron , and therefore was therein resolued , to do as Damasus should giue aduise . S. R. Bellarmine ( saith Bell ) telleth vs , that the greater part of voyces must beare the sway in Counsels . But Melchior Canus a learned Popish Byshop , doth roundly tell vs another tale . It is not ( saith he ) with vs as it is within humaine assemblies , where moe voyces euer preuaile . For these matters are not to be iudged by number , but by weight . And the Counsels receiue their waight from the grauity and authority of the Pope . Ergo ( saith Bell. ) There is no certainty in Counsels . A goodly reason surely , as if nothing in counsels were certaine , because two Byshops cannot agree of the Popes authority . T. B. The reason is strong against you , for in these late daies the Pope taketh so much vppon him , that wee see , the best learned Papistes know not , what to thinke of the decree . S. R. Bellarmine ( saith Bell ) in one place saith , that the Consistorie of Bishops in lawful councels , is the true assembly of Iudges , and that their decrees and Lawes must be obserued of necessity . Yet in another place he saith , it is all one , whether the Pope disanul the Councel expressely , or the Councell doe against the Popes minde . This is no Contradiction , for though he affirme Byshoppes to bee Iudges , and theyr iudgement to bee necessarily followed , yet must not that bee , before it be confirmed by the Pope . T. B. Let the Reader giue his censure ; The case is euident . S. R. Bell citeth M●lchior Canus , affirming that the Pope cannot communicate his iudiciall power to his Legates , whom he sendeth to Counsells ; and therefore inferreth , that the Pope abuseth the World , whereas the Pope abuseth the World no more , then doth the Prince abuse the Parliament , when sending thether the Lord Chancellor to supply his place , will neuerthelesse approue nothing what the Peeres 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 VVorld . Neyther dooth the Pope in person , come to Councelles at all of late daies . S. R. Bell citeth Bell●rmine , for the Emperours sitting in Councelles aboue the Pope : Ergo , the East Church neuer acknowledged his primacy . Who seeth not the weaknesse of this reason ? T. B. Our Iesuite falsifieth my words , and then descanteth at his pleasure vppon them . These are my wordes , as it may appeare in the Downefall . The pope was neuer present at the Councelles in the East Churches , by himselfe , and in his owne person . The conclusion is freely confessed by Bellarmine , who alleadgeth two reasons , for the Popes absence . The one forsooth , because it was not conuenient , that the head should follow the members . The other , because the Emperour would euer sit in the highest place . Out of these wordes I noted two pointes of importance ; the one , that in the Auncient Church , the highest place in the Councels , was euer reserued to the Emperour . The other , that the East Churches did neuer acknowledge the Popes prymacie , which hee this day challengeth ouer all Kingdomes and Regalities most arrogantly . To vvhich twaine , this pleasant adiunct perforce must be annexed : ( viz : ) that our humble Father the Pope ( who hypocritically calleth himselfe Sernus seruorum Dei , ) would neuer come to the Councels , because forsooth he could not endure to see the Emperour sitting in the highest place . Now the Reader hath the truth , let him him giue his censure accordingly . S. R. Bell inferreth diuers thinges requisite to be answered . T. B. But yee both propound them as is best for your owne aduantage , and answere them either with silence , or nothing to the purpose . But let vs be content with that we can get , and make our best commodity thereof . Say on good Fryer , thou shalt be heard with all fauour . S. R. First , Bishops before they can be admitted in councels ( saith Bell ) must sweare , that the Pope can depose all Emperors , and Kings in the Christian world . Secondly , they sweare to admit the Popes decrees , whō they freely grant may bee an Heretick . Thirdly , they sweare obedience to him in matters of Faith , whom ( as themselues confesse ) they can depose for heresie . Fourthly , that the pope is not supreme Iudge of controuersies , seeing Bishops may examine and iudge , whether what he commandeth be agreeable to Gods word , & the Canons . Lastly , that they swear flat rebellion against their soueraigns , seeing they sweare to defend the Popes primacy , against all men whomsoeuer . T. B. Let vs examine this honest tale , made in the behalfe of the Pope , and for the benefite of the Reader , let vs both heare it , and answer it particularly . S. R. As for the first point , it is vntrue , as appeareth by the answer to the first article . T. B. The first point is , that the Pope can depose Emperours and Kings . Our Fryer denyeth it , and sendeth the Reader to the first Article . I agree also , that the Reader peruse my reply with the Downefall , & then yeeld his censure accordingly , for that the Pope challengeth such power ( though the Iesuite for shame here denieth it ) it is as cleere as the Sunne shining at noone-day . S. R. The second and third containe no inconuenience . For we must obey what he decreeth or defineth iudicially , as sitting in S. Peters chaire ; though in hart he were an Hereticke : as our Sauiour commaunded the Iewes to follow what the Scribes taught out of Moses Chaire , but to abstaine from their priuate Leauen . T. B. The second point was , that the Bishops sweare to admit his Canons and decrees , whom they freely grant , may bee an Heretique . The third point was , that the Bishops sweare obedience to him in matters of Faith , whom they can depose for heresie . These pointes which our Iesuite proposeth couertly ( because he would not haue the Reader to vnderstand thē ) must neuer be forgotten . We must ( saith our Fryer ) obey & beleeue what the Pope decreeth iudicially , though in hart he be an Heretick . This is strange Doctrine to a Christian hart , though approued of all Papists . It is not amisse here to adde , the Testimony of their graue Quodl betist . These are his words ; As the prudent Greeke appealed from Alexander furious , to Alexander sober ; and Bishoppe Crostate from Pope Adrian priuate , to Pope Adrian publique , and as Summus pontifex in Cathedra Petri , so may the Seculars appeale from the Pope as Clemens , vnto his holinesse as Peter . These words are expressely set downe . Quodl . 6. art . 10. By this Doctrine so plainely deliuered ( which is a constant position in the Romish Church ) the Secular Priests giue vs to vnderstand , that execrable and neuer enough detested fallacy , wherewith the Pope & his popelings , haue a long time seduced a great part of the Christian world , ( viz : ) that the Pope may erre as a priuate man , but not as a publicke person . Of which absurd Doctrine I haue written at large in my Treatise , intituled The Hunting of the Romish Foxe . I will therefore for the present onely speake thereof , as these words giue me fit occasion . First then ; we see heere , that if we meane to wring any truth out of the Popes nose , we must haue recourse to his holines , at such time as he is sober ; not when he is furious least he become starke mad , & forget for euer the knowledge of the truth . Secondly , we must haue his aduise , when he is a publike person , not a priuate man. Thirdly , we must go vnto him , not as he is indeed , this or that Pope , but as he is S. Peter , that blessed Apostle of our Lord Iesus . Thus much is deduced out of this popish Doctrine , by euident and necessary consecution . These points , if they be well marked , will vtterly confound all popish Doctrine , and turne it vpside downe . For first , it is a constant Axiome in all popish Doctrine , that the Pope and none but the pope , must be the Iudge in all controuersies of faith and Doctrine . This notwithstanding , wee see by this popish doctrine ( which is currant in the Romish Church ) that if the Pope Iudge of any matter , as he is furious and not sober ; as he is a priuate man , and not a publike person ; as hee is Clemens , Sixtus , Adrianus , or some other like pope , and not Saint Peter himselfe ; then may hee erre , and so both bee deceiued himselfe , and deceiue all others . Whereupon it followeth of necessity , that euery one must well examine the popes Doctrine and Iudgement , before he beleeue it , otherwise doubtles , he may receiue poyson for medicine , falshood for truth , and erroneous , for Orthedoxe Christian doctrine . Nay , otherwise he cannot possibly tell , when he shall appeale from the pope , as a false teacher and seducer of the people . Secondly , the time cannot be named , in which the Byshop of Rome , shall be the Byshop there , & not a publick person at the selfe-same time , for euen then when hee is a sleepe , he is a publicke person , or else no Byshop doubtlesse . For once a Byshop euer a Byshop , by Popish indeleble Character . Yet I willingly graunt , that a publique person may do some act , which may be censured the acte of a priuate man ; but that cannot serue their turne . Thirdly , If the Papists will neuer apeale to the pope , nor haue any intercourse with him , vntill he be Saint Peter , they shall neuer do it , till the worlds end . Fourthly , if he be Peter by Office or calling , then is hee alwayes Peter ; vnlesse perhaps hee be sometime Lucifer , which were a rare Metamorphosis . Fiftly , this Popish distinction , may fitly be termed a trick of fast and loose . For , if the Pope define a truth , they may thē say , he defined as a publick person . But if he define an error , then they say , he defined as a priuat mā . So doubtles it may be said indeed , that he can neuer erre , but some mā in his robes , or some Deuill vnder his pall . Briefely , on the one side ( as we haue heard already ) the Pope commands vpon paine of Sacriledge , not to dispute of his power , nor to examine his doings , and yet on the other side , we must know whether he speake and define as a publicke person , or as a priuate man , before we beleeue his decrees : which knowledge for al that can no way be had , but by due examination of the popes doings . What remaineth but to exclaime and complaine to our trusty friendes ( as the great learned Papist Gielerius did ) that by this Popish Doctrine no man can go to heauen . S. R. For we must obey and beleeue what he decreeth iudicially , though in hart he be an Hereticke . T. B. Then sir , we must examine the doctrine which the pope deliuereth , to know whither it proceedeth from the Pope as a publique person , or as a priuate man. For otherwise we may as soone receiue deadly poyson , as wholy medicine ; and as soone worship Harmannus the Heretiques bones , as the reliques of S. Peter , or S. Paule . But this examination the Pope forbids and your selfe ( Maister Fryer ) tels vs the same tale in your next wordes , which are these ; Because Byshops must not examine the Doctrine , which the Pope deliuereth iudicially out of S. Peters chaire , as supreme pastor of Gods Church , but onely that , wherein hee vttereth his owne priuate Opinion . Thus writeth our Iesuite , truly telling vs the Popish faith . Which Doctrine , if any but a Papist had deliuered it , few or none woulde haue giuen credite thereunto . O sweet Iesus ! I wonder how any Papist hearing such Doctrine published in print , by our Iesuites , so deare & so neare to the Pope himselfe , and duely pondering the vanity thereof , and the blasphemy therein contained , can still be a Papist , and not defie the Pope & his damnable doctrine . What shal we do with holy scripture ? Is it the infallible rule of faith ? Is it superior to the Popes iudiciall sentence ? No , no , if the Pope define against it , his sentence must bee obeyed , neyther may any Byshop , ( much lesse euery priuate man ) examine the same , or else cal it into Question , Apage , Apage , fire & faggot for such rotten Popery , God will vomit it out of his mouth . S. R. As our Sauiour commandeth the Iewes to follow , what the Scribes taught out of Moyses chaire , but to abstaine from their priuate leuen . T. B. You pope sitteth in Cathedra pestilentiae , & not in Cathedra petri . I haue proued it elsewhere at large ; here I wil adde one point or two , for the Readers better satisfaction in this behalfe . Iohannes Gerson a famous Papist and chansellor of Paris teacheth so plainely , that Popes may erre not only as priuate men , but euen as publicke persons in their publick and iudicial decrees of faith and manners , as none for very shame can deny the same , that shall eyther read or heare his words . Thus therefore doth 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 , vvhereuppon it followeth consequently , that the Pope taught false Doctrine , euen in a weighty matter of faith . To which is consectary , that his Doctrine was publicke , as which was publikely condemned at Paris , and that in the presence of the King. But now kings must not deale in such matters , where the Popes holinesse beareth any sway . Yet thus dealt the King of France with the Pope , almost 300. yeares ago . I thinke it not amisse heere to insinuate to the Reader , how the kings of France haue vsed the Popes Messengers . Boniface the eight falling at variance with King Phillippe the faire , woulde needes excommunicate him , but there was neuer excommunication cost Pope so deare , as that did him , for his Nuncios were committed prisoners his 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 , 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 , 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 . 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 . 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 . 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 ; 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 thē do ; but this must be vnderstood with this limitation ; so long as they taught & cōmanded 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 , tvvo 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 remēbrance , ( viz : ) of one of the Popes owne decrees , in which I find these expresse wordes ; Multisacerdotes , & pauci sacerdotes . Multi in nomine , & pauci in opere . Videte ergo fratres , quomodo sed●tis super cathedram . Quia non cathedra facit sacerdotem , sed sacerdos cathedrā . Non locus sanctificat hominē , sed homo sanctificat locū . Non omnis sacerdos santcus , sed omnis sanctus est sacerdos . Qui bene sederit super cathedrā , honorē 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 , 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 , 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 , Saint Austen , and Ruffinus ? VVhence the perpetuall virginity of our blessed Lady ? VVhence the lawfull transferring of the Sabbaoth day from Saterday to Sunday ? Whence many other thinges , as testifie S. Hierome , S. Cyprian , and others , but by Tradition ? But especially , whence haue we the Bible it selfe ? Whence haue we , that euery Booke , Chapter , and verse of it , is Gods word ; and no one sentence therein corrupted in all these 1600. yeares ? T. B. This is nothing else , but ridiculous and irkesome Tantologie . It is answered againe , and againe . The Apostles Creede wee haue by Tradition in compendious manner , but it is conteyned in the written Word . As the Fathers admit many Traditions , so doe I with the Church of England . For we reiect no Tradition , vnlesse it bee either repugnant to holy Writ , or else obtruded as a necessary point of Saluation . Which if the Reader marke seriously , hee shall finde the Iesuite at a Non plus . Concerning the Bible , that it hath not beene corrupted for these 1600. yeares ; I aunswere , that this blessing commeth not from the late Romish Church , but from the GOD of Heauen , who preserued the old Testament from corruption , whē it was longer in the handes of the wicked Iewes . Howe we know it to be the word of GOD , I haue shewed at large in the Downefall , and thinke it needlesse heere to iterate the same . Yet as our Iesuite shall giue occasion , some more shall be added by way of reply . S. R. Bels first aunswere is , that there is great difference betwixt the primatiue Church , & the Church of late daies . For the Apostles heard Christes Doctrine , saw his Miracles , and were replenished with the Holy-Ghost ; and consequently , they were fit witnesses , of all that Christ did , and taught ; which adiunctes the Church of Rome hath not . Here Bell blasphemeth Christes Church of late dayes , auouching her neither to be replenished with the Holy-Ghost , contrary to our creede professing her to be holy and Christs promise , that the Holy-Ghost should remaine with her for euer . Nor to be a fit Witnesse of his truth , contrary to Saint Paule , calling her the Pillar of Truth . T. B. The blasphemy proceedeth from your selues , & from your pope , to whom you ascribe such a prerogatiue as is proper to God alone , when you tell vs he cannot erre . I therefore answere , that the true Church of God is holy , hath the assistance of the Holy-Ghost , and is a constant witnesse of Christs truth . But these promises pertaine not to the church of Rome , but to the whole congregation of the faithfull . This Congregation is the pillar of Truth ; this Congregation hath the Holy-Ghost ; this Congregation is holy ; this Congregation cannot 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 . 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 . VVho would haue thought , that a Popish Fryer should or would , thus haue defined the Church ? The Iesuites will not thus define it . Heere is no mention of the pope , and yet of the Popish Church he is the head . He that opened the mouth of Balaams Asse , opened now the mouth of our Fryer Alphonsus . The truth must and will in time preuaile . Panormitanus a Popish Abbot , a Popish Arch-●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 vniuersalē , 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 , quod hic dicitur , quod non possit errare . Siipso papa , certum est quod papa errare potest . Respondeo , ipsa congregatio sidelium hic dicitur ecclesia , & talis ecclesia non potest nonesse . I aske thee ( O pope Luci ) of what Church thou vnderstands that , which thou tellest vs in this place ? To wit , that the church cannot erre . For if thou vnderstandest it of the pope himself , it is very certaine that the pope may erre . I answere therfore , that the church is here taken for the congregation of the faithfull , & such a church can neuer erre ( indeed . ) Out of these words of these great Papistes , I note : First , that the Church is the Vnïuersall Congregation of the faithfull , throughout the whole VVorlde ; whereof the head is not the Pope , but Christ Iesus our Lord. Secondly , that this is that Church , which cannot erre . Thirdly , that when the Pope saith , the Church cannot erre , then his owne deare and faithfull interpreter telleth him , that that priuiledge is not graunted to the Pope , but to the whole congregation of the faithfull . And the sayd Glosse prooueth the same , by many Canons of the popes owne Decrees . Fourthly , that the church in which the truth alwayes abideth , is the congregation of the faithfull : and therefore truly said Durandus ; that the late popish church is not comparable to the primatiue . Church , which heard Christs Doctrine , saw his Miracles , and was replenished with the Holy-ghost . S. R. But suppose , that the present Church could not bee a fit witnes , as the Primatiue was . What is this to the Argument , that proueth necessity of Tradition , because without Testimony of the Church , wee cannot discerne true Scripture from false . T. B. The visible externall church , is only an externall mean , Instrument , or outward help , whereby we are induced to giue humaine credite , to one Scripture rather then to another . But the formall cause why we beleeue any Scripture to be Gods word , is God himselfe , and the inspiration of his holy spirit . Hereof occasion will be offered , to speake hereafter more at large . S. R. Bels second answere is , that as Papistes admit the Iewes Tradition of the old Testament for Gods word , and withall refuse many other Traditions of theirs ; so Protestantes admit this Tradition of the Bible , and reiect all other . We contend against Protestants , that Scripture is not sufficient to proue all points of Christian faith , but that Tradition is necessary for some : and Bell heere confesseth it . Where is now the Downefall of Popery ? Methinkes , it is become the Downefall of protestantry . VVhere is now Bels first exposition ? That Scripture containeth in it , euery Doctrine necessary to mans Saluation ? VVhere is now , that wee must not adde to Gods word , if this Tradition must needs be added thereunto ? Where is now , that this present church can be no fit witnesse , if by her testimony wee come to know the truth ? VVhere is now the curse , which S. Paule pronounceth against him , that preacheth any Doctrine not contained in the Scripture ? Where is now , that Scripture is the sole and onely rule of faith ? T. B. Here our Iesuite in all brauery , tryumphing before the victory , exclaimeth six seuerall times , where is now this , and where is now that ? And when all is done , his exclamation is not woorth a dead Rat. Whosoeuer shall duely peruse the Downefall , will easily perceiue therein , that all which our Iesuite hath brought in all this his great glory , was soundly confuted before it came to light . Neuerthelesse , for the better contentation of the Christian Reader , I thus reply vpon our Lordly Fryer . First , with their owne deare Fryer Alphonsus à Castro , in the words ; Hocn . habemus ex ecclesia vt , sciamus quae sit scriptura diuina : at cum Scripturam ●sse diuinam nobis constiterit , iam ex seipsa habet , vt ei per omnia credere teneamur . It commeth from the Church , that we know which is holy Scripture : but after we know it to be the holy Scripture , henceforth it hath of it selfe , that wee are bound to beleeue it in euery point . Thus writeth this famous Papist ; and he doth illustrate his assertion , by a similitude drawn from a Creditor and a Debtor . As if ( saith he ) witnesses should bee brought for the proofe of an Instrument , in which Peter standeth bound to pay to Iohn 100. crownes , the witnesses do not make Peter to be bound to Iohn . For although Peter should deny it , and no Witnesses could prooue it , Peter for all that should owe the debt . But the Witnesses effect so much , that hee may be conuicted to owe the debt . Much more to this effect hath Alphonsus , but I desire to bee briefe . This I inferre out of his words , that though we grant the Scriptures to be known by the Testimony of the Church ; yet after that notification , it deserueth credite of it selfe , for euery iote contained in the same . Secondly , that seeing the Scripture acknowledged for Gods word of all Christians , containeth by the Iesuites confession ( as is already prooued ) all thinges necessary for christian beliefe vnto Saluation ; it followeth of necessity , that no vnwritten Tradition is necessary to Saluation . For doubtlesse , if euery Article , and all thinges necessary to salution be written ; then can nothing at all be necessary , that remaineth vnwritten . Thirdly , I constantly auouch and christianly affirme , ( mark gentle Reader attentiuely ) that the holy Scripture dow shew it selfe to be Gods word ; euen as the Sun and the Candle by their light , do shew themselues what they are . I proue it : First , because the Prophet cals the Scripture a Lanthorne . Thy word O Lord ( saith holy Dauid ) is a Lanthorne to my feet , and a light vnto my pathes . And the Apostle confirmeth the same , when hee saith ; Wee haue a right sure word of prophesie , whereunto if ye take heede , as vnto a light that shineth in a darke place , ye doe well , vntill the day dawne , and the day-star●e arise in your hearts . Secondly , because Christ himselfe telleth vs , that his Sheepe do heare his voyce . My Sheepe ( saith he ) heare my voyce , and I know them , and they follow me . Againe thus ; I am the good Sheepheard , I know my Sheepe , and they know me . But 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 , 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 knovv Christ. For therefore do my Sheepe know me , because I know them . Thus writeth our Iesuite , out of wose words I note first , that all Gods children are not effectually called at one time , but erre and wander as sheepe without a 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 , 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 , ben● discernit omnia adsalutem pertinentia , de singulis talibus verum iudicum proferendo , inter bonum & malum , verū & falsum veraciter distinguendo . The spirituall man which hath the spirit of God , indgeth and truely discerneth all thinges , which pertaine to saluation , prououncing true iudgement of euery such thing , and truely distinguishing betweene good and euill , truth and falshood . Nicolaus de Lyra affoordeth the same exposition to this Text of scripture . The famous popish writer Aquinas is of the same mind . These are his words : Apostolls hic dicit , quod spiritualis 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 ; Spiritualis fide sua eo penetrat , vt omnia quae sunt spiritus Dei dijudicare possit , nec iudicio su● fallatur , vt bonum dicat malum , vel stultum 〈◊〉 est sapientissimū . The spiritual man doth penetrate so far by his faith , that he is able to iudg al things that are of the spirit of God , neyther can he be deceiued in his Iudgment , that he eyther call Good , euill ; or that foolish , which is most wise . Out of the words of these great popish Doctours , ( who are euer the best witnesses against the papists , I obserue these instructions for the Reader . First , that euery regenerate person and child of God , ( for all such are Spiritual ) is able to Iudge of euery thing , that concernes his saluation ; and consequently , which is falshood , which is Gods word , which is not ; because that especially pertaines to his saluation . Secondly , that euery childe of God is able by his faith to wade so farre , that he can iudge of all needfull trueth , and whatsoeuer is conuenient for his soules health , & neuer be deceiued in his Iudgement . Fourthly , because S. Iohn tels vs , that the vnction which the faithfull haue receiued , doth teach them all thinges ; Ergo to discerne Gods word from mans word . Melchior Canus a learned Schooleman and a famous Byshop , teacheth vs the selfe-same Doctrine in plainer termes . These are his expresse words : Praestanti quod in se est , Deus fidem ad salutem necessariam non negat . Sequitur ; non . n. vnctio quēcunque simpliciter docet de omnibus , sed quemque de his quae sunt cipropria & necessaria . Sequitur ; concedimus liberaliter doctrinā cuique in sua vita & statu necessariam , illi fore prospectā & 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 necessariā discernat ab errore contrario qui ex deo non est . To the man that doth what in him lyeth , God neuer denyeth faith necessary to saluation . For the vnction doth not simply teach euery one euery thing ; but it teacheth euery one so much , as is proper and necessary for him . And we graunt freely , that doctrine necessary for euery mans life and state , is sufficiently knowne to him , that doth the will of God. For like as the well affected tast , doth easily discerne the differences of sauors or tasts ; so doth the good affection of the mind bring to passe , that a man may discerne the Doctrine of God necessary to saluation , from contrary error which is not of God. Thus writeth the grauest Papist for learning , in the vniuersall world ; and consequently , it is and must bee of great force against the Papistes , whatsoeuer hath passed from his pen. And I protest vnto the ( Gentle Reader ) that nothing hath more estraunged me from Popery , and set me at defiance with it , then the cleere & prospicuous Doctrine , of the best Learned and most renowned Papistes , for whosoeuer will seriously pervse the Bookes which I haue published to the view of the world , shall therein finde by the Testimony of the best approued Papists , euery point of setled Doctrine in the Church of England . Out of the words of this learned Popish Byshop , that when S. Iohn sayth , The vnction teacheth vs all things : Hee meaneth not the difficult Questions in Religion , but all , such points as are necessary for euery mans saluation . Secondly , that no man wanteth this knowledge and iudgment of Doctrine , but he that is willingly ignorant , and will not apply himselfe to liue Christianly . Thirdly , that euery priuate man , is able to discern true Doctrine from Falshood and Error , so farre forth as is requisite for his saluation ; as well as a sound and good tast is able to discern differences of tasts . Ergo , euery faithful Christian is able to discern Gods word from mans word ; because it is a thing necessary for his owne soules health . The case is so cleare , as it can by no reason be denyed . Fiftly , because the formall obiect of our faith , is Veritas prima or God himselfe , as Dionisius Areopagita telleth vs. Yea , Aquinas the Popish Angellicall Doctor teacheth the selfe-same Doctrine . Non. n. fides inquit , diuina alicui assemitur , nisi quia est à deo reuelatum . For Diuine faith ( saith Aquinas ) will not yeeld assent to any thing , vnlesse it be reuealed of God. The truth of which doctrine , S. Austen confirmeth in these Golden wordes ; Iam hic videte &c. Nowe bretheren behold heere a great sacrament . The sound of our wordes pierceth your eares , but the Maister that teacheth you is within . Thinke not , that man learneth any thing of mā . We ( Preachers ) may admonish you by sound of words , but if he be not within that teacheth , in vaine is our sounde . The outward teachings , are some helpes and admonitions , but hee sitteth in his chaire in heauen , that teacheth the hart . The maister is within that teacheth . It is Christ that teacheth . It is his inspiration , that instructeth . Where his inspiration and vnction is not , there the outward noyse of words is in vaine . Thus writeth this holy , auncient , and Learned father , with many moe words to the like effect . By whose doctrine togither with that of Dionisius and Aquinas , wee may learne sufficiently , if nothing else were saide , that howsoeuer Paule plant , or Apollo water , yet will no increase followe vnlesse God giue the same . I therefore conclude , that we do not beleeue this book or that Booke to be Cannonical , because this man or that man , or the church saith so , but because the Scripture is ' axiopistos ; because it hath in it selfe that dignity , that verity , and that Maiesty , which is woorthy of credite in it selfe . The declaration of the church , doth make vs know and beleeue the scripture ; but is onely an externall help , to bring vs thereunto . We indeed beleeue the Scripture , & this or that Booke to be canonicall , because God doth inwardly teach vs , and perswade our harts so to beleeue . For Certes , if we should beleeue this or that booke to be canonicall , because the Church saith so ; then should the formall obiect of our faith , and the last resolution therof , be man , and not God himselfe ; as Areopagna , Aquinas , & the truth it selfe teacheth vs. Sixtly , because we cannot be assured , that the Church telleth vs the truth . For how can the Church perswade vs , that she knoweth it to be Gods word ? If aunswere be made , that shee knoweth it of another Church ; then I demaund againe , how that other Church can performe it ? And so , either contrary to all Diuinity , Phylosophy , and right reason , Dabitur processus in infinitum ; Or else they must say , they receiued it by Tradition from the Apostles , and thē are they where they began . For first , they cannot make vs know that assuredly . Againe , our Iesuite confuteth that answer , when he liberally telleth vs , that many partes of the Bible were long after the daies of the Apostles doubted of , and consequently , their Apostolicall so supposed Tradition , is of no effect . If answere be made , that the Church knoweth it by Reuelation , then their famous Bishop Melchior Canus telleth them plainely , and roundly , that it cannot bee so . These are his expresse wordes ; Nec vllas in fide nouas reuelationes ecclesia habet . For the Church hath no new Reuelations , in matters of Faith. If answere be made , that the Scripture saith , the Church cannot erre , and so her testification is an infallible rule thereof ; we admit the answer , we hold the same , the controuersie is at an end , the victory is our own Onely we must adde this , which is already proued , that that Church which cannot erre , is not the late Romish church , but the congregation of the faithfull . Lastly , the Scripture it selfe in many places telleth vs expresly , that it is the word of God. First , wee haue in the foure Euangelistes these vvordes expressely set downe . The Holy-Ghost of Iesus Christ according to Matthew , Marke , Luke , and Iohn . Secondly , Saint Luke affirmeth , in the beginning of the Actes of the Apostles , that he made a Book of al those thinges which Iesus both did and taught ; meaning that gospell which is the third in number . Thirdly , wee are taught by Saint Peter , that no prophesie of Scripture is made by any priuate motion , but that holy men of God spake , as they were mooued by the Holy-Ghost . Fourthly , S. Paule telleth vs , That he receiued that of our Lord God , which he deliuered in the Scripture . Fiftly , the same Apostle affirmeth , that That Gospell of God 〈◊〉 written , which was promised by his Prophets in the holy Scriptures . Sixtly , S. Iohn receiued his Reuelation from Christ , which he was commaunded to write . Lastly , ( and this striketh dead ) When the rich Glutton tormented in Hell , desired of our holy Father Abraham , that one might be sent from the dead to his Bretheren then liuing ; Abraham answered , that they had Moses and the Prophets , whom ther ought to heare and beleeue . And Christ himselfe told his Apostles ; that all thinges must needes bee fulfilled which were written of him in the Law of Moses , in the Prophets , and in the Psalmes . Yea , Christ tolde the two Disciples going toward Emmaus , that they ought to beleeue all thinges which the Prophets spake : and therefore beginning at Moses and all the Prophets , hee did interpret to them in all the Scriptures , the thinges which were written of himselfe . And consequently , the Scripture it selfe doth plainely tell vs , that it is the word of GOD. For out of these wordes of the holy Scripture , wee haue these points of Doctrine most cleerely deliuered . First , that our Sauiour Christ spake them . Secondly , that all things must be beleeued , which are written in the Law in the Prophets , and in the Psalmes . Thirdly , that all things foretold of Christ in the Law , the Prophets , and the Psalmes , were fulfilled indeed . Fourthly , that Christ did interprete the chiefest partes of all the Law , the Prophets , and the Psalmes . I therefore conclude , that it is the word of GOD. As also , that the dignity , the excellency , and the Maiesty thereof , dooth insinuate no lesse vnto vs. S. R. Neither is Bels comparison true . For wee beleeue not the Olde Testament to bee Gods word , for any Tradition which the Iewes haue ; but which the Catholique church hath from the Apostles and their successors . Who deliuered to the church , and she to vs , as well the Old as the New Testament for Gods word . T. B. You contradict your selfe good Maister Fryer , as who tels vs right plainely in another place , that many parts of the Bible were doubted of , a long time after the Apostles . For , if you had receiued by Tradition from the Apostles , all the Scriptures , both of the Old and New Testament , ye could neuer so long after the Apostles , haue bin in doubt of many partes thereof . For by your supposed Tradition , you had the same assurance for the whole , as for the parts . And consequently , seeing you graunt your vncertainty for many parts , you must perforce graunt the same vncertainty for the whole . And so you confesse vnawares , and against your wils , so much in effect and true meaning , as I contend to proue , ( viz : ) that your vnwritten supposed Apostolicall Traditions , are as vncertaine as the winde , and not an infallible rule of faith . S. R. Bels third solution is , that the New Testament is but an exposition of the Old , and therefore may be tryed and discerned by the same . But Sir ? Will you indeed try the New Testament ? Will you take vpon you to iudge Gods word ? And if you will try Gods word , by what will you try the Old Testament ? Surely by Tradition , or by nothing . T. B. I answere , that I admit both the Old Testament and the New , because I beleeue God speaking in the same . This is prooued already . Againe , seeing the Law , and the Prophets , and the Psalmes , are approoued by Christes owne Testimony , as we haue heard already ; and seeing withall , that the New Testament is but an exposition of the Old , as I haue prooued in the Downefall ; it followeth of necessity , that the Old being receiued , the New cannot be reiected . Neither is he Iudge of Gods word , that discerneth one Scripture by another● because hee maketh not himselfe , but Gods word the iudge thereof . No more thē hee , who conferring Scripture with Scripture , expoundeth one place by another . Which kind of exposition S. Austen preferreth before all other . S. R. Bell saith , canonicall Scripture may bee discerned of it selfe , as light from darke . He prooueth it , because Gods word is called a light and a Lanthorne which shineth to Men. Because spirituall men iudge all things ; because the vnction teacheth Gods children all things ; And Christes Sheepe both heare and know his voyce . But this is easily refelled . First , because though Samuell were a faithfull and holy man , and God spake thrice to him , yet he tooke his word for mans word , vntill Hely the high Priest tolde him it was Gods word . Gedeon was faithfull , and yet knew not at first , that it was God that spake vnto him by an Angell , and therefore demanded a Miracle in confirmation of it . Likewise Saint Peter was faithfull , and yet at first he knew not , that it was an Angell that spake and deliuered him . Secondly , Gods word consisteth in the sence and meaning , which the faithfull oftentimes doe not vnderstand . Thirdly , the distinction of Scriptures from not Scriptures , is not so euident , as the distinction of light from darknesse is , for then no man could erre therein . T. B. This aunswere of our Fryer is friuolous , and childish . That which hee obiecteth of Samuell , Gedeon , and Peter , is not to the purpose . For , as I haue prooued out of Melchior Canus and others ; euery one of the faithfull knoweth not euery thing , but onely so much as is necessary for his saluation to know ; neyther is such their knowledge at euery houre & moment , but then onely and in such measure , when and in what degree it pleaseth God to giue it . Some of Gods children are effectually called at the first hour , some at the third , some at the sixt , some at the last . For though al Gods children , be elected and predestinate before all time , yet are they al called both generally and effectually in time : some sooner , some later , according to the good pleasure of the caller , who calleth freely without respect of persons . Now , where our Fryer denyeth the distinction of Gods word from mans word , to be so euident as the distinction of light from darkenes , because then none ( as he saith ) could erre therein . I answere , that as he that is blinde corporally , cannot discerne colours , nor behold the bright beams of the sinne , so neither can he that is blind spiritually , discerne Gods word frō mans word , nor behold the brightnes of eternall truth . For as the Apostle teacheth vs. If Christs Gospell be hid , it is hidde in them that perish : in whom the God of this world , hath blinded the minds of them which beleeue not , least the light of the gospell of the glory of Christ , should shine vnto them . And the same Apostle telleth vs else-where , That the spirituall man iudgeth all things , but the naturall man perceiueth not the things , which are of God. S. R. Saint Iohn ( sayth Bell ) affirmeth that the Vnction teacheth vs all thinges ) which wee deny not ; but no where ( saith he ) that it alone teacheth vs without the testimony of the Church , which is it that wee deny , and Bell should proue . T. B. I haue proued at large , euen out of your owne reuerend Byshop Melchior Canus ; that as the well affected tast , can easily discerne the differences of sauours ; so can the good affection of the minde , discerne the Doctrine of saluation . And therfore as the testimony of the church is not necessary to the one , no more is it to the other . Yea if that sence of our Fryer , had beene the truth of the text , all the graue expositors of S. Iohn , woulde neuer haue omitted the same . But our Fryer coulde bring no expositor for himselfe , and therefore no reason , that we should admitte this bare denyall , against the plaine wordes of the Text. S. R. That of the Spiritual man is not to the purpose , both because all the faithfull are not spirituall , but some carnall ; and therefore may we better inferre , that the Gospell is not euident to all the faithfull , as also because Saint Paul explicateth not , by what meanes the spirituall man iudgeth all things ; whether by the euidency of the thinges , as Bell woulde haue him to Iudge scripture ) or by some outward Testimony . T. B. I answere ; first , that all the faithfull rightly so tearmed , are spirituall and not carnall , neyther do the places quoted by our Iesuite , proue any thing for his purpose . For if he will haue none to bee spirituall that are sinners , then must he deny the Apostles of our Lord to haue beene spirituall . For as S. Iames granteth freely , They all sinned in many thinges . Secondly , that if the Apostle had not explicated , by what meanes the Spirituall man iudgeth all things , as he did indeed , yet would it not follow thereupon , that our Iesuite may expound it to his best liking . Thirdly , that the Apostle sayth plainly in the words afore going , That the spirituall man iudgeth by the spirit of God that is in him . Fourthly , that our Iesuite belyeth Bell heere , as he doth many times else-where . For Bell would not haue the spirituall man to Iudge the scripture by the euidency of the things , but by the spirit of God , which is euer at hand , euen within him to teach him all necessary truth . S. R. Bell alledgeth the Scripture , That Christes Sheepe heare and know his voice , which no man doubteth of . But the question is , whether they heare it of himselfe alone , or of his church . T. B. This is but irkesome Tautologie , it is answered againe and againe . First , the late Romish Church , is not the church that cannot erre : this is already proued . Secondly , I haue proued , euen out of their owne Cardinall Tolet , That Christes sheepe know him , because hee first knoweth them . Yea , the Text doth plainly yeeld that sence . I knowe my sheepe ( saith Christ ) and they know mee , As if he had said , My Sheepe therefore know mee , because I first know them . Christ therefore , not the church , maketh his sheep to know and discern his voyce . Thirdly , the church is an outward help , as is the preaching of the word . To beget a kind of morral certitude or humane faith in the hearers , but neither of them eyther doth or can , beget faith Diuine in any man. Paule may plant , and Apol'o may water , but only God can giue the increase . Experience may confirme this to be so . For no testification of the Romish church , can make the Turke or Iew bebeleeue or acknowledge Christs Gospel . If it were otherwise 10000. Iews this day in Rome , would becom christians I wil say more , and it is S. Austens Doctrin ; Many come to the Church , and heare the word of God read and preached vnto thē , but beleeue it not , as their liues declare , for euery good tree bringeth forth good fruits , as our master christ telleth vs. And what is the cause ? Forsooth , saith S. Austen , because they onely heare a sound in their outward eares , but not the heauenly Preacher sounding in their harts . S. R. Well saide S. Austen , I would not beleeue the Gospell , vnlesse the Authority of the Church did moue me thereto . This place so stingeth Bell , as he windeth euery way to auoyd it . T. B. Howsoeuer in your opinion it stingeth me , yet haue I so sufficiently aunswered it in the Downfall , as there is no need heere to adde any thing in defence thereof . Neuerthelesse , some few Annotations I will adde for explication sake . First , when S. Austen saith , I wold not beleeue the Gospel , vnlesse the Authority of the Church , did moue me thereto , He meaneth of himselfe as being a Manichee , not as being a christian . As if he had said ; If I this day were not a Christian , but a Manichee , as I once was , I woulde not beleeue this Gospell , ( which I wish thee to embrace ) vnlesse the Churches Authority did moue me to the same . For these are S. Austens own words ; Si ergo invenirem aliquem , qui Euangelio nondum crèdit , quid faceres dicenti tibi ; non credo ? Ego vero Euangelio nō 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 ; this period last recited , is vnperfect in the Downefall . For my selfe being absent from the Presse , as dwelling farre off , many faultes escape the Printer . That this is the true meaning of S. Austen , I proue it first , because in the very same Chapter hee confesseth , that the Authority of the Gospell , is aboue the authority of the Church . Secondly , because in the Chapter aforegoing , after he hath discoursed of many notable things in the church Consent , Miracles , Antiquitie , and Succession ; he addeth that the truth of the Scriptures , must be preferred before them all . These pointes and reasons , I cited before out of Saint Austen ; which because they confound our Iesuite , hee impudently denieth them ; affirming that Saint Austen saith not so . These therefore are S. Austens owne words , in the first Chapter ; Quòd si forte in euangelio aliquid apertissimum de Manichaei Apostolatu 〈◊〉 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 , and giue hearing to his fables no longer . Secondly , the faith that proceedeth from the Church for Testificatiō , is but humaine , and not diuine . For none saue God onely , can beget faith diuine in vs. It pleaseth GOD to vse externall meanes and Ceremonies , for the confirmation of our Faith ; but the grace , power , & vertue , is from himselfe alone . The Law was giuen by Moyses , but grace and truth came by Iesus Christ. I prooue it : First , because a supernaturall effect , must needes bee produced of a supernaturall cause ; and consequently , diuine faith beeing a supernaturall effect , cannot proceede from the Romish Church . Secondly , a corporall agent , cannot ascend and penetrate a spirituall obiect ; as a materiall Sword cannot penetrate an immateriall Spirit ; and consequently , neither produce an immateriall effect , as is faith diuine . Thirdly , no immateriall and spirituall accident , can bee receyued into any corporall subiect ; and consequently , no corporall subiect is apt to produce a spirituall effect . Fourthly , Saint Austen saith plainly , that it is a greater woorke to iustifie a man , then to create the VVorlde ; but no power ( saith the Popish Angelicall Doctor Aquinas ) which is vpon earth , can concurre to creation ; Ergo , neither to iustification ; and consequently , neither to the producing of Faith diuine . Thirdly , when saith is wrought and begotten in vs , we may not diuide the worke ; giuing part to God , and part to the Church ; but we must ascribe the whole to GOD , the true Author of the whole . Therfore , after S. Paule had tolde the Corinthians , that he had laboured more aboundantly then all the Apostles ; hee forthwith added these wordes . Yet not I , but the grace of God , which is with me . For though mā 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 , whē he meaneth to produce supernaturall effectes ; yet dooth hee himselfe solely and wholy of himselfe , produce the same effectes . And heere I must tell the Reader of a great defect in the Latine Vulgata editio ; which the late Councell of Trent extolleth to the Heauens ; and withall Papists are bound to vse and beleeue . It saith thus : Yet not I , but the grace of God with mee ; as if forsooth , part were imputed to grace , and part to the act and woorke of Saint Paule . Whereas indeed , the Apostle ascribeth the whole to God , and vtterly refuseth to take any part to himselfe . Which the Article ( ● ) in the Greeke left out , in the Latine Vulgata editio , maketh plaine and euident . For after Saint Paule had saide , That hee had laboured more then all the Aopostles ; he by and by addeth this correction ; Yet not I , but the grace of God , which is with me . And heere ( because sensible things worke most in sensile persons ) let vs take an example of the Napkins and Partlets , which were brought from Saint Paules body vnto the sicke , for the Napkins by touching Saint Paules body , receiued no inherent vertue to worke Miracles . The Text saith plainely , that God wrought the Miracles by the hand of Paule . The Napkins and Handkerchiefes were but outward tokens , to confirme the faith of 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 . 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 , That wee shall giue account of euerie ydle word . Well , howsoeuer our Fryer flatter himselfe in stealing strifles , 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 , 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 , 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 , ( 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 . In face tristitiā , 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 , 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 . 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 , 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 . 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 , who shall abide it ? But with thee is mercie , that thou mayest be feared . Againe in another place thus : Enter not into iudgement with thy seruant , for in thy sight shall none that liueth be iustified . So then , as wee haue in one Psalme , that Dauid did keepe Gods commaundements , so haue wee in many other Texts of holy writ , both in the Psalmes , and else where , that neither himselfe nor any liuing , can perfectly keep the same . What must we now do ? One scripture is not contrary to another . The spirite of God speaking in Dauid , saith in one place , That he kept Gods Lawe ; in another place he saith , That neither hee nor any other can keepe his Commaundements . How stand these two together ? This is the resolution and true sence of holy writ . Dauid ( as euery childe of God in like maner ) is truely saide to keepe Gods Commaundements , when he hath an inward feruent desire to do the will of God , and chearefully applyeth his heart and all his affections to that end , so farre foorth as standeth with mans infirmity , and the state in which we liue , although he be a greeuons sinner indeed , and Trangresse Gods law many waies . This I prooue to be so by many arguments : first , because the sinnes of the faithful , are not imputed to them for the merits of Christ Iesus . Therefore ( saith the Apostle ) Being iustified by faith , we are at peace with God , through our Lord Iesus Christ. Again thus ; Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiuen , and whose sinnes are couered . Blessed is the man , to whom the Lorde will not impute sin . By these places it is cleare , that Gods children are said to keepe his Commandements , not because they keepe them exactly and perfectly , but for that the want and defect is not imputed to them . This is it that S. Austen saith , in these golden words ; Omnia ergo mandata facta deputantur , quando quicquid non sit , ignoscitur . All the Commandements are then reputed as done , when whatsoeuer is not done ( Is of mercy ) forgiuen . Again , the same S. Austen in another place hath these words ; Beatus vir , cui nō imputauit dominus peccatū . Hoc prestant viae domini , ac per hoc quoniā ex fide iustus viuit , ab ista via domini illa alienat miquitas , quae est infidelit as . In hac antē via domini , id est , in fide pia quisquis ambulat , aut peccatum non operatur , aut si quid à deuiante committitur , propter viam non imputatur , & tanquam non fuerit operatus accipitur . Blessed is the man , to whome the Lord hath not imputed sinne . This the wayes of our Lord performe , and by reason heereof , because the iust man liueth by faith , that iniquity estraungeth from this way , which is infidelity . For in this way of the Lord , that is , in a godly faith , whosoeuer walketh , he either sinneth not , or if any thing be done amisse , it is not imputed by reason of the way , and is so taken as if he had not done it . Thus writeth this holy father vppon that very Psalme : out of which our Iesuite hath borrowed certaine Textes , which ( as S. Austen sheweth plainely ) are altogether applyed , contrary to the Prophets meaning , and to the truth of the matter in hād . For therfore ( as we see by S. Austens Testimony ) is not only the Prophet Dauid , but also al the children of God , thoght to keep Gods commandements , because they aplying thēselues chearfully with hart , voyce , and all their power to keepe them , the defect and want is not imputed to them . Briefely , by Gods grace , not of our selues , we keep his Commandements , though not in such perfection as his Iustice requireth ; yet , in such measure , as he of his mercy in Christ accepteth . Secondly , because the sonne of God , hath truly appeased the wrath of God , by once offering vppon the Altar of the Crosse , a perfect , sufficient , and absolute satisfaction for the sinnes of all the faithfull and elect people of God ; and as a Creditor hauing receiued the iust and full paiment of that which was due vnto him , though by the hands of another , yet in behalfe of him who was the debtor , cannot with Iustice require the same at the Debtors hands ; no more can GOD almighty , ( who is not onely iust , but iustice it selfe in the abstract ) iustly require satissaction of his elect for their sinnes , for whose transgressions he hath receiued a most perfect , absolute , and consummate satisfaction , and attonement for euer , at the handes of his deare Sonne , In whom he is euer well pleased . This is it , that one of the Elders said to Saint Iohn ; These are they which came out of great tribulation , and haue vvashed their long Robes , and made them white in the bloud of the Lamb. Thirdly , to acknowledge our sinnes , and to confesse our selues to bee grieuous Sinners , and not to trust in our owne righteousnesse ( which is none at all indeed ) but in the righteousnesse of Iesus Christ , who ( as the Apostle teacheth vs ) Is our Wisedome , our Righteousnesse , our Sanctification , and our Redemption is in the scripture to be righteous , & to keep Gods commandements . Therfore saith S. Iohn , That if we say we haue no sinne , we deceiue our selues , and the truth is not in vs. But if we knowledge our sinnes , he is faithfull and iust to forgiue vs our sins , and to cleanse vs from all vnrighteousnesse . Loe , to confesse our sinnes , and to acknowledge our selues to be Sinners , is to be righteous in Gods sight , and to keepe his Commaundementes . This Saint Hierome confirmeth , in these Golden wordes ; Tunc ergo iusti sumus , quando nos peccatores fatemur ; & iustitia nostra non ex proprio merito , sed ex dei consistit misericordia . Then therefore are wee iust , when wee confesse our selues Sinners , and our righteousnesse consisteth not in our owne merite , but in Gods mercy . Thus writeth this holy and learned Father , shewing most euidently to all that haue eyes to see it that we may both be breakers and Keepers , of Gods Commaundementes at once ; both Sinners and Righteous at one and the same time , though not in one & the same respect . Sinners , in respect of our selues , and our corrupt Nature ; Righteous in the sight and iudgment of God , who of his great mercy pardoneth all penitent Sinners , and for Christs merits doth not impute their sins vnto them . S. R. I omit Moyses , Aaron , Samuell , Dauid , Iosue , Zacharie , Elizabeth , and the Apostles , who are said to haue kept Gods Law , and some of them in all their hart : only Saint Paule I cannot omit , because Bell graunteth , that he was most free and innocent from Actuall sin , therefore surely he kept Gods Law perfectly . T. B. I answere : First , 〈◊〉 all these holy men , were in their life time sinners , and Transgressors of Gods holy Lawes , which I could easily prooue by many Texes of holy Writ , if I deemed it needfull so to doe : this onely shall suffice for the present , that the Apostle saith , The best Liuers of all offend in many thinges . And that the Prophet Dauid telleth vs , That none liuing can be iustified in Gods sight . Secondly , to Saint Paule I answere , as in the Downefall ; That the raging vnvoluntary motions of Concupiscence were sinne in him , although he did not actually yeelde his consent vnto them . And thereupon I inferred then , and now againe ; That that sin which Saint Paule lamented in himselfe , affirming himselfe to bee sold vnder sinne , was truely and properly sinne indeede , but not Actuall , because hee gaue no consent vnto it ; Ergo , hee must needes speake of Originall . This point I deliuered so plainly in the Downfall of Popery , as none , but eitherfooles , or malicious Readers , can be ignorant thereof . Of other Actuall sinnes I spake not . S. R. Christ ( saith Bell ) being asked what good a man should doe to attaine eternall life , aunswered ; If thou wilt haue eternall life by doing good workes , then must they keepe Gods commandemēts ; but this is impossible ( saith Bell. ) Here is most shamefull abuse of Gods word , and this sheweth Bell to haue a scared conscience : For neither in the mans Question , nor in Christes aunswere , is there any word how a man should come to Heauen by this way , or that way , ( viz : ) by beleeuing , or by working , or by both ; but only what was the meane in generall to come to Heauen : which the man supposing to bee good , asked what good he should doe to come thither . Which Question of his is common , either to Faith , or Works , or both ; foral include doing good . And our Sauiour answered him , If thou wilt enter ( not this way , nor that way , but absolutely ) Into life , Keepe the Commaundements . T. B. What a one is this Fryer ? Hee chargeth mee to haue a seared conscience , which may more iustly bee imputed to himselfe . I willingly acknowledge my selfe to be a great Sinner , GOD forgiue mee ; yet may I stand at defiance with this Iesuite , and withal the Iesuites in the World , for any corrupt or falfe dealing , either in the Scripture , or in the Fathers , Councels , Histories , Chronicles , or other Writers whosoeuer , they are alike to charge me withall . Nay , in this very point , wherein he desperately accuseth me , I am able to charge him too deeply , and iustly retort that agianst himselfe , which he would most falsly and vniustly impose vpon me . He auoucheth most impudently , that there is not any word , neither in the mans question , nor in Christs answere , how a man should come to Heauen this way , or that way . Let vs therefore ponder the mans words seriously , and then yeeld our censures according to the truth . S. Matthew hath these wordes ; Good Maister , what good thinge shall I doe , that I may haue eternall life ? Saint Marke hath these wordes ; Good Maister , what shall I doe , that I may haue eternall life ? Saint Luke hath these words ; Good Maister , by doing , what shall I possesse eternall life ? Now , I pray thee Gentle Reader ( whosoeuer thou art ) to be an indifferent Iudge betweene the Iesuite and me . Thou seest euidently , that the man demaunded of Christ , what he should doe to possesse and inioy eternall life . For he said plainely ; What shall I do , & by doing ? What , shall I possesse eternall life ? Doth not he aske to go to Heauen this way , or that way , who asketh to goe thither by doing Goodworkes ? Yes doubtlesse , it cannot be denyed . For to go to Heauen by doing this or that , & to go to heauē this way , or that way , is al one in effect . So likewise , he that saith , shal I go to Heauen by doing this , or by doing that ; and he that saith , shal I go to heauen this way or that way , saith one & the same thing in effect . Truly therfore did I answer to the Obiection , by my selfe propounded cut of the Gospell ( viz : ) that our Sauiour Christ did not shew in that place , how men may attaine eternal life , but shewed plainly vnto the man , who trusted much vnto his workes and good life , that perfect obseruation of the Law is required of him , that thinketh to bee iustified by the workes of the Law. The man did not say , how shall I go to Heauen ? Or how shall I attaine eternall life ? But thus ; by doing what , shall I haue eternall life ? Christ therefore aunswered directly to his manner of demaunding ; If thou trust so much to thy works and thine owne doings , that thou thinkes thou canst go to Heauen by doing , then do I tell thee , that thou must looke well vnto the matter , and see thou keep the Commandements . This answere is directly and cleerely deduced , out of the very text it selfe . S. R. Bell saith , that Goodworkes are so necessary to attaine eternall life , as the vsuall , ordinary , & vndoubted meanes , by which God decreed from eternity , freely for his owne name sake , to bring his elect to saluation : and that without them , none haue beene , are , or shall be saued , if time be graunted to doe them . How are they now become an impossible meane to come to Heauen ? How did the man enquire of an impossible way to heauen , by Goodworkes ? What need this challenger any aduersary , who thus ouerthroweth himselfe ? T. B. If our Iesuite had either eyes to see , eares to heare , or wit to vnderstand ; he could not but both see & perceiue , that he confoundeth himselfe in his owne dispute . For , albeit the best liuer vpon earth , cannot for any merit of his best workes , by any possible meanes attaine eternall life , ( for it is the gifte of God , not of workes ) yet hath GOD decreed to bring vs to heauen by good workes , which he of his great mercy freely worketh in vs. For these are the Apostles expresse wordes , as the Rhemists haue put them downe . For by Grace you are saued by Faith , and that not of your selues , for it is the gift of God , not of workes , that no man glory , for we are his worke , created in Christ lesus in goodworks , which God hath prepared that we should walke in them . Thus writeth the Apostle , euen as our Papists alledge his words . Out of which holy discourse of the chosen vessell of our Lorde Iesus , I obserue these golden lessons . First , that we are saued By grace . Secondly , that saluation followeth not onely our first iustification so called of the Papists , which they confesse to be of Grace , but their second falsly supposed iustification also , which they wold haue to come of Works . For ( as we see here , our saluatiō , which is after al maner of iustification ( if ther were as many as the Papists imagine ) is only of grace , not of Workes . You are saued saith Saint Paule , marke wel the word ( Saued . ) He saith not , you are iustified by grace , which goeth before saluation , but you are saued by grace , which followeth your iustification . Thirdly , that the Apostle saith Negatiuely ( We are not saued of Workes , ) and consequently , that he confoundeth our Papistes , who say that their second iustification and their saluation come of their works . But as their second falsly so named 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 , whē he cōmeth 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 , neyther were they the cause of bequeathing them Euen so in our case , Eternall life ( as the Apostle saith ) is the free gift of God , it is of grace , not of Workes : 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 ; Come ye blessed of my father possesse the kingdom prouided for you , 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 thēselues 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 ; heyres of God , and ioynt-heires with Christ. Yea ( as the same Apostle saith in another place . ) 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 , 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 . 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 , if it be true , as it is most true , ( else the Apostle should be a lyer ) that wee were elected to be holy , and to do Goodworkes ; it is also true , ( it cannot be denyed ) that holy life and Goodworkes , 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 , 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 , sicut ab aeterno predestinauit al●quē ad beatitudinē , ita preordinaui● modū quē 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 . 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 , 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 verbū ( 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 , 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 regnū 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 , vvhy 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 , I added these words . This being so , we may truely say , that in Christ we fulfill the Law : Because he is our righteousnes , our sanctification , and our Redemption ; because hee hath ouercome death ; because he hath clothed vs with his righteousnes , because he hath couered our nakednes with his garments ; because in him we haue gotten the victory , ouer hell , death and damnation . Thus I answered in the Downfall . Now I referre my selfe to the censure of the indifferent Reader , how sufficiently I haue refuted the Iesuite , and how vniustly he hath slandered me . For it is one thing to say , we fulfill the Commaundements in Christ , another thing to say , the wordes are spoken in respect of Christ , not in respect of our selues : The latter are his , the former are mine , viz : that in Christ we fulfill the law : and I learned them , of Christs holy Apostle and chosen vessell S. Paule . Omnia possum in eo qui me confortat . I can do all thinges ( saith he ) in Christ , that strengthneth me . Againe in another place , the same Apostle telleth vs , That as by the disobedience of Adam , many becam sinners ; so by the obedience of Christ many shall be made righteous . Againe in another place thus ; That I may be found in him not hauing mine owne righteousnes , which is of the Law , but that which is through the saith of Christ , the righteousnes which is of God throgh faith . Again in another place thus ; They being ignorant of Gods righteousnes , and seeking to establish their owne , were not subiect to the righteousnesse of God. Againe thus ; Hee made him sinne for vs , which knewe no sinne , that we might be the righteousnes of God in him . Herevpon S. Austen that worthy pillar of Christs church , giueth this glosse and true meaning of these words of Saint Paule . Christum pro nobis peccatum fecit Deus , cuireconciliandi sumus ; hoe est , sacrificium pro peccatis , per quod reconciliari valeremus . Ipse ergo peccatum , vt nos iustitia ; nec nostra , sed dei ; nec in nobis , sed in ipso ; sicut ipse peccatum non 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 , ( to the euerlasting confusion of our Iesuite and al Iesuited Papists in the world ) that that Iustice , by which and with which wee are formally iustified in Gods sight , is not inherent in our selues , but in God ; not ours , but his ; not in vs , but in him ; and yet ours by imputation , as our sinnes by imputation were his . So as all the faithfull may ioyfully say with the Prophet Dauid ; Blessed are they vvhose iniquities are forgiuen , and whose sinnes are couered . Blessed is the man , to whom the Lord will not impute sinne . And with the Apostle Paul : As many by the disobedience of Adam , were made sinners ; so many by the obedience of Christ are made righteous . And heere I wish the reader to marke well : that to be iustified by imputation , is to bee made iust truely and indeed ; though not by Iustice inherent in our selues , but by the Iustice of Christ. For as our sinnes were truely and indeed imputed to him , so is his Iustice truely and indeed imputed to vs. I also admonish the Reader , to remember well these words of S. Austen , Ipse ergo peccatum , vt nos iustitia , &c. He was made sinne , that we might be made iustice : not our Iustice , but Gods iustice ; neither in vs , but in him . To remember well ( I say ) these words , beecause they are words of great consequence . For they proue euidently , that our formal iustice is not inherēt in our selues , but in God ; which confoundeth the Papists , and striketh them dead . They conuince mans inherent Iustice to be imperfect ; and their supposed condigne merit of Workes , to be plaine Hypocriticall . S. R. S. Iohn giueth vs a signe to try , if we know God ( viz ; ) if we keepe his commandements , and verse 3. affirmeth , That who keepeth not his Commaundements , knoweth not God. Wherefore eyther Bell keepeth the Commandements , or he knoweth not God. T. B. I answere ; first , that Bell humbly acknowledgeth himselfe a great sinner , and desireth pardon for his sins with the poore Publican . Howsoeuer our Iesuite like the Pharisee , glory in his condigne merites , and Workes of Supererogation . Secondly , that as we know God vnperfectly , so do we keep his commandements vnperfectly . If our Iesuite say , that hee knoweth God perfectly : S. Paule condemneth him for an arrogant fellow : If hee say , hee keepeth Gods Commandements perfectly , S. Iames reproueth him as a proud Pharisaicall Fryer . S. R. As for S. Austen , he said our defectuous keeping is counted a full 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 . 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 . And with the Prophet Dauid , Enter not into Iudgement with thy seruants , O Lord , for none liuing shall be iustified in thy sight . 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 , 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 vvorkes . 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 vvay , 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 . 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 . 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 ; 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 , by transgressing Gods law , yet are they iust by the mercy of God in Christ Iesus . The former p●rt , 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 , 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 . 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 . 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 , 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 . This is a point of great consequence , it would be remembred . Sixtly , that though all men bee Sinners in respect of themselues , yet are the faithfull iust in respect of Gods mercy , who imputeth not their sins vnto them . Seuenthly , that man is thē iustified , when he acknowledgeth himselfe to be a Sinner ; and then perfect , when he acknowledgeth his own imperfection . This is a most excellent and golden Lesson . For here we see , how Sinners are iust and perfect in Gods sight . Marke well , gentle Reader . None ( saith Saint Hierom ) can fulfill the law ; none can keepe the Commaundementes ; none can liue without sinne ; and yet the greater Sinner , the more iust man , if hee with the lowly Publican doe humbly confesse his sinnes . For ( as Saint Hierome telleth vs ) to acknovvledge our imperfection , is our perfection before GOD , and to confesse our selues sinners , is our iustification before him in Christ Iesus . Away then with all Popish inherent iustification ; away with al Popish falsly supposed satisfaction ; away with all Popish Condigne merits ; away with all Popish supererogations . S. R. Saint Iohn saith , This is the loue of GOD , that we keepe his Commaundements , and his Commaundements are not heauy . He saith not ( Christ ) but ( We ) must keep Gods Commandements , and to animate vs thereto , he addeth ; that they are not heauy , ( Viz : ) to vs. T. B. This is answered already , where I prooued out of Saint Austen , that all the Commaundements are then reputed done , when whatsoeuer is not done , is ( Of mercy ) forgiuen . Neuerthelesse , it shall not be amisse , to adde Saint Hieroms censure to the latter member , for explication sake . These are his wordes ; Vis audire facilitatem preceptorum dei ? Ausculta quod dicitur ; quam arcta via & Angusta est , quae ducit ad vitam , & pauci sunt , qui inveniunt eam . Non dixit , quigradiuntur per eam ; hoc . n. difficillimum est , sed qui inveniunt eam . Pauci . n. inveniunt , & multò pauciores ingrediuntur per eam . Sequitur ; hac dico , & iterum iterumque ac per singulaingeram ; vt erubescas ad sententiam tuam , facilia esse dei mandata . Wilt thou heare , how easie Gods Commandements are ? Hearken what is saide ; Strait and narrowe is the way , which leadeth vnto life , and few they are that finde it . He said not , which go by it , for that is a very hard thing , but which find it ; for few doe finde it , and farre fewer enter in by it . These things I say , and will vrge them againe and againe seuerally ; that thou maist bee ashamed to say , that Gods commaundements are easie . Thus writeth this holy and most learned Father . Out of whose doctrine I note thus much . First , that the way to heauen ( that is to say Gods commaundements ) is very straight and narrow , not wide and long , or casie . Secondly , that it is so straight and so narrow , that few find it , and fewer enter in by it . Thirdly , that this way of Gods commandements , is so very hard ; that in S. Hieroms opinion and iudgement , he may be ashamed , that saith it is easie . Our Iesuite therfore may be ashamed of his Doctrine , and twice ashamed to make S. Hierom a Patron of the same . S. R. If Bell say , that it is impossible to loue God , as wee ought to doe : this is reproued , because hee loueth God as he should do , who loueth him With all his heart , all his soule , and all his power . But Iosue so loued God , of whom it is written , that hee returned in all his heart , in all his soule , and all his strength . Likewise Dauid sought God in all his heart , and followed him in all his hart . And God hath some seruants , that walk before him in all their hart , with whom he keepeth his couenant and mercy , and God promiseth to circumcise the Iewes harts , that they might loue him in al their hearts , and all their soule . T. B. Bell saith so , and that truely , and is already proued in this discourse , and more at lage in the Downfall . Now to your particulars . King Iosias ( whom our Iesuite falsly nameth Iosue ) returned to God in al his hart , al his soul , and al his strength . Which is nothing else indeede , but that hereturned to God with a sincere heart , and vnfainedly , not Hypocritically . Not that he was pure and free from sin , & no part of his hart or soul defiled with corruption , which our Iesuite might haue perceiued , to be implyed in the word ( Returne . ) For , from what did he returne , saue only from sinne . If he had euer beene with God in all his heart , all his soule , and all his strength ; then doubtlesse could he not haue returned to him . For hee that is euer with one , cannot be truly saide , to returne to him . But the scripture decideth the Controuersie , when it telleth vs , that Iosias hearkened not vnto the wordes of Mecho , ( king of Aegipt , ) which were of the mouth of God , but came to fight in the valley of Megiddo , where hee was slaine for his paines . K. Dauid likewise ( saith our Iesuite ) sought God in all his hart , which must needs be vnderstood , as I said of K. Iosias . For he was both an adulterer , & a murderer , thogh also the child of God. This is already proued , & plainly cōfirmeth the doctrin which I defend . The same may be saide of king Ezechias , who was a great sinner , and yet is saide to haue serued God with all his heart , and to haue kept his commaundements . The same answere serueth to the rest , that God hath those , that wil serue him with their whole heart ; that is , vnfainedly and chearefully . For , as wee haue heard already out of the scriptures , None liuing is without sinne . Againe , The faithfull are saide to keepe Gods Commandements , and to serue him with all their heart ; Because to such as serue God vnfainedly and chearefully , whatsoeuer is left vndone , is of mercy pardoned and forgiuen . It is the flat doctrine both of S. Austen and of S. Hierom , as I haue already proued . And heere I may not forget , to put our Iesuite in mind , that concerning the circumcising of the Iewish hearts , it may please him to read the verses following , for there shall he find his sillie obiection fully answered , euen in the text it selfe . These are the words : Return thou therefore and obey the voyce of the Lord , and doe all his Commaundements , which I commaund thee this day . Loe , the Iewes , whose hearts God promiseth to 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 , shall finde this controuersie so fully decided , as hee can no longer stande in doubt thereof . For euer must this Apostolicall Doctrine , be holden for a most constant position : In multis offendimus omnes . We all offend in many things . And this likewise for a receiued Axiome , in the Schoole of all right Christians ; Non est homo , qui non peccauit . 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 ; God hath giuen vs those commandements , 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 , 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 peccatū . 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 clamatū ; beatus cui nō imputavit dominus peccatum . Non. n. imputat his qui sideliter ei dicunt ; dimitte nobis debita nostra , 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 quā 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 thē , 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 , qui negat hommē 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 hovv 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 , whē he beholdeth their Robes washed & made white , in the bloud of the immaculate Lamb. These ( I say ) must bee well marked , and firmely imprinted in our remembrance , ( viz : ) Non●n , imputat his qui fideliter ei dicunt , dimitte nobis debita nostra . For hee doth not impute their sinnes to them , who faithfully desire pardon for their sinnes . 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 , thē 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 , because we were in his loynes as in the beginning , and root of all mankind . 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 vvhatsoeuer 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 , sin not , 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 , and not breake Gods Law deadly . T. B. I ansvvere first , that euery sinne is mortall of it ovvne 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 . 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 , 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 , 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 . 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 , ) 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 , and not Ex natura rei . Man hadde free will to haue doone Gods will , to haue kept his Commaundementes , and to haue liued without sinne perpetually ; thorough whose disobedience wee are solde vnder sinne , and brought to that necessitie , that we cannot possibly avoyd sinne . 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 slēder 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 likevvise 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 cānot 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 , but how can we keepe them , if they damnably , & 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 , made all the faithfull holy and iust . This is it that S. Iohn saith : He that is borne of God sinneth not , which is not meant , that he sinne not indeed , but ( as wee liaue heard out of S. Austen , and Abbot Bernard ) That his sinnes be pardoned , 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 ? 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 pensiō . 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 . 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 Ephe. 4. 5 The Chu●● of England defendeth old Rom● religion . The late R●●mish faith the new re●●●●●on . 〈◊〉 this point w●ll 〈◊〉 . Par. 19. Reg. 18. Par. 29. 30 , 1. 34. Reg. 2. 4. 8. ●ee defend 〈◊〉 old Romā●●ligion . ●n : Dom : — 1498. 〈…〉 . 〈…〉 annot . in 〈…〉 . de potest . 〈…〉 & ●onc . 〈◊〉 . 4. p. 139 〈◊〉 Iohns esie con●nned with sound of ●●●●pets . Adrianus . Lyr. in 16. 〈◊〉 Mat. The Pope with child . 1. Tim. 2. 12. Seauen Pop witnesses , 〈◊〉 pope Iohn was a wo●● Behold Po● Iohn the vi gin . 〈◊〉 : Dom : — ●07 . 〈◊〉 is now 〈◊〉 indeleble Character ? most bru●● cruelty ! ●●uclerus . Bishops must sweare to be true to the Pope . Our holy Iesuite must needs haue a fore-runner . The truth 〈◊〉 preuaile in time , and Po●●pery wholly ouerthrowne Notes for div A07868-e1390 Gen● , 27 , 41 See my Anathomy of Popish tyranny . Hest , 7 , 10. August , epist 48 , Tom 2 3 Cap , quicunque de haeret , lib 6 Relect , 4 , de potest , papae & conc , propos , 16 , caus , 17 , q , 4 , cap , ne●ini . Rom , 10 , 2 Marke well this word ( Late . ) Victor : de potest . papae & conc . rel . 4. pag. 151 Polid. Virg. lib. 4. cap. 9 , pag. 39 Roffensis art . 37. adu . Luth. pag. 11 Couar : Tom. 1 part 2. cap. 7 par . 4. ● . 14. in medio . In the first Article . Page 4 Page 7 Page 55 Page 75 Page 26 Page 17 Sigebert . An. 1088. Sigebert , i● Chron. An. 1088. See my Anathomy Page 5 Page 6 dist . 22. can . omner . Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 In my Anathomy , in the Caueat to the Reader . and libr. 2. cap. 4. & cap. 9. ●●pist . to the King. Page 27 Page 28 Page 30 dist . 40. cap. si papa . Gers. de pot . eccle . cons. 12. part . 3. Hugo Cardin. ps . 50. See my profes in the downe-fall of popery . G●rs . de potest eccles . consid . 12. part . 3 Page 33 3. Reg , 2 , vers . 35 , 27 3 Reg. 4 , 4 Cap. 2 , 35 Num. 27 , 17 2 Reg. 2 , 27 vbi supra . verse 35. 3 Reg. 2 , v. 27. & v. 35. Page 38 Rom 14 , 23 1 cor . 10 , 31 Page 37 See the secōd chapt . for this point . Page 37 2 Sam. 15 , 5. 6 Page 42 In my Motiues . Page 44 Page 47 Page 49 The first step . Page 49 The 2. step . Page . 51 Marke . 3 , 24 Pag 52 In the downfall . pag , 3. Page 54 The 3. step . Page 52 Platina in vita Bened. secund . I● vita Pelagii . 2 Platini in vita Siluerii . Pag 53 The 4. step . The 5. step . Page 57 Page 57. An. 756. Nautle . gen . 27. pag. 678 The 6. step . Page 64 Sigebert . in Chron. An. 801. Bellarm. tom 1. col . 831 The 7 step . Phil. Berg. pag. 277 Auton . 3. partit . 22. cap. 5 §. 13 Page 70 Prou. 8 , 15 16. Rom. 13 , 1 The 8. step . Note this point well . Bonifac. 8 In extr . dist . 22 : can omnes . lib : 7. epist : ● Sigebert . An. 1088. fol. 117. K Chron. An : 1088 Anton : 3 : partit . 22 : cap : 5 §. 8. In summam , pag. 152 Page 78. Page 78 The first lye . The 2. lye . The 3. lye . The 4. lye . Glos. lib. 1. decr●t●tit . 7. ca. 3. Anton. 3. pag. tit . 22 : cap : 5 §. 8. In the downefall of popery . Page 16 Notes for div A07868-e9260 Mas. 7 , 15 Page 92 Pag 95 Page 96. Luk. 2 , 23 Exod. 13 , 2 Num. 8 , 15 Heb. 2 , 17 & 4 , 15. Suruey page 474. Aquin. 22 , q. 52. ar . 1. ad . 3 Aug. lib : 1 de ciuit . dei cap. 18 Pag 99 Mat. 19 , 24 Galat. 1 , 8. Vide tu Theophil : in humo locum : Page 99 Dan. 3 , 35 ●o . Ang. in 4 sent . part . ●● pag. 144. Page 20 Page 102 An argumēt vnstable . Mat. 28 , 6. Mat. 28 , 6. Page 103 Aug. epist. 57. tom . 2 Page 108 Page 10● Page 110. Tom. 2. col . 1063. A. Vbi supra . D. Vbi supra . D. Vbi supra . D. Tom. 2. col . 1063. Page 111. The Papists haue two Gods and two Christs . Page 113. Page 115. O horrible blasphemy . Page . 126. Page . 127. Read the Downfall . The Iesuite is striken dead . Page . 132. See the Downefall . T●m . 2. p. 474. Acts , 3. v. 21. For these matters see my Suruey . Page 136. Heb. 1. v. 3. Heb. 1. 3. Haymo in hunc locum . Lyr. in hunc loc . Gen. 5 , ver . 3. Page . 139. Aqui●as , part . 3. q. 75. art . 4. & . art . 7. ●● Page . 142. Luke , 12 , 5 , 48 Ezech. 3. 18. 1. Reg. 13. Page 114. He speaketh of the counsell of Trent . Pa. 142 , et 143 Notes for div A07868-e14780 See the Popes funerall . Page , 186 Notes for div A07868-e15080 Pape 165. 1. Iohn , 3 , 4. Aug. de cos , evang . cap. 4. Tom. 4. Page 173. Aug. de nup. et concupisc . li , 16 cap , 25 , t● 7 Page 173. Rom , 8 , 1 , Page 173. Page 167. Omnes er●●u● in Adamo , se● in principio & ●adice totius humani 〈◊〉 . Aug. retract . lib. 1. cap. 15 Pag. 16. Page 170 Aug. ep . 200 Tom. 2. Conc. Mileu . can . 7. & 8. D● ciuit . lib. 1. cap. 25. See the Downefall of Popery . Page , 185. Page . 186. August , vbi supra . Mat , 5 , 29 I. Iohn , 3 , 5 , 15. Rom , 7 , 14 5 , 19 , 20. Romans , 7. August , vbi supra . Psalme , 32 , 2. Lombard . lib. 3 sent . dist . 19. c. Bellar● . tom . 3. col 400. vide Aug. de spir . & liter . cap , vlt. tom . 3. Let this bee wel marked Ablata causa tollitur effect●s . Rom. 6. v , 23 ▪ Page 173. Lib. 1. de imp . & concu . cap. 26. tom . 7. Page 177. Page . 184. See the Downefall . Page . 188. Pape 189. Marke , for the lesuite is striken dead . Page . 189. Apoc. 22. 20. Luke 9 , 58 , Psal , 143 , 2. Aug. conf . libr. 9. cap. 13. Mat ▪ 18 , 24. 1 , Cor , 1 , 30 ▪ Tit , 3 , 5. Mat , 3 , 17. Mat , 18 , 28 , Page 193 ▪ Bellarm. tom . 3. col . 400. Aug. de spir . & liter . cap. vlt. tom . 3. Aug. de nup. et concup . lib. 1. co , 2. 27. Rom , 7 , Page . 202. Page , 161 ▪ Notes for div A07868-e18510 Page , 212 Luke 7 , 47 Aug. de fide & oper . cap. 14 , tom 4. Heb , 11 , 6 Luke , 7. 47 Page 22● Page 230 Page 221 Rom , 4 , 4. Ephes , 2 , 8 : Tit. 3 , 5. Aug. Ep. 105. tom . 2. Page , 236. Page 247 Notes for div A07868-e19810 Page , 269 Vbi supra . Page , 270. Mat , 12 , 30. Page 271. 1 , Cor. 6 , 11 , Ephes , 1 , 7. 1 , Cor. 1 , 30. 2 , Cor , 5 , 21. Page . 276. Rom , 6 , 23 , Eze , 18 , 20 , Psal , 5 , 4 , Math , 25 , 41 Page 271. Psal , 143 , 2 ▪ Page 275. Psal. 6 , 9. Page 273. Page , 278 Page 280. Page 278. Page 278 Ignorantia iuris diuini vel naturalis , non excusat . cans . 17. q. 4. cap. siqui● . Aristotle , libr. 3. ethic . cap. 5. §. 72. Page 280. 281. Ios. Ang. ● . ●2 . s. Page 175. Page 280. Rhenan . in annot . ad libr. Tertul. Loe , Papistes dare not say al they thinke . Page , 281. Behold the O●iginall of Venial Sinnes . An : Dom : 1566. Veniall sinnes were hatched . Page , 281 Marke , 2 , 27. Psal , 5. 4 Psal , 6. 8 Notes for div A07868-e22760 Page 284. Page . 285. 〈◊〉 . in Ioan. tract . 49. to . 9. Page 286 Aug. de peci . mer. lib. 2 , c. vlt tom . 7. Ciril . in Iob. lib. 12. cap , vlt. Chrisost. in 2. Thes. Hom. 3. Page 291 Epipha . heres . 65 Heres . 61. Page 293 Page . 134. Aug ad Iam●ar . ep . 118 Page , 295 Prou , 30 , 6 Page , 284 , 285. Page 301. Esa , 8 , 20. Hier. iu hune locum . 2. Par. 23. 11. Page 301 , This is done in the Downfall of Popery . Page 304. Aquinas vnderstandeth these words , both of Christes sayings and doings , P 3. q. 42. art . 4. ad primum . Mar , 16 , 20 , Page 308 , Page , 284. Page 285 , Page , 286. Page 230. Page 285. Page 284. Page 314. Page 315. Cypr. lib. 1. ep . 3. Page 319. Page 318. Page , 324. See my Motiues , in the 7. Preamble . Page , 328. Page 278 Page 286. Iohn 14 , 16. Iohn ●0 , 31 ▪ Page , 327. Page 329 Page 290 A sillogisme vnanswerable . 2. Figura . Baroco , Page 329 Page , 290 ▪ Page , 239 Page 34● ▪ Page 329 ▪ Page 364. Page , 284. 285. 286. 290. 291. Page 385. Page . 385. Page , 364. Page 292. Page 386. See the place ▪ Page 129. Page 389. Dist. 8. cap. si consue●udine . Can. 65. ●postlop . Conc. constū● can . 55. Page 393. Ioh. 11. 51. Page 394. Platin. in vita Bonifacij . 8. & Martin . polon . p. 237. in append . Page 398. Reade the Downefall . Page 284. Page , 285. Page 286. Mat. 15 , 9 2 Tim , 3 , 15. Page 285. Page 400 , 1 , Iohn , 4. Page 399. Acts 17 , 11. Mat , 7 , 15. Iohn 5 , 39. 1. Thes. 5 , 21 1 Iohn 4 , 1. 1 Cor. 2 , 15 , Page , 40● . Page , 403. In summa Page 152. Aquin. in sup . q. 25. art . 1. Silv. de indulg . 33. Grat. dist . 22. can . omnes . Lyr. in 16. cap. Mat. Carranz . in tom , 1. concil , Dist 40. cap. si papa . Page 409. Page 411. Page 415. Page , 413. Page 121. Page 416. Page 416. The Popes doctrine must be obei●d , though he be an Hereticke . Page , 419 Mat , 23 , 3 In the Golden Ballance of Tryall . Gers. in serm . de pase . page , 3 〈◊〉 3. cap. 17 , fol , 182. Alphons . ● Castro . lib. 3 advers . hoer . prope finē . Alphons . lib. 1. cap. 4. adu . haeres . This point st●keth dead Canus de loc● lib. 6 , cap. ● . in fine . pagina . 189. Mat , 23 , 3. Dist. 40. cap. multi sacerdotes . Page 418. Alphons . lib. 1. cap. 2. fol. 4. c. Page 365. Page . 365. Ioh. 14 , 16. 1 l● . 3. 15. Alphon. adu . haer . lib. 1. c. 6 Panor . de elect . cap. signif . Caus. 24. q. 1 cap. àrecta . Page 36● . Page 367. Alphons . aduers haer●s . lib. 1. ca. 8 Psal. 119 , 105. 2. Pet. 1. 19. Iohn , 10. 27. Iohn , 10 , 14. T●●●t . in I●han cap. 10. 1 Cor. 2 , 15 Carthus . in 1. Cor. 2 Lyran. in hunc loc●● . Aquinas in 1. cor . 2. Hosmeist . in 1. cor . 2. 1. Ioh. 2. 27. Cam●● de lo. cis theol . lib. 2. cap. 8. fol. 29. b. et . fol. 30 , ● . 1. Iohn 2. 27. De diuinis nomi●●b●ca . 7 Aquinas 22. q. 1. art . 1 Aug. in Ep. Ioh : tract : 3. tom . 9. Page 387. Canus de Iocis , lib. 3. ca. 4 Page 101. 2. Peter . 1. 21. 1. Cor. 11. 23. Rom. 1. 12. Apoc. ● . 10. Luke 16. 29. Luke . 24. 44. Luke . 16 , 13 , 15 , 25 , 27. Page 369. Page 387. 2. Peter . Iohn . 2. 3. Iacob . Apocal Euseb. libr. 3. cap. 19. Page 370. A very fond saying . Aug. de trinit . 3. cap. 26. Page 371. Psa 119 105. 1. Pet. 1 , 19. 1. Cor. 2 , 15. 1. Ioh. 2 , 27. Iohn . 10 , 3. 4 , 27. ● . Reg. 3. Iudic. 6. Act. 12. Mat. 20 Luke 23 Rom. 9 , 10. Ephes. 1 , 12. Ephes. 2 , 9 Act. 10 , 34 Rom. 2 , 11 Ioh. 15 , 5 1 , Cor. 3 1 , Cor , 12 2 , Cor. 3 2 , Cor. 4 , 4 1 , Cor. 2 , 25 Page . 375. Page . 375 1 Cor. 3 , 1. 2 , 3 Gal. 6 , 1. 1. Co. 3 , 1 , 2 , 3 Gal. 6 , 1. Iam. 3 , 2. 1. Cor. 2 , 10 , 12. Page 375. Ioh. 10 , 3 , 4 , 24. Iohn . 10 , 14. 1. Cor. 3 , 6. August ▪ Vbi supra . Mat. 7 , 17. Page ●77 Cap. 5. cont . Epist. Funda men . tom . 6. pag. 80 I was almost 200 , miles frō london . Cap. 4. Page 381. Vide Aug. ep . 165. Iohn . 1. 17. Aug. tract . 72. in Iohan. Aquin . p. 1. q. 45. art . 5. 1. Cor , 15. 10. 1. Cor. 15. 10 Vide Hier ? lib. 2. aduers. Pelag. fol. 129. D. Act , 19 , 12 , 11. Mat. 9 , 21. Iohn , 9 , 6. Luke . 8. 46. Notes for div A07868-e38670 Page 422. Exod. 20 , 15 Aquin. 22. q 110. art . 3. Aug. ad Cōsent●ū , cap. 8. 9. 10. tom . 4. Mat. 12 , 36 Vnles he haue a dispensation . Page 423 Mat. 19 , 20 Marke 10. 21 Exod. 1 , 17 , 20 , 21 Christ as true God did this . Page 424 Verse 51. 55 102 , 110 , 157. 2. sam . cap : 11. & ca. 12 Psalme 51 Psalme 130 Psalme 143. Howe Gods children thogh sinners , keepe his commaundements . Rom. 5 , 1. Rom , 4 , 7 , 8. Aug. lib. 1 〈◊〉 . cap. 19 Aug in Pso , 118. conc . 3. pag. 925. 1 Cor , 1 , 30. Phil. 3 , 9 2 Cor , 5 , 12 Rom. 5 , 19. Mat. 26 , 27 Mark 14 , 14 Heb. 10 , 14 Mat. 3. 17. Apoc. ca. 7. 14 1. Cor. 1. 30. 1. Ioh. 1 , 8 , 9. Philip. 3. 9. 2. Cor. 5. 21. Rom. 10. 3. Hier. lib. 1. ad● . Pelag tom . 3. sol . 120. D. Ezech. cap. 18 , 21. Esa. 1 , 18. Page 426 Iam. 3 , 2. Psa. 143 , 2. Rom. 7. 14. Page 427. Mat 19 , 17. Math. 19 , 16. Marke . 10 , 17 Luke , 18 , 18. Page 429. Ephes. 2 , 8 , 9. 10. Tit. 3 , 5 Aug. lib. 9. con . fession . cap. 13. Chrisost de cōpunct . cord . lib , 2. tom , 5. col . 592 Theophil . in 3. cap. Tit. Berna . in cant . serm . 68. tom . 1 pagina 1006. Rom. 6 , 23 Ephes. 2 , 8 Ephes. 2 , 10 Mat. 7. 17 Rom. 8 , 30 Page 428. Mat. 15. 34 , 35 Rom. 8 , 17 Ephes. 2. 4. Rom. 8. 50. Psa. 59 , 12 Psa. 51 , 5. Esa. 59 , 2. Ephe. 2 , 3 , 5. Rom. 8 , 30. Lyra. in cap. 6. Mat. Aquin. p. 1. q. 23. art . 3. ad 2. Bellar. tom . 3. col . 627. & col . 628. Bellar. tom . 3. col . 626. & col . 628. A●●op , de diuin 〈◊〉 , cap. 4 p 267. Aquinas , 12. q. 18. art . 4. August . tract . 72. 〈◊〉 Ioh. tom . 9. Page . 262. Page 429. Aug. lib. 1. retr . c. 19. tom . 1 1. Iohn . 5. 3. 1 Cor. 1 , 30 Phil. 3 , 9 Colos. 2 , 14 1 Iohn 5 , 4 Acts 15. 11 2 Cor. 5 , 21 Rom. 5 , 19 Iohn 16 , 33 Psalme 32 , 1 Phil , 4 , 13 Rom. 5 , 19 Phillip , 3 , 9 Rom. 10 , 3 2 Cor. 5 , 21 Aug. in enchir . cap. 41. tom . 3 pagina 118 O lesuite confesse thou art confounded . Psalm , 32 , 1 , 2. Rom. 5 , 19. 2 Cor. 5 , 21 Aug. in ench . cap. 41. tom . 3. pagina 118. These wordes strike dead . Page 430 1 Iohn 2 , 3 , 4. Luke 18 , 13 1 Cor , 13 , 9. lames 3 , 2 Page 430. Psalme 5 , 4 This Dilemma is insoluble . Iames 3 , 2 Psalme 143 , 2 Aug. lib. 1. retract . cap. 19. Hier. lib. 1. aduers . Pelagioones fol. 121. Lib. 1 , fol. 120 lib. 2. fol. 130 Lib. 2. aduers. Pelag fol. 130. Vbi supra , lib. 1. sol . 123. D. Vbi supra , lib. 2. fol. 129. D. Vbi supra , lib. 1. fol. 120. c d. tom 3. eccles . 7 22 3. reg . 8. 46 Psal. 19. 12. Psal. 43. 2. Vbi supra . 1. Iohn . 1 , 5. Rom. 11 , 31 Vbi supra fol. 121. ● . Marke this point well . Luke . 18 , 13. Page 429. 1. Iohn . 53. August . lib. 1. retract . cap. 19 tom . 1. Vbi supra , lib. 2. fol. 130. B. Ibidem . C. Mat. 7 , 14. Page 432 Page 433 Page 432 Deut. 6 , 5 4 Reg. 23 Psalme 119 3 Reg , 14 , 8. 2. par . 6 , 14 Deut. 30 , 6 4 Reg. 23 , 25 2. Par. 35 , 21 22. 2 , Par. 15 , 17. de Asa. notetur 2. Sam. 12. Psalme , 51 2. Par. 22 , 25 4 Reg. 18. 6. 7 , 8. De Asa vide 2 Par. 16 , 7 , 13 & cap. 15 , 17 & vda . Deu. 30 , 8 , 10 Hier. lib. 2. adverse . Pelag. fol. 133. tom . 3 Iames 3 , 2. 3. Reg. 8. 46 2. Par , 6 , 36 1. Iohn 1 , 8 2. Par. 15 , 17 & cap. 16. ver 7. & 12. Page 443 Hier. epist. ● Damas. tom . 2 fol. 57 A. Aug. serm . 61 de temp . 1. Psalme 32 , 1. Aug. de persect iustit . ratiocin , 15. pa. 968. tom . 7. Vbi supra raciocin . 1. p. 965 1. Cor. 1 , 30. 2. Cor 5. 21. Rom 10. 4. Phil 3. 9. Ephe. 1. 4. Tit. 3. 7. Apoc. 7. 14. Heb. 7. 10. Lib. 3. ethicor . cap. 5. §. 27. Page 436. Heb. 7 , 10 Qui potest capere , capiat . Page 44● 1 Iohn 3 , 9 Iames 2 , 10 Page 438. Mat. 3 , 17 Aug. lib. 1. retract . cap. 19. Bernard , de gra & lib. arbitr . pag. 1189 Bernard . serm , 3 , in annunc . Iames 3 , 2 Deut. 30 Eccles. 15. Ephes. 4 , 24. Rom. 5 , 18 Rom. 7 , 14 Heb. 7 , 5. Page 421. 1 Iohn 14 , 1●● Phil. 3. 9 1 Cor. 1 , 3 2 Cor. 5 , 21 Rom. 5. 19 1 Iohn . 3 , 9 Page 345. Bels pension greeueth the lesuite .