The Jesuits Antepast, CONTAINING, A Reply against a pretenced aun swear to the DOWNFALL OF POPERY, lately published by a masked jesuit Robert Parsons by name, though he hide himself covertly under the letters of S. R. which may fitly be interpreted (A SAUCY REBEL.)  Esay 38, verse 1. Put thine house in order, for thou shalt die and not live. 
AT LONDON Printed by William jaggard dwelling in Barbican. 1608.   

To the Right Honourable, my very good Lord, Thomas Earl of Dorset, Lord high Treasurer of England, and one of his majesties most Honourable privy Counsel. (⁂)  
IT is a constant and undoubted truth, approved by all Canonical Scriptures, ancient Counsels, holy Fathers, Ecclesiastical Histories, 
Ephe. 4. 5  and Right reason itself; that as there is but one only GOD, so but one Faith, and one Religion. Hence cometh it (Right Honourable) that the Pope and his Jesuits with other his Popish Vassals, employ their whole wits, learning, study, care, industry, and diligence, to instill into the cares and hearts of the multitude and common people, that the Religion which this day they profess, is the old Roman Religion, which Saint Peter and S. Paul first planted in the Church of Rome. And for this end they endeavour with might and main, yea, even with fire and Faggot, to persuade, or rather to enforce all Christians to call it the Old Religion, 
The Chu●● of England defendeth old Rom● religion.  and to profess and believe it to be the Catholic and Apostolic Faith; whereas the truth is far otherwise, as (God willing) shortly will appear. Which if the Vulgar sort did once understand, they would no doubt stand at defiance with the Pope, and from their hearts detest his late start-uppe Romish Doctrine. There is a Sect of Friars at Rome, 
The late R●●mish faith the new re●●●●●on.  called the franciscans, who have by little and little swerved from their first institution, and become so licentious and dissolute, that another sort of Friars commonly called the Capucheves, have accused them to have departed from their Ancient and Primitive order; and therefore do the Capucheves term themselves, the reformed and true franciscans indeed. This is this day our case in the Church of Noble England, and in many other Churches within the Christian World. The Capucheves hold fast, keep still, and constanty defend, all the Ancient Orders of the first Franciscanes, they only reject and abandon that, which by little and little crept into their Order, (viz) superstition, abuses, and neglect of Discipline. Even so is it this day with our Church of England, she holdeth-fast, keepeth still, and constantly defendeth all and every jot of the old Roman Religion, reverencing it, as Catholic and Apopostolique Doctrine, she only rejecteth and abandoneth Heresies, 
〈◊〉 this point w●ll 〈◊〉.  Errors, superstition, and intolerable abuses, by little and little brought into the Church. For neither did most Noble Queen Elizabeth in her time, neither doth our most gracious Sovereign King JAMES (who this day most happily reigneth over us) set up or bring into the Church any new Religion; but only reformeth the Church, by the example of King josaphat, King Ezechias, 
Par. 19 Reg. 18. Par. 29. 30, 1. 34.  King josias, and other godly Kings in their days, and reduceth it to the Primitive order and purity of the old Roman Religion. This to be so, none can in conscience deny, that will with a single and upright eye this day behold, 
Reg. 2. 4. 8. ●ee defend 〈◊〉 old Romā●●ligion.  the godly settled Canons of this Church of England. For, the late Bishops of Rome have in many points of great importance, swerved and departed from the Doctrine of their Ancestors; whereof no doubt many Papists, even at & about Rome itself, 
●n: Dom:— 1498.  would this day (if they durst for fear of fire and Faggot) accuse the Pope himself. What shall I say of Hieronymus Savonarola, that famous Preacher and Dominican Friar? Was not be burnt with Fire and Faggot, because he preached openly in the famous City of Florence, against the licentious lives of the Pope and his Clergy, and against superstition and abuses crept into the Church? I wot it was so, it cannot be denied. What? 
〈…〉.  Did not johannes 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 perform the same? He did so, their own good friend Beatus Rhenanus doth contest the same with me. What? Did not Franciscus à Victoria, 
〈…〉 annot. in 〈…〉. de potest. 〈…〉 & ●onc. 〈◊〉. 4. p. 139  that ●amous Popish school-doctor, complain grievously in his time, of Popish intolerable 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 he not cry out against the late Bishops of Rome, and desire Clements, Lines, & Silvesters? His own Book is extant in print, the world knoweth it to be so. What shall I say of the Pope's errors in Faith and Doctrine? Was not Pope Liberius an Arrian Heretic? Was not Pope Anastasius a Silestorian Hereretique? Was not Pope Celestine condemned for erroneous doctrine? 
〈◊〉 john's esie con●nned with sound of ●●●●pets.  did not Pope john the 22. of that name, teach publicly a most notorious heresy? Did he not command the university of Paris, that none should be admitted to any degree in Theology, but such as would swear to defend that heresy perpetually? Did not the King of France with the advise & consent of the whole university, for that end, cause his damnable opinion to be condemned with the sound of Trumpets? 
Adrianus.  Adrianus (who was B of Rome himself) Alphonsus' à Castro, Melchior Canus, and Viguerius, all four being very learned and famous Papists, are constant witnesses of this truth. 
Lyr. in 16. 〈◊〉 Mat.  Doth not Nicholaus de Lyra, a famous and learned Popish Writer, boldly and constantly affirm in his learned Commentaries, that many Popes have swerved from the Faith, and become fl●t Apostates in their Romish seats? He doth so, it cannot be gainsaid. What shall I say of the Pope's lives & conversation? Was not Pope john the eight of that name, belying her sex, and clad in Man's attire, with great admiration of her sharp wit and singular learning, chosen to be the Bishop or Pope of Rome? Did she not shortly after by the familiar help of her beloved Companion, bring forth the homely and shameful fruits of her Popedom? Is this true? Is it possible? Then farewell Popish Succession, the chief Bulwark of Romish Faith and Religion. For seeing no Woman is, or can be made capable of holy orders; that succession which is derived from our holy Mistress john Pope, 
The Pope with child. 1. Tim. 2. 12.  cannot possibly be of force. Yet is this story confirmed to be true, by the uniform assent of many Papists of great esteem, even in the Church of Rome, (viz) of Sigebertus Gemblacensis, 
Seven Pop witnesses, 〈◊〉 pope john was a wo●●  Marianus Scotus, Matheus Palmerius, Martinus Polonus, Philippus Bergoniensis, Baptista Platina, Bartholomeus Carranza, and others. Was not Pope john the twelft, made Pope by violent means? Did not his Father Albericus being a man of great power and might, enforce the Nobles to take an oath, that after the death of Pope Agapitus, they would promote his Son Octavianus to the Popedom? Was not the oath accomplished, and be named john? Was he not a great hunter, and a man of licentious life? Did he not keep women openly, to the notorious scandal of the Church? Did not some of the Cardinals write to Otto, 
Behold Po● john the vi gin.  King of the Saxons, to come & besiege Rome so to afflict him for his sins? Did not the Pope perceiving it, cause the Cardinal's nose to be cut off that gave the counsel, & his hand that wrote the letter? Martinus Polonus a Popish Archbishop, & sometime the Popes own Penitentiary, affirmeth this to be a constant truth? Did not Pope Silvester the second, a Frenchman borne, Gilbertus by name, promise homage to the Devil, so long as he should accomplish his desire? Did he not so often express his de●ire to the Devil, as he made homage unto him? And was he not first made Archbishop of Rheims, then of Ravennas, at the last Pope of Rome? Did not the Devil knowing his ambitious mind, bring him to honour by degrees? When he was made Pope, was he not desirous to know of the Devil, how long he should live in his pontifical glory? Did not the Devil answer him, 
〈◊〉: Dom:— ●07.  so long as he said no Mass in Jerusalem? The story is long, he that can read and desireth to know it at large, may find it in Martino Polono, above named? Did not Pope Benedict the eight, appear corporally after his death, as it were riding on a black Horse (the Devil?) Did he not desire the Bishop that saw him, to cause some Money to be given to the poor, because all that he gave afore time, was gotten by robbery and extortion? Petrus Damascenus affirmeth it. Was not Pope Formosus, a perjured person? Did not Pope john degrade him, 
〈◊〉 is now 〈◊〉 indelible Character?  after he had been Bishop of Portua? Did he not take him sworn, that he neither should be Bishop, nor ever return to the city of Rome? Did not Pope Martin absolve him of his oath? Came he not to Rome, and shortly after was made Pope? Did not Pope Stephanus the sixth, persecute Pope Formosus? Did he not cause his dead body to be brought forth into his consistory, the papal ornaments to be taken away & a laical habit to be put on the dead corpse, two fingers of his right hand to be cut off, and so his body to be put into the grave? Did not Sergius the third, cause Pope Formosus, (who now had been dead almost ten years) to be taken out of his Tomb, and to be set in a Chair with pontifical attire upon his back, 
most bru●● cruelty!  and then his head to be cut off and cast into Tiber? Platina, Carranza, and Polonus affirm it for a constant and known truth? Did not Pope Vrbanus the second absolve subjects, from their fidelity and allegiance which was dew unto their Sovereign, so that whosoever obeyed the King, was reputed excommunicated, and they that took part against the King, were resolved from the ●●ime of perjury and Injustice? Did not Pope Boniface the eight, challenge the right of both sword? Did he not deprive Philip the French King, and give his Kingdom to him that could get it? 
●●uclerus.  Sigebertus and Nauclerus proclaim it to the World. If I should enter into the full discourse of these Mysteries, time would sooner fail me, than matter whereof to speak. Let it suffice for the present, to call to mind the ladder of eight steps, by which the late Bishop of Rome did climb up to their tyrannical primacy; the kill of Christ in the Popish Mass; the pluralities of bodies ascribed unto him; the sensible touching, breaking, and chewing of Christ's Real and natural body without teeth; the absurdities, impossibilities, and contradictions, which necessarily ensue upon their falsely and fond imagined real presence; their intolerable and blasphemous dispensations; the Brother licensed to marry his own natural Sister; persons joined in wedlock by God himself, and dissolved by the Pope; Saint Paul's flat doctrine of Concupiscence to bereiected; Condign merits of Man's works established; damnable sins to be made Venial; 
Bishop's must swear to be true to the Pope.  Bishops not to have voices in Counsels, until they first swear to de●end the Pope and his damnable decrees; that Papists can keep the Commandments, and add thereunto works of supererogation. These and many like execrable assertions, the Gentle Reader shall find in this small Volume, to be truly justified against the Pope and his jesuited Popelings. Many years are expired since I first wrote against the Papists. They have desperately affirmed, that my Books were answered many years ago, yet this is the first answer indeed, that ever was published against any of my Books; 
Our holy jesuit must needs have a forerunner.  which was pretended to be such a worthy thing, that it must needs have a forerunner to come before it, to exhort Men to prepare themselves worthily to receive it; as if forsooth, this saucy Rebel S. R. were Christ himself, and his forerunner Saint john the Baptist. What he hath performed in his supposed answer, and myself in this my Reply; 
The truth 〈◊〉 prevail in time, and Po●●pery wholly overthrown  I refer it to the judgement and censure of the indifferent Reader. The work such as it is, I have Dedicated unto your Honour; as an external sign of thankfulness, for the Honourable favours received at your Lordship's hand. The Almighty increase your Christian zeal towards his Gospel; and so bless your faithful service to your Prince and Country, as your most Honourable place and calling doth require.  
Your honours Servant in Christ jesus, Thomas Bell.   

The first Article.  
Of the Popes falsely supposed SOVEREIGNTY.  

Chapter first.  
Of certain Aphorisms, for the better instruction of the Reader.  

Aphorism 1.  
MAny reasons might be alleged, why so many at this day, do so greedily, (though foolishly and undiscreetly) embrace the late Romish religion; but these few to give a taste, shall suffice for the present. The first reason is, because they expect a day as profane Esau did, 
Gen●, 27, 41 See my anatomy of Popish tyranny. Hest, 7, 10.  when they may kill their true and natural Sovereign, God's sacred and anointed Lieutenant (as I have proved elsewhere at large) and so aspire and be advanced to great wealth & dignity: But let them remember proud Hamon's end, lest they be hanged on the gallows, which they intent and prepare for others. The second, because our gracious Sovereign, (as did his noble predecessors K. Edward and Queen Elizabeth of famous memory) laboureth to win Papists with lenity and long sufferance, and by reading & preaching, to bring them to the light of Christ's Gospel: whereas the Pope never ceaseth, to burn burn with fire and faggot, whosoever holdeth and defendeth, any one article, contrary to his late hatched Religion: yea, if one pass by an Image, or their house of Inquisition (which they term the Holy-house) and do not reverence thereunto, it is enough to cast that man into the said disholy prison: Which kind of punishment, if it were upon just cause, executed within his majesties Dominions, shortly, few or no disloyal subjects would be found within his kingdoms. 
August, epist 48, Tom 2 3 Cap, quicunque de haeret, lib 6  Which is not my bare opinion only, but even Saint Austin's in the like subject; as it doth and may appear to the indifferent Reader, in his learned Epistle to Vincentius the third, because for the better success and more free passage of the late Romish Religion, the laical people are commanded by Popish Canon-law, under pain of Excommunication, not to reason at all, in matters of Faith and Religion; and the learned semblably, not to examine or discuss, how far the Pope's power doth extend, whatsoever or howsoever he command them to believe. For the Pope's law hath made it Sacrilege, to dispute of his power, or to call it into question; so writeth their own dear Doctor and popish Friar, Franciscus à Victoria, the first man that brought the Popish School-doctrine into Spain: yea the Popes own decrees are consonant to the same, these are the express words: 
Relect, 4, de potest, papae & conc, propos, 16, cause, 17, q, 4, cap, ne●ini.  Similiter de judicio summi pontificis alicui disputare non licet. In like manner, no man may dispute of the judgement of the Pope, or highpriest. The fourth, because neither any of the laity, nor yet of the Clergy, can under pain of Excommunication, read either the old or the new Testament translated into the vulgar tongue, or any other book of Controversy or Divinity, set forth by any not professed Vassal unto the Pope; unless such person or persons be especially licensed of the pope so to do.   

Aphorism second.  
The multitude of the vulgar and rude people, become Papists, upon this false and sandy foundation, supposed of them to be a received Theological Maxim, viz: that the late start up Romish Doctrine, is the ancient Catholic faith, and the old Roman religion: And therefore, when soeucr they speak of any Papist, meaning to express his sect and profession; they tell us, he is one of the old Relion: but they are grossly deceived herein; they may have zeal, I grant with the Apostle, 
Rome, 10, 2  but not according to knowledge. For, the doctrine this day taught and defended by the Pope, his Jesuits, and jesuited Papists, is indeed the new Religion, and far different from the true, catholic, and old Roman religion. Would to God all simply seduced Papists, would deeply ponder this point, and seriously meditate upon the same. I do with all my heart reverently receive and admit, the old Roman religion preached by Saint Paul and S. Peter, in their days at Rome; but withal, I utterly abhor and detest, that Doctrine, which the late Popes and Bishops of Rome deliver for the same. In regard hereof, I never in any one of my Books, oppugn simply and absolutely the Roman faith and religion, but the late Romish faith and doctrine. Where I wish the Reader to observe and mark attentively, 
Mark well this word (Late.)  this word (Late) for it doth significantly declare a clear difference between that doctrine which is now taught in the church of Rome, and that which S. Paul and S. Peter, delivered 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. Mark the next Aphorism.   

Aphorism third.  
We know, and the Papists know, that their reformed Franciscans (now commonly called Capuchenes) can tell right well, that their other dissolute Franciscans have swerved from their ancient order, albeit they can neither tell when, where, nor by whom, that dissolution first began; yet they prove it à posteriori, by their ancient rules evidently. And even so do we prove, by the holy scriptures (the true touch stone of truth) that the Papists have swerved from Apostolical doctrine, albeit we could not (as yet we can) assign the time, place, and persons; when, where, and by whom, such Antichristian alteration first began. Let the Reader mark this point well, that, that Sect of Papists which is called Franciscans, do boast of their succession & continuance, and by reason of their antiquity, will needs be the true Franciscans, but the Capuchens (which are nothing but reformed Franciscans) tell them, that they are the true Franciscans, who have ●ely put away and abolished all superstition and dissolution, which by little and little crept into their order. Even so say we, that we are the old and true Catholics or Romans, who keep still that saith and doctrine which saint Paul preached to the Romans; and have only put away and abolished, that superstition, Idolatry, and erroneous doctrine, which by little and little, crept into the Church. They will needs be the true and old Catholics, as is said of the dissolute Franciscans; but we tell them, as their Capuchens tell their disordered Franciscans, that they are the deformed & bastard Catholics, unworthy of the name of Catholics.  
And that we are the reformed and legitimate Catholics, who keep still and hold fast all Apostolical doctrine, and have only abolished out of the church of God, all Superstition, Idolatry, and errors, contrary to the scriptures and the Gospel, which the Apostles preached, and left in writing to all posterities. Observe diligently the next Aphorism.   

Aphorism fourth.  
First, Popish primacy began, in the year 607. Secondly, Priests marriage was never prohibited, till the year 385. Thirdly, Popes pardons were never heard of, till the year 1300. Fourthly, popish Purgatory took no root in the Romish Church, till the year 250. Fiftly, invocation of saints, & adoration of Relics, was not known, till the year 370. Sixtly, Popish pilgrimage began in the year 420. Seventhly, the merit of Works de condigno, was disputeable about the year 1081. Eightly, the communion under both kinds, was never thought unlawful, till the year 1414. Ninthly, the Pope's Bulls were not authentical, till the year 772. Tenthly, Auricular confession was not established, till the year 1215. eleventhly, General Counsels, were ever summoned by the Emperors. That all these heads of Popish doctrine, crept into the Church, by little and little in the years above named, I have proved at large ten years ago, in my Book of the Survey of Popery, as also partly in my Book of Motives, to which books I refer the Reader, for better satisfaction therein.  
This creeping of late Romish religion into the Church by little & little, Victoria a Popish friar & famous school-Doctor, witnesseth in these words; 
Victor: de potest. papae & conc. rel. 4. pag. 151  Paulatim ad hanc, etc. By little and little we are brought to these inordinate dispensations, and to this miserable state, where we are neither able to endure our own griefs, nor remedies assigned for the same: and therefore must we perforce invent some other way, for conservation of the Laws. Give me Clements, Lines, Silvester, and I will commit all things to their charge. But to speak nothing grievously against these latter Popes, they are doubtless inferiors to Popes of old time, by many degrees: Thus writeth this learned Popish Friar; who if he durst have spoken plainly, would have told us mirabilia. But it sufficeth that Popes were worse and worse, and that errors by little and little crept into the Church.   

Aphorism fifth.  
The usual practice of Papists in their Commentaries, Books and Glosses, have been such, and so intolerable, in wresting the holy scriptures, that their own dear brethren and great Doctors, cannot for shame deny or conceal the same. Polydorus virgilius, a famous Papist, hath these words; Non secus isti, etc. 
Polid. Virg. lib. 4. cap. 9, pag. 39  These (Popish) Legists, and Canonists, do now and then so wrest and wrieth the holy Scriptures, to that sense which themselves like best; even as Cobblers do gnaw with their teeth, and stretch out their filthy skins. This is that, which the famous Papist Doctor Fisher, the late bishop of Rochester, did freely confess, in his answer to the Articles of mayst. Luther, which he could not in truth withstand or gainsay; These are his express words: Contendentibus itaque nobiscum haereticis, nos alio subsidio nostram oportet tu●re causam, quam scriptura sacra. 
Roffensis art. 37. adu. Luth. pag. 11  Therefore when heretics contend with us, we must defend our cause by other means then by the holy Scripture. These are the express words, (I neither add any thing, nor take any thing away) of their famous popish Bishop; of their holy saint; of their glorious martyr; a learned man indeed, who laboured with might & main for the Pope's usurped sovereignty, and defended the same in the best manner he was able, and to the uttermost of his skill; and yet for all that, he hath bolted out unawares, & against his will (such is the force of truth) so much in plain terms, as is enough to overthrow all Popery for ever, and to cause all people that have any care of their salvation, to renounce the Pope and his abominable Doctrine, to their lives end.  
For our learned Popish bishop being put to his best Trurmpe, telleth us very plainly, and without all dissimulation (his mouth being now opaned by him who caused Balaams' Ass to speak,) that they must not (because forsooth they cannot) defend and maintain their popery by the authority of the Scripture, but by some other way and means (viz) by man's forged inventions, and popish unwritten vanities, which they term the Church's Traditions.  
Now (gentle Reader) how can any Papist (who is not given up in reprobum sensu, for his former sins and just deserts) read such testimonies against Popery, freely confessed, and plainly published to the world, and that by the pens of most learned and renowned Papists, even while they bestir themselves busily, to defend their Pope and his popish doctrine, and for all that continue Papists still, and carried away headlong into perdition, believing and obeying that doctrine, which (as themselves confess) can not be defended by the holy Scripture? Methinks they should be ashamed, to hold and believe that doctrine, in defence whereof, they can yield no better reason.  
Covorruvius a famous Canonist, 
Covar: Tom. 1 part 2. cap. 7 par. 4. ●. 14. in medio.  and reverend Popish Bishop, hath these words: Nec me latet, etc. Neither am I ignorant, that Saint Thomas affirmeth, after great deliberation, that the bishop of Rome cannot with his dispensation, take away from Monks their solemn vow of chastity: this notwithstanding, we must defend the first opinion, lest those things which are practised every where, be utterly overthrown.  
Behold here (gentle Reader) that howsoever the pope's opinion be, the same we must defend of necessity: and the reason is added, because otherwise, popery cannot consist. Fie upon that Religion, which must have such poor and beggarly shifts for the maintenance thereof. Much like stuff I might recount of Popish pardons and Purgatory, etc. but for those matters, I refer the Reader to my Book, Entitled, The woeful cry of Rome.    

CHAP. 2.  
¶ Containing a sound confutation of the Jesuits answer, framed to my arguments against the Pope's primacy.  
THe jesuit S. R. in the first Chapter against my first Article, is so troubled to answer my reasons, grounds, and authorities, that one while he affirmeth, 
In the first Article.  otherwhiles denieth the self-same thing, so mightily confounding both himself and his Reader. In the downfall of Popery, I proved evidently, that the Pope taketh upon him to depose Kings and Emperors from their royal thrones, and to translate their Empires and regalities at his good will and pleasure. To which S. R. answereth, that I bely the Pope: but let us hear his own words.  S. R. 
I must needs tell him, 
Page 4  that he untruly avoucheth us to say, that the Pope is spiritually above all powers and Potentates on earth.  T. B. 
I must needs tell you (Maist. jesuit) that you untruly charge me with untruth: yea, that you roundly control yourself, and give yourself the lie. I prove it; first, because yourself confess the words, which I alleged out of Bellarmine, 
Page 7  that Popish and jesuitical Cardinal, to be truly fathered upon him (viz) that when any Prince, of a sheep is made an heretic, or swerveth from the Romish religion, which is all one with you Papists; then the pope may drive him away by excommunication, and withal command the people not to obey him, and therefore deprive him of his dominion over his Subjects.  
Secondly, because you M. jesuit) confess freely, that Pope Zachary did justly depose Childrick King of France. 
Page 55   
Thirdly, because ye likewise grant freely, that the Pope deposed king Henry the eight, 
Page 75  and Queen Elizabeth, and for better assurance hereof, 
Page 26  you tell us the same tale in another place. 
Page 17  But let all indifferent Readers hearken seriously, what the Popes own dear Friar telleth us, his words are set down in the downfall of Popery, but S. R. could not see them, because he knew not what to say to them: 
Sigebert. An. 1088.  thus doth he write. Vt pace omnium, etc. To speak by the favour of all good men, this sole novelty. I will not say heresy, was not yet known in the world, that his priests who maketh an hypocrite to reign for the sins of the people, should teach the people, that they owe no subjection to wicked Kings; and that although they have taken the Oath of fealty, yet do they owe them no allegiance, neither are perjured that think 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 absolved from the crime of Injustice and perjury. Thus writeth Sigebertus a Learned popish Friar, 
Sigebert, i● Chron. An. 1088.  so lively painting out our very case this day in England, as if he were living even now amongst us. Where we see, that the pope's own Monks & friars have thought as ill of the pope's dealings in former times, as we think of his proceedings in these latter days; as also, that to absolve Subjects from their allegiance, is not only a Novelty, but even a flat Heresy. Let all popish Recusants mark this point well, 
See my anatomy  and defy the Pope and all his absolutions from their allegiance: for as the secular popish Priests have truly written, Popery is this day inseparably linked with Treason. But what saith S. R. Let us hear him again.  S. R. 
And much less did we ever tell you, that the pope hath temporal superiority over all Princes on earth, 
Page 5  but teach the quite contrary. 
Page 6  Again, if Bell reply, that some Canonists have affirmed the pope to be Lord temporal over the world, let him challenge them, & not like a wise man strike his next fellows the English papists, who maintain no such opinion.  T. B. 
I proved first out of the Popes own decrees, 
dist. 22. can. omner.  that pope Nicholas affirmed Christ to have committed to S. Peter, & consequently to himself, the right both of earthly and heavenly Empire.  
Secondly, out of the pope's gloss, that the Pope's hath both the Spiritual and Temporal sword, and by right thereof, did translate the Empire. Thirdly out of the pope's decretals, that pope Boniface challenged the Royal 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 himself both Spiritual and Temporal Lord of the whole world, and thereupon he required of Philip king of France, that he would acknowledge his Kingdom from him, which thing the King scorned to do. All this notwithstanding, our jesuit S. R. answereth roundly, that I must challenge them, and not strike their fellows. Marry sir, this is a short answer indeed; but as much to the matter, as if you should say, your heart doth pant and bleed: But let us be content with this answer, seeing the silly jesuitical Friar, was not able to afford us any better.  S. R. 
English Papists attribute to the pope, 
Page 6  no other authority over Kings then spiritual, but do with tongue & heart, and with the pope's good liking confess, that our Sovereign Lord King james hath no superior on earth, in Temporal matters.  T. B. 
What a Masked, lying, and Traitorous jesuit is this? We have heard already, that the Pope deposed both King Henry the 8. and most Noble Queen Elizabeth, and yet here the lying impudent jesuit telleth us boldly without blushing, (for his face is of brass) that King james hath no superior on earth. It is true indeed, but not in his sense. For I pray you Traitorous Jesuits, are not earthly Kingdoms and Dominions, Temporal matters? It cannot be denied. Had not King Henry the 8. and Queen Elizabeth of famous memory, the same superiority in their Kingdoms and temporal affairs, which our gracious sovereign King james hath? His Majesty will not deny it. But so it is, that your Pope deposing them, (as you have told us,) was their superior as you hold and teach. For doubtless, no inferior can depose his superior, and consequently, your Pope by your profession, is superior to our King. This is but your Hypocritical Cozenage; your cogging and lying, your Diabolical Equivocation. If your power were correspondent to your will, his Majesty might speedily lose his Crown and dignity. GOD save our Noble King, and confound your Antichristian Pope.  S. R. 
Because Bellarmine teacheth, that the Pope may excommunicate and depose Princes for heresy; 
Page 7  Bell saith, he may depose them at his pleasure: As if matters of Heresy, were the Pope's pleasure.  T. B. 
Here we have freely granted once again, that the pope by Popish doctrine, may depose Princes for heresy: only this is denied, that he deposeth them at his pleasure. To which, I thus reply; First, that every heresy is voluntary, and consequently, seeing many pope's have been heretics, (as Pope Adrian himself, Alphonsus de Castro, Melchior Canus, Vignerius, Nicolaus de Lyra, and many others freely grant) it followeth of necessity, that heresy is the Pope's pleasure. Secondly, that when I say, the pope taketh upon him to depose Princes at his pleasure; I mean nothing else, but that the pope will depose Princes, whensoever they refuse to embrace and believe, his late start up Romish religion; that is to say, that doctrine, which is added to the old Roman religion at his pleasure. For all that which the Church of England this day rejecteth of the Romish religion, is added, to the old Romish religion at the Pope's pleasure. This subject is proved at large in my Motives and Survey. 
Page 8  But our jesuit urgeth further, that Bell disproveth himself in these words: Secular Priests (saith Bell) write plainly and resolutely, 
In my anatomy, in the Caveat to the Reader. and libr. 2. cap. 4. & cap. 9  that the pope hath no power to deprive Kings of their royal sceptars and regalities, nor to give away their kingdoms to another: in which opinion likewise the French Papists concur and jump with them. Item, the Seculars, although they acknowledge the pope's power supereminent in Spiritualibus, yet do they disclaim from it in Temporalibus, when he taketh upon him to depose Kings from their Empires, and to translate their kingdoms. And lest we should think these few priests who write so, were no Papists, Bell himself testifieth, that they are the Pope's dear vassals, and profess the same Religion with other Papists. 
●●pist. to the King.  By these words, our masked jesuit, (as we see) would gladly impose upon me, that I have slandered them and their Pope. First, because the secular priests deny the Pope's power in deposing Kings. Secondly, because I grant those seculars to be papists, but this slander is easily returned to the jesuit himself. For first, our Jesuits hold, that the Pope may depose Kings from their Dominions and regalities. Again, the secular priests are of a contrary opinion. Neither for all that doth it follow, that they are not papists: For it is very usual and common to Papists, to dissent one from another in matters of Religion. This is proved in my Motives. Our masked jesuit spendeth the whole chapters following; (viz) the second, third, and fourth, not in answering me and my proofs, but in mere impertinent matters; of the opinion of Knox and his fellow-ministers in Scotland, and such like stuff: wherefore omitting his impertinent verosity in the said three Chapters, I come unto the fifth next following the same.   

CHAP. 3.  
¶ Containing a confutation of S. R. his answer to the proofs of my assumption.  S. R. 
POpe Gregory saith Bell, 
Page 27  writing to the Emperor Mauritius, calleth him sovereign Lord, and professeth himself subject to his command, and to owe him obedience. Whereupon Bell inferreth, that for 600. years after Christ, pope's lived in dutiful obedience under Emperors.  T. B. 
I proved out of Pope Gregory's words, these three special points; (viz) that Pope Gregory freely and willingly acknowledged the Emperor to be his sovereign Lord. That he confesseth himself to be the emperors subject. That he yielded loyal obedience to the Emperor, and for that respect, thought himself bound in conscience to publish the emperors law, although in some part it seemed to disagree with God's Law; and that forsooth, lest he should be found guilty of disloyalty toward his prince.  S. R. 
As for the place which Bell citeth, 
Page 28  he speaketh not there of the subjection, duty, or obedience of a subject to his prince, but of a servant to his master, (as he had been to Mauritius whiles they were both pruiate men) which himself plainly professeth in the beginning of his Letter in these words; In this suggestion I speak not as Bishop, nor as subject, by reason of the commonwealth, but by private right of my own, because you have been my Lord since that time when as yet you were not Lord of all. And therefore by the foresaid words he meaneth no otherwise, than a loving servant doth, when upon courtesy to his old master, though he have left him, yet he still calleth him master, and offereth himself and his service at his command.  T. B. 
My reply standeth thus. First, that Pope Gregory or Gregory then Bishop of Rome, spoke of that obedience which a subject oweth to his prince. I prove it; first, because he saith, he rendered his obedience to the Emperor, and concealed not what he thought on God's behalf. Secondly, because a few lines afore, he telleth the Emperor what preferment Christ had bestowed on him, and what honour he had done unto him; among which this was one, that he had committed his priests to his charge, Sacerdotes meos t●aemanui commisi, & tu à meo seruitio milites tuos subtrahis? Christ will say unto you, saith Gregory; I have committed my priests unto your hands, and do you withdraw your soldiers from my service? By which words it is apparent, that Gregory yielded his obedience, as he was a Bishop or priest; and it skilleth not, that he saith in the beginning of the Epistle, I speak not as bishop, but in mine own private right: the reason is evident, because the publishing of a wicked Law, did not pertain to him as he was a Bishop (whose office is to preach God's word, and to administer his Sacraments) but as a private man subject unto his prince: And therefore he answered in his own private right, that it was not agreeable to God's will, yet did he publish the same, to show his allegiance to his sovereign.  S. R. 
Moreover, 
Page 30  Bell writeth that Barbarians possessed all Italy from the year 471. until Charles the great 801. how then saith he here, that Popes lived under Emperors until the year 603.  T. B. 
First, our Popes live not always at Rome, for they have many times been driven from thence, & lived else 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 possess all Italy, yet did the Bishops of Rome ever acknowledge their duty and allegiance unto the Emperor.  
Thirdly, when the Pope is dead, in the Interim while another is chosen, do not the papists acknowledge the Pope's supremacy? I ween they do. If S. R. shall deny it, I will use another argument against him. Even so, when the Emperors were not at Rome; yea, when there was no Christian Emperor at all, the Bishops acknowledged the right of his sovereignty.  
Fourthly, when I say, that Popes or Bishops of Rome lived in dutiful subjection, to the Emperors of Rome, more than six hundred years after Christ's sacred incarnation, every child knoweth the meaning; viz. that no Bishop during that time, denied the emperors supereminent power over him.  
Lastly, the jesuit to further his lying, hath falsified both my words and my meaning. Now, where I cited S. Ambrose, Euthymius, Hugo Cardinalis, Lyra, Aquinas, and the popish gloss; our masked jesuit answereth roundly, though impudently and unclerkly, that all the said writers speak of superiority in Temporal matters; but he can bring for himself, neither Scripture, Counsel, Father, nor reason. We must accept and be content with his bare word: For to the Pope and his Jesuits, no man may say, Curitafacis? Why dost thou so? The Pope's own decrees tell us plainly, that though the Pope be never so wicked, though he carry thousands of souls with himself headlong into hell; yet for all that may no man take upon him to judge the Pope, unless he be an Heretic: the reason is yielded by their own dear Doctor Gerson, 
dist. 40. cap. si papa. Gers. de pot. eccle. cons. 12. part. 3. Hugo Cardin. ps. 50.  because forsooth Christ hath written in his thing, (the King of Kings and Lord of Lords) to whom no man may say, why doest thou so. Of whose power it is sacrilege to reason or dispute. To thee alone (saith Cardinal Hugo) have I sinned, because there is not any above me, but thyself alone, that hath power to punish me. For I am a King, and so besides thee (O God) there is none above me. All the aforenamed writers teach the felfesame Doctrine, viz. that the Pope or Bishop of Rome, is so far from having power to depose Kings and Emperors, that he himself ought to be subject to them, & hath no authority at all to punish them.  
What can be more plainly spoken? What Testimonies can be more manifest? What Doctrine can be clearer? for if none but God be superior to the king; 
See my profess in the downfall of popery.  if none but God can judge the King; if none but GOD can punish the King, all which, both Ancient Fathers and the Popes own dear Doctors affirm, as I have often proved at large in the Downfall of Popery; then doubtless can not the Pope depose the king; then can he not absolve his subjects from their allegiance; then can he not translate Empires and Kingdoms, and bestow the same at his own pleasure. This notwithstanding, the pope's parasites to his good liking, tell us another tale in these words. 
G●rs. de potest eccles. consid. 12. part. 3  Sicut non est potestas nisi à Deo, sic nec aliqua temporalis vel ecclesiastica, imperialis vel regalis, nisi à papa. As there is no power but of God, so is there neither any temporal, nor Ecclesiastical, neither imperial nor Regal, but of the Pope.  S. R. 
ONly I say, 
Page 33  that joshua was no king, nor the Scripture affordeth any colour of saying, that any Highpriest was deposed by any of the said Kings, except Abiath●r by Solomon: and yet as it is gathered out of the fourth ch. 
3. Reg, 2, vers. 35, 27 3 Reg. 4, 4 Cap. 2, 35  (where he is accounted priest in Salomon's reign) Solomon 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 he had deposed him, he had not done it as King, but as Prophet, fulfilling (as the scripture testifieth) the prophesy against the house of Hely, from whence Abiathar descended.  T. B. 
AFter I had proved at large by many authorities, that Kings have supereminent power over Bishops, not Bishops over Kings; I added for a confirmation thereof, that the good Kings, joshua, David, Solomon, jehosophat, Ezechias and josias, knew ●ight well, that they had authority above all the priests; and therefore they took upon them, not only to command and control the priests, but also to depose them from their places and functions: yea, even the High-priests themselves, when their deserts did so require. Which point I avouched to be proved at large, in my Golden balance of trial.  
To this discourse S. R. answereth four things.  
First, that joshua was no king.  
Secondly, that no Highpriest was deposed by any of the said Kings.  
Thirdly, that Abiathar the Highpriest, was not deposed by king Solomon, but only confined to his house.  
Fourthly, that if king Solomon had deposed Abiathar, yet had he not done it as king, but as Prophet.  
My reply is this. First, that to deny joshua to be king, is a vain cavil, and argueth lack of matter in our Jesuits answer: for joshua had the thing, though not the name: he was the Civil independent Magistrate, and had the chief and supereminent power over the Isralites his Subjects; as Moses whom he succeeded had, 
Num. 27, 17  and the other Kings, David, Solomon, josaphat, Ezekias, and josias. In regard whereof, he was and may be truly reckoned, with and among the other kings. But when good reasons cannot be had, such Beggarly cavils must supply the want.  
Secondly, that it is a most notorious slander against the holy Scripture, and consequently á notable blasphemy against God himself; to say, and desperately to avouch in a printed Book, that no Highpriest was deposed by any of the said Kings. These are the express words of holy writ. Eiecit ergo Solomon Abiathar, 
2 Reg. 2, 27  ut non esset sacerdos domini. Therefore Solomon cast out or deposed Abiathar (the high Priest) that he should not be the Priest of the Lord. Again holy writ hath these express words. Et Sadoc sacerdote posuit pro Abiathar, and the King put Sadoc the Priest, 
ubi supra. verse 35.  in the room of Abiathar.  
Lo the holy scripture telleth us two things most plainly and expressly; and that is done even in that Latin Vulga●a editio, to which the Pope hath tied all his Jesuits and jesuited Popelings. The one, that King Solomon deposed Abiathar the Highpriest. The other, that he placed Sadoc the priest in Abiathars room.  
Thirdly, that it is most absurdly avouched of our jesuit, that Solomon only 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 room, our jesuit is at his wits end what to say: and why I pray you? For this end doubtless, because hence it is proved evidently, and by a necessary consecution, that Kings both have and may depose priests, even the high priests, and greatest priests of all. But it can never be proved out of the holy scriptures, that any Priest deposed any King; no, not the meanest king in all the world. The jesuit contradicteth himself mightily. For first he saith, that none of the Kings deposed any priest, Secondly, that Solomon deposed Abiathar. Thirdly, that Abiathar was not deposed, but only for a time confined to his own house. What hors●e would not break his neck, to hear this sweet melody? The scripture telleth us, 
3 Reg. 2, v. 27. & v. 35.  that king Solomon deposed Abiathar, and for confirmation hereof, the same scripture addeth, that Sadoc the priest, was set in his room.  
Fourthly, to say as the jesuit doth, that Solomon deposed Abiathar not as King, but as prophet, is to speak at random, and to make of scripture a nose of wax, for no one Text from the first of Genesis to the last of the Apocalypse, doth justify this fond and sottish answer of the masked jesuit; albeit, I know this to be true, that he wanted not the advise and counsel of his best learned Brethren. Whosoever desireth further in sight into this subject, and of the sovereignty of kings over priests and Bishops, which are their subjects; if he peruse my Golden balance of trial, I hope in God, it will satisfy his desire.   

CHAP. 4.  
¶ Containing a confutation of the sixth Chapter of the masked jesuit.  
THe jesuit in his sixth Chapter and first article, is wholly occupied in impertinent matters, and foolish demands, not once touching directly ought that I have written: but let us hear him once again, and so proceed to another Chapter.  S. R. 
Because the question is not, 
Page 38  upon what cause Kings and Emperors humbled themselves to the Popes, but whether they did or no: And because they have so done (as Bell confesseth) Catholics infer the Pope to be their superior. Unless perhaps Bell think blind zeal to disannul every fact or gift; and so say, the jews persecuted not the Church, because they did it upon blind zeal; nor our Catholic ancestors gave any livings to Churches, because they did it upon blind zeal (as Bell must think) for maintenance of Papistry.  T. B. 
O shameless and impudent jesuit? Is the question only what was done? Where is thy wit? Where is thy faith? Where is thy Religion? Doth not your angelical Doctor Aquinas teach you, that all moral Acts have their specification of the end and final cause? Doth not Scotus, Ockamus, Gabriel, josephus, Durandus, and all the rest approve the same Doctrine? How sayest thou then, O blind jesuit, that the question is not upon what cause kings humbled themselves to the Popes, but whether they did or no, o Tempora! o Mores! Doth not alms (otherwise a commendable act) degenerate into sin, when it is given for vain glory? And this only, because the end and cause for which it is given, is nought and unlawful? Doth not Christ's Apostle tell thee, that whatsoever is not of faith is sin? 
Rome 14, 23 1 cor. 10, 31  That whatsoever is done, aught to be done to to the glory of God? Alas, alas, every child that hath but learned the rudiments of Christianity, can roundly tell our jesuit, that we must not so much respect what is done, as what ought of right to be done. We may not reason as our jesuit Parsons doth (for he is the man) the thing was done, therefore lawfully done. Kings yielded supreme authority to the Pope, therefore they did it lawfuly. By that kind of Logic or rather Legierdemain, all thefts, all robberies, all Rebellions, all mischiefs under heaven, may be justified and defended. You Jesuits, and your jesuited pope-lings, do take part with the Pope against your anointed Sovereign; and so by this new (no Divinity) the pope is our King and Superior. For thus you reason, because Kings have so done, the Pope is their Superior. For the question is not, upon whose ground 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 thinks, that blind zeal dissanulleth every fact, and so neither the jews persecuted the Church, nor our papists gave any living to the Church, because they did it (as Bell must think) upon blind zeal. O monster of all Monsters? o Child of perdition? o son of the Devil? Bell saith not, that blind zeal disannulleth any act. Bell saith not, that papists gave no livings to the Church. Bell saith not, that the jews did not persecute the Church. No, no, it is the devil in our jesuit, that moves him thus falsely to slander Bell. It is one thing to say, the papists gave livings to the Church upon a blind zeal; another thing to say, they gave nothing at all. The former I say, the latter I deny: & therefore, when you papists labour to prove the pope's sovereignty over Kings, because some Kings, have acknowledged it, upon a blind zeal; I answer, that your proof is of no force, not for that such things have not been done; but because they were not done, as they should, & aught to have been done. You papists have submitted yourselves to be the Popes, and the King of Spain's subjects, as Story alleged for himself at his arraignment; and consequently by Popish Divinity, you may take up arms against king james our most gracious Sovereign, and be no Traitors in so doing. For as you write with your pens, so do you believe in your hearts, and practise in your lives. Your late Treason of Gunpowder, to say nothing of all the rest, makes it evident to the world. God save our Noble King james, & deliver him from your bloody hands: for though you speak well of him with your tongue, yet do ye wish in your hearts to do him the greatest wrong.  S. R. 
THat Emperors have acknowledged the Pope's superiority, 
Page 37  Bell himself confesseth, where he saith, that some Christian Kings and Emperors, have upon a blind zeal●e humbled themselves to the Pope; yea, (which is more) have yielded up their sovereign rights unto him. And shall not the Pope be Superior unto them, who have humbled themselves, and yielded their Sovereignty to him?  T. B. 
This is my reply. First, 
See the second chapt. for this point.  that one may yield up some part of his Sovereignty to another, and for all that remain & still continue that others Superior. The case is clear, it needeth no proof. If the jesuit will not yield to this, he must perforce yield to that, which will confound both him and the Pope, viz: that the pope is superior to the Emperor, even in Temporalibus. The reason is evident, because the Pope challengeth the Temporal sovereign right of Italy, and the free donation of the Emperor.  
Secondly, if every one that humbleth himself to another, becometh by and by that others inferior; then doubtless, the priest that is confessary to the Pope, becometh the pope's superior: For to answer, that the Pope doth not humble himself to his ghostly father, is not only absurd, but flat against the Pope's religion: And yet our jesuit disputeth thus. Catholics argue, that Kings and Emperors have acknowledged Popes their superiors. 
Page 37  This Bell granteth, in confessing their humiliation to Popes, which is never done but to superiors. Alas, alas, I pity the Jesuits folly. For first, in Popery, every king humbleth himself to a silly priest: Ergo, the priest is the kings superior.  
Again, every papist humbleth himself, to Images▪ dead bones, and especially to the wood of the cross; yea, sometimes to the bones of an Heretic, as I have proved in the Article of traditions. Ergo, Images, dead bones, wood, etc. are superiors to the Papists. Thirdly, the Papists are commanded to humble themselves to that, which the Priest holdeth over his head at Mass; which by their Doctrine, if it lack consecration, (as it may many ways fall out,) is but a bare piece of bread. Ergo a piece of Baker's bread, is their superior. Fourthly, Pope Silvester the second sometime a Monk, a Frenchman borne, Gilbertus by name, humbled himself to the devil, & yielded homage to him, so long as the devil accomplished his desire. This story is set down at large in my Survey of Popery. Now, that the devil 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 themselves to their subjects: Ergo, their subjects are their superiors. Sixtly, the Emperor humbleth himself many times, even unto those that owe duty to him: Ergo his inferiors, 
2 Sam. 15, 5. 6  become his superiors. Lastly, Absalon when any man came near unto him and did him obeisance, put forth his hand, and took him, and kissed him, and on this manner did Absalon to all Israel, that came to the King for judgement. Ergo, every man in Israel, was Absaloms' superior. But the contrary is the truth, and our jesuit a most notorious liar.   

CHAP. 5.  
¶ Containing the confutation of the seventh Chapter of S. R. that masked jesuit.  S. R. 
VIctoria saith, 
Page 42  that the glossers of the Law have given this Dominion to the Pope, they being poor in substance and learning. Here instead of proofs, I find an untruth. For neither doth Victoria in these words speak of many things, but only of Dominion, meaning Temporal over the whole world; neither yet doth he call it absurd.  T. B. 
I answer; first, that I cited Victorias words truly after my wont manner, never adding or changing one word in my Author.  
Secondly, that I added these words (and these Lordly Titles) not in the Latin, but in the English; not simply, but with a parenthesis; that the Reader might know, I did it for explication sake: which thing is usual, not only to our jesuit, but to all other writers.  
Thirdly, 
In my Motives.  Victoria (as I have expressly showed elsewhere) speaketh of many Lordly titles, ascribed to the Pope. But our jesuit granteth enough, (viz) the dominion over the whole world, and all power both Ecclesiastical and temporal on earth. For if the Pope have all, Kings can have none.  
Fourthly, master Gerson, a man of high esteem in the Popish church, saith plainly, (as our jesuit granteth) and I affirm; that all power both in heaven & on earth, which Christ himself had, is given to the Pope. What needs more? This is flat blasphemy against the son of God.  
Fiftly, 
Page 44  our jesuit denieth in one page, that which he granteth in another, concerning the Pope's power. The sound of the Bell, 
Page 47  maketh him forget himself.   

Chapter. 6.  
¶ Containing the confutation of the 8. and 9 chapters of the jesuit S. R. touching eight steps of the Pope's ladder.  S. R. 
COnstantine (saith Bell) at his departure did as the pope's Parasites tell us, 
Page 49  give large gifts to the Pope, even his whole power, dominion and territories, both in Rome, Italy, and all the West. Behold a man having a Wolf by the care, which he dare neither hold, nor yet let go. For, 
The first step.  if he grant, that Constantine gave the Pope his whole power and dominion, over Rome, Italy, and all the West, he must needs grant, that the Pope of right hath Imperial power over all the west: if he deny it, he showeth not how Constantine's departure, was a step for the Pope to climb to higher authority.  T. B. 
If Robert Parsons that Traitorous jesuit, who dareth not tell his name, but hideth it under S. R. be a wolf indeed, as I suppose he is; then doubtless I have him by the ears, legs, nose, and all, and so fast bound with links and chains of iron, as the Pope and all his jesuited Vassals, are never able to deliver him out of my hands. For albeit Constantine that most Noble Emperor, gave not the Pope his whole power and Dominion over 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 falsely supposed Primacy. The reason is evident, because the Emperor being far off at Constantinople in the East, the false pretended donation from Constantine was holden & believed for a truth. The multitude in the western parts, being too too credulous, gave credit to false reports, and rashly and inconsiderately believed, that the Emperor had made a decree, that the Pope and his successors should wear the crown of pure gold and precious stones which he had given him from off his own head. So that lying, and cogging, was the first step of the Pope's exalting. For, who would not give honour to him, who was so honoured of the King? Although in truth the Pope's rising, was nothing else but a mere leasing.  
I have proved sound out of famous Popish Writers, that Constantine's pretended donation was a mere fable, & that Bellarmine himself, standeth in doubt thereof, and therefore for his last refuge appealeth to prescription.  S. R. 
Bellarmine affirmeth, that the Pope hath two just Titles to hold his estate. The first, is the free gift of Princes, whereof he can show Authentical evidences; the other, prescription of time.  T. B. 
I answer, that for the first Title, though some of the Pope's parasites affirm it, yet do learned and wise Papists, Laurentius Valla, Raphael Volateranus, Paulus Cathalanus, Nicolaus Cusanus, & many others, repute it a mere Fable & flat leasing. And for the second, that where the Original is unjust, and the possession holden Mala fide, prescription will not serve the turn. Howsoever this be, Constantine's departure was the first step to Popish primacy. For, if he had tarried still at Rome, such feigned and falsely pretended Titles, could never have taken place.  S. R. 
Besides that, not Constantine's departure, 
Page 49  but his gift should have been 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 Pope's parasites durst never have given him such feigned Titles.  S. R. 
The second step (saith Bell) was the fall of the Empire in the West, 
The 2. step. Page. 51  in the year 471. and the vacancy thereof for almost 330. years. But how this fall and vacancy of the Empire, was a step for Popes to climb; neither he showeth, nor any can imagine; especially, if (as he writeth strait after) in this vacancy of the Empire, Rome was spoiled with fire and sword, and the walls thrown down to the ground, and all Italy possessed of the Barbares until 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 Heretics) how could it be a step for the Pope to climb, and not rather to fall?  T. B. 
Our jesuit seemeth to be wise in his own conceit, thinking nothing to be true, which his grossum caput cannot apprehend. The great difficulty is this; how Rome being spoiled with fire and sword, and all Italy possessed of Aliens and Barbarians, could be a step for the Pope to climb and not to fall.  
I answer, 
Mark. 3, 24  that when a kingdom is divided against itself, it cannot long continue; and consequently, the Visigothes ruling in Spain, the Aliens in Gutan and Gascoyn, the Frenchmen in the residue of France, the Vandals in Africa, the Saxons in Britain, the Ostrogothes in Hungary, the Hecules and Turdilinges in Italy and in the City of Rome; the Emperor remaining in the East, was not able to defend his imperial right in the West, but by little and little was dispossessed thereof. Then the Pope's friends possessing the Empire by his good help and furtherance, and willing to requite one good turn with another, sought by all means possible to advance and exalt the Pope. And so the fall of the Empire, was a step for the Pope to climb up to his Lordly primacy. This may be made manifest, by the daily practice of the Pope and his Jesuits. For the Popes and Jesuits never cease to stir up foreign potentates to invade the Empire of great Britain, and the kingdom of Ireland; and that only for this end and purpose, that the fall thereof may tend to their advancement. Insomuch, that they have promised great gifts, to such as would employ their labours, for the overthrow and fall of this Noble kingdom, which thing is proved at large, in my Anatomy of Popish Tyranny.  S. R. 
Bell before said, 
Pag 52  Pope's lived in dutiful obedience under Emperors, until the 603. how doth he now say, that they climb to Tyranny from the year 471.  T. B. 
I answer; first, 
In the downfall. pag, 3.  that our jesuit belieth me in wresting my words, which is his usual manner. For my words are not (under Emperors) but (to the Emperors.) Again, I said not (in dutiful obedience,) but (in subjection.) Now, every child knoweth, that there is great difference between under and to. As also, between obedience and subjection. For our English Jesuits, are our kings subjects against their will, and yet they live not in obedience to him. Secondly, many live in external obedience to the King, as do our English Jesuits, in acknowledging the King's superiority over them; who for all that seek to climb up on high, by poisoning and murdering his Majesty, if God would permit. Thirdly, to live in obedience or subjection to Emperors, is nothing else in my sense & true meaning; but to confess and freely grant, that of right they ought to be subject to Christian Emperors, as to their lawful Sovereigns. Which subjection our jesuit can never prove any Pope to have denied, for the space of 600. years and odd. here I cannot but tell our jesuit of his arrogant sauciness, joined with a notorious lie. For though he say more boldly then wisely, that Bell wrongly saith, the Empire to have been dissolved in the year 471. yet is it a mere truth, 
Page 54  and the jesuit denying it, showeth himself to be ignorant in Chronologie.  S. R. 
The third step (saith Bell) was the voluntary Charter which Constantine the Emperor of Constantinople made to Pope Benedist the second (viz;) 
The 3. step.  that whosoever the Clergy, 
Page 52  people, and Roman soldiers, should choose to be Bishop, all men should believe him to be the true Vicar of Christ, without any tarrying for any authority of the Emperor of Constantinople, or the Deputy of Italy, as the custom and manner was ever before that day. Thus (saith he) writeth Platina. And the Popes almost for the space of 700. years could have no jurisdiction, nor be reputed true Bishops of Rome, without the Letters patents of the Emperor. Behold, the impudence of this fellow. Platina saith, Vt antea fieri consueverat. Bell affirmeth him to say; It was the custom ever before that day: Where is in Platina the word (Ever?) Where, till that day? Nay, doth 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 himself tell us, that Barbarians ruled in Rome, and possessed all Italy for 330. years, until Charles the great? How then could it be, that before Benet the second, never pope's could have jurisdiction, & be accounted true bishops of Rome, without letters patents of Emperors; who were professed enemies, & made wars upon most of the Barbarians?  T. B. 
If the jesuit Parsons (for he is the libeler, and Author of this lying and slanderous pamphlet) were not at a Non plus, and unable truly to answer me, 
Platina in vita Bened. secund.  he would never for shame utter so many lies and notorious untruths. For first, Platina is wholly on my side, affirming resolutely, that none could be made bishop of Rome, without the letters patents of the Emperor, until the time of Benedict the 2.  
Secondly, where our impudent jesuit laboureth to make his tale good, because Pelagius the second was created without command of the Prince, he passeth impudency itself. 
I● vita Pelagii. 2  These are Platina his own words; Haec autem una fuit causa, quare Pelagius iniussuprincipis, tam pontifex creatus sit, cum extra obsessam abhoste urbe, mitti quispiam non posset. Nil. n. tum à clero in eligendo pontifice actum erat, nisi eius electionem imper. approbasset. This was one cause, why Pelagius was then made Pope without the command of the Prince, because none could go to the Prince, the enemy besieging the City, for nothing done by the Clergy at that time was in force, unless the Emperor had approved their election. Lo, Gentle Reader, our jesuit would prove, that the choice of the B. of Rome was good, without the voice of the Emperor, because Pelagius was created without command of the Prince; and he allegeth Platina for his Author. What a fond fellow is this? Platina first telleth him plainly, that no election of any Pope was good, without the Letters patents of the Emperor. 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 necessity was it? We have heard already out of Platina; because the City was besieged of the enemy, so as none could have passage to the Emperor. The jesuit therefore is a fond disputer, bringing that for him, which maketh wholly against him, and confoundeth both himself, and his pope everlastingly.  
Thirdly, where foolish and Traitorous jesuit Parsons, laboureth to defend the Pope by the creation of Silverius, because he was created at the command of Theodate a Gothish King; it maketh as much against him, 
Platini in vita Siluerii.  as his former sottish, and senseless affirmation. For after that Platina hath told us that Silverius was made bishop or Pope, at the command of Theodate a Gothish King, he 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 required. Mark these words, Gentle Reader, and detest the deceitful dealing of all Traitorous and cozening jesuits. The jesuit Parsons saith, 
Pag 53  that Platina speaketh of the time since Pope Virgillius: But we see, that Platina speaketh of the time before Silverius; which Silverius was before Vigiius. Yea, Pelagius the second was also after Vigilius: & so our jesuit is turned upside-down, and beaten with his own rod. To the fourth step, which was the deposition of Childericke King of France, 
The 4. step.  by Pope Zachary. Our jesuit answereth roundly, but nothing clerkly, that the deposition was most just) which foolish and shameful doctrine I deem sufficiently confuted, by the bare recital thereof;) especially, seeing I have else where written at large of this subject.  S. R. 
The fifth step (saith Bell) was the decay of the Empire 
The 5. step.  in the East, about the year 756. 
Page 57  at what time Pipin being called into Italy by Pope Steven 2. to deliver Rome from the siege of the Lombard's; and over coming, gave up the government of Italy into the Pope's hands. here Bell hudleth up store of untruths, that the Empire decayed in the East, about the year 756. for it decayed long before, about the year 635. under the Heretical Emperor Heraclius.  T. B. 
Here our traitorous jesuit, full of nothing but Rebellion, wind, vanity and lying, crieth out with open mouth against untruths, when all untruths proceed from his own pen. Nothing in this step of the Pope's ladder, is worthy of examination, save that only which concerneth the time of the decay of the Empire in the East. I say, as I truly said before, that the decay of the Empire in the East, was about the year 756. I add this word (about) not precisely meaning any one certain year. For Historiographers and Chronographers, do seldom or never jump in the certain or precise time, 
Page 57  or year. Our jesuit saith, that it decayed long before, about the year 635. We both have and use, this word (about) as it may seem, for that end and purpose which I have already named.  
Mark now the proof, and then judge who is the Lyar. Matthaeus Palmerius, in his Chronology in the year 756. hath these express words: 
An. 756.  Deficiente sedulo in Oriente Romanorum imperio, & imperatore Christianos persequente, Stephanus pontifex imperiales titulos ac dignitates Francorum Regibus concessit, & Pipinum suosque tantum à stirpe successores in eorum reges confirmavit; caeteris vero omnibus interdixit. When the Roman Empire in the East was indeed dissolved, and the Emperor persecuted the Christians, than Pope Stephen granted the imperial titles and dignities to the French K. and confirmed Pippin and his lineal successors only to be their kings, excluding all the rest. Thus writeth that famous Historiographer; affirming directly, that the Empire in the East, was dissolved in the year 756. as I do hold. johannes Nauclerus hath these express words; Anno salutis 800. in die nativitatis Dom▪ prohabita matura deliberatione, 
Nautle. gen. 27. pag. 678  Leo pontifex Rome considerans imperatores Constantinopolitanas agre ad nomen tueri, & ob eam rem vrbem Romam atque Italiam magnis calamitatibus pressam, simulque retr●ctans errores Graecorum frequentes, in obedientiam, & occidentale imporium quasi pro derelicto à Graecis haebitum; erigione verò perpendens Carolum Francorum regem potentissimum & optime de Ecclesia meritum, qui ecclesiam ab oppressione Desiderij regis Longobardorum liberavit, 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 year of our salvation 800. upon the day of the Nativity of our Lord, after mature deliberation, Leo Bishop of Rome, considering that the Emperors of Constantinople could hardly defend that name, and that for that cause the city of Rome and Italy was subject to great calamities, and withal correcting the frequent errors and disobedience, and that the greeks did make no reckoning of the West Empire; on the other side pondering that Charles the French King was most mighty, and had deserved well of the Church, and had delivered the Church from the oppression of Desi●erius King of the Lombard's, as his father Pippin from Aistulphus, and his grandfather Martellus from the Goths & Sarazes: Therefore in the time of great solemnity that day in Saint Peter's Church, the Bishop 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 esteem in the Church of Rome.  
Sigebertus a popish Monk, jumpeth with Nauclerus, in the year: So doth Arnoldus Pontacus Bnrdegatensis, jump with Matthaeus Palmerius in the year 756. and they all differ greatly from our Jesuits supputation, 635. That is to say; no less than 121. years. Wherefore, I wish the Reader to believe him at leisure, & never to give further credit to him, then his profess deserve.  
Here by the way let us observe seriously, that Leo the bishop of Rome with the consent of the people of Rome, took roundly, (though unchristianly) upon him, to depose the Emperor, and to put Charles king of France in his place. And thus every child may see, how the decay of the East Empire, was a step to Popish primacy: for the decay thereof, brought him into the room, who protected the pope in all his Lordly pontificality.  S. R. 
The sixth step Bell maketh the translation of the Empire, 
The 6. step. Page 64  by Pope Leo the third from the greeks to the Frenchmen or Germans, in the person of Charles the great. This translation is rather a notorious act of the pope's superiority over Emperors, than a step thereunto.  T. B. 
I willingly grant good Sir, that it was a notorious act of your Pope; but yet (as we use to say) he is a notorious murderer, a notorious thee, a notorious Traitor. For as Sigibert the Pope's dear Friar telleth us, the romans, 
Sigebert. in Chron. An. 801.  who a long time had in mind and affection revolted from the Emperor of Constantinople, seeing now a fit occasion offered them, (because a Woman did govern them, her son the Emperor being made blind,) did with one assent sound out imperial acclamations to King Charles, call him Caesar, and Augustus, and crowning him by the hand of Leo the Pope; yea, they did collaud his Son Pipin, and made him King of Italy. Thus writeth Friar Sigebert. Out of whose words I observe these points of great consequence.  
First, that 800. years after Christ's sacred birth the Bishops of Rome were subject to the Emperor, as their own dear Monk Sigebert telleth them; and as we have heard already, Pope Gregory acknowledged his fealty to Mauritius the Emperor, in the year 603.  
Secondly, that the Pope and people of Rome endeavoured a long time, to shake off the yoke of obedience unto the Emperor, and in the year 801. put the same in Execution.  
Thirdly, that the Translation of the Empire implied flat Treason, both in the Pope and all his Romish Popelings. For as Friar Sigebert telleth us plainly, they surrendered up the right of their sovereign to another man. 
Bellarm. tom 1. col. 831  And hence cometh it, that the jesuitical Cardinal Bellarmine appealeth to the law of prescription, affirming Titles gotten by robbery to be lawful by that means. And indeed by stealth and robbery, it may well be●eeme a jesuit, to justify Popish late startup regality.  S. R. 
The seventh step (saith Bell) was the constitution of the 
The 7 step.  7. electors of the future Emperor, but this was rather an act of superiority in the Pope over Emperors, than a step unto it.  T. B. 
Every thing with our jesuit, is an act of the Pope's superiority; but yet by his favour, not such a notorious act, as is the notorious act of murder or rebellion, 
Phil. Berg. pag. 277 Auton. 3. partit. 22. cap. 5 §. 13  as is already proved. For Gregory the fifth being a German borne, and a near kinsman of Otho the Emperor at that time, did by his favour and free grant, appoint seven electors of the Empire for ever. (viz) the archbishop of Mentz, the Archbishop of Treverse, the Archbishop of Colen, the Marquis of Brandenburg, the County Palatine, the Duke of Saxony, and the King of Bohemia. This goodly constitution was enacted by the Pope and Emperor, (being both of them not only Germans but also kinsmen) that the Empire might be established in their posterity, and their blood thereby advanced for ever.  S. R. 
Seeing this constitution hath ever since been inviolably observed, 
Page 70  and the Emperors so elected accounted as true Emperors throughout all Christendom; a sign it is, that Christians think the Pope hath Authority to appoint electors, who may choose what Emperor they please, by Authority given them from the Pope.  T. B. 
I answer; first, that many things are holden for good generally, which for all that are indeed counterfeit and false. Two most notable marks we have hereof. The one in Pope john the woman, as is proved at large in my Survey. The other in the Acts of Pope Stephanus & Pope Romanus, as I have proved in my Book of Motives.  
Secondly, that the Emperor hath not his authority from the Pope but from God. Per me reges regnant. 
Prou. 8, 15 16. Rom. 13, 1  By me kings reign, and princes decree justice. By me princes rule, and the Nobles, and all the judges of the earth. Let every one be subject unto higher powers; for there is no power but of God, and the powers that be, are ordained of God. Therefore the Emperor cannot have his power from the Pope, unless he be (as some impudently have written) both God and man.  
Thirdly, the constitution for the electors of the Emperor, was not established so much by the Pope, as by the authority of the Emperor, the Pope's near kinsman, as is already proved.  
Fourthly, from the time of Otho the third, when Henricus had stirred up a great contention about his succession, and all Germany was divided into parts; it was provided by public authority, that there should be seven electors appointed, who should from time to time elect a king and place him in the Empire, and that the Pope should set the imperial crown upon his head. And so the insoluble so supposed Dilemma, is fully answered.  S. R. 
The eight and highest step of this Ladder (saith Bell) 
The 8. step.  did reach up even to the highest heaven, and to the veric throne of our Lord jesus. Because (saith he) they challenge the Royal right of both sword, throughout the Christian world.  T. B. 
I say so, and I proved it in the Downfall of popery; neither is any jesuit in the world able, truly to confute the same.  S. R. 
But first I deny, that the Pope as Pope, challengeth royal right of either sword.  T. B. 
Appendix fuldensis hath these words; Hic papa constitutionem fecerat, etc. This Pope (he speaketh of Boniface the eight) made a constitution, in which he affirmed himself to be both spiritual and temporal Lord in the whole world. 
Note this point well.  Whereupon he would have had Philip King of France, to have acknowledged his kingdom from him; which thing the King scorned to do. Yea, the constitution is expressly related in the Pope's Extravagant, which beginneth thus; unam sanctum, 
Bonifac. 8 In extr.  set down in the sixth book of the Decretals. And as Gratianus reporteth, Pope Nicolas taught the same Doctrine. How impudent therefore is our fund jesuit, 
dist. 22: can omnes. lib: 7. epist: ●  which denieth such a manifest truth? But let us hear, what their famous Pope Gregory saith. Si ego servus eorum in morte Longobardorum me miscere valuissem, hody Longobardorum, gens nec regem, nec duces, nec con●ites haberet, atque in summa confusione esset devisa. Sed quia deum times, in mortem cuiuslibet hominis me miscere formido. If I their servant would have entangled myself in the death of the lombards, the Nation of the lombards, should this day neither have had a King, nor Dukes, nor Counties, but should have been in the greatest confusion. But because I fear GOD, I am afraid to intrude my self into the death of any man. Lo Gentle Reader, for the space of 600. years and odd, the Bishops of Rome durst not deal in absolving subjects from their allegiance, nor in murdering of Kings and Emperors. And why I pray you? This their own dear Saint, Gregory (surnamed the great) telleth us, because he feared God, & consequently, the late Bishops of Rome dare imbrue their hearts & hands in the blood of Gods anointed, because they have not the fear of GOD before their eyes. Yea, the Popes own Monk (as we have heard out of Sigebert already) pronounced it flat Heresy, 
Sigebert. An. 1088. fol. 117. K  to absolve subjects from the allegiance due unto their Sovereign. And what saith their Pontaus Burdegalensis? these are his words; Hic primus caepit francos juramento fidlitatis absoeluere. This Pope (Zachary) was the first, that absolved the Frenchmen from the oath of their fealty and allegiance.  
This Pope lived about the year of our Lord God 752. so that it was never heard of among the Frenchmen for the space of 750. 
Chron. An: 1088  years, that the Bishop of Rome took upon him to absolve subjects from their oath & allegiance to their Sovereign. And Sigebertus proceedeth further, & reproveth it as a Novelty, or rather Heresy, lately crept into the Church. And who I pray you can do this, but Christ jesus, as true God, so true man? Doth not he challenge the right, at the least of the spiritual sword, that taketh upon him to absolve subjects from the oath of their allegiance? Nay, doth he not take unto him the right of both swords? For absolution I am well assured, is even by popish Doctrine, an act of spiritual jurisdiction; and to serve the prince, is a secular and mere civil act? Antoninus sometime Archbishop of Florence, 
Anton: 3: partit. 22: cap: 5 §. 8.  and a Popish cannonized Saint, telleth us without blushing, that the Pope is Christ's Vicar on earth, & hath equal power with God almighty. These are his express words; Come auten Vicarius Christi si papa, etc. For seeing the Po. is the Vicar of Christ, none can lawfully withdraw himself from his obedience, as none can lawfully withdraw himself from God's obedience. And as Christ received of his father, the Dukedom and sceptre of the Gentiles arising of Israel, over all principality and power, and above every thing that hath being, that to him every knee may bend; even so Christ hath committed most full power, to Peter and his successors. Thus writeth our holy Archbishop Antoninus. Out of whose words I observe first, that as Christ is the the head over his Church, so is the Pope or bishop of Rome head of the same.  
Secondly, that as Christ received of God the Dukedom over all power, so hath the Pope received the same power of Christ.  
Thirdly, that as Christ hath power above and over every thing, whatsoever hath any being; so hath the Pope.  
Fourthly, that as to Christ every knee must be bowed, so also to the Pope.  
Now, if this be not to challenge the royal right of both swords, let the indifferent Reader judge. Neither is it to the purpose, to say that he challengeth not Royal right. For I ween, our jesuit will not deny Royal right unto Christ, who is Lord of heaven and earth, true God, true priest, and true King. And yet doth Antoninus ascribe and yield unto the pope, all power over all that hath any being, in as ample and large manner as Christ himself hath it. Yea, that Omnia genna, all knees must bow to the pope, And the usual practice of papists do confirm the same, even to the pope's good liking. For he must be carried upon men's shoulders, and men kneeling, must kiss the shoe of his foot, or else not be thought to love Christ or S. Peter. This myself being an eye-witness thereof, am able to testify. When Gregory the thirteenth of that name, came to the English College in Rome, all the Students were appointed by the jesuit then master of the College, to come two after two before him, sitting in a ●haire, and to kneel down on both knees in a great chamber, three several times, before they offered to kiss his foot. And while they kissed his foot (or the shoe of his foot) one after another, the rest followed as it were in procession, falling down three times as is already said. But let us hear the Verdict of Friar Austen de Ancona. The Pope (saith he) as he that is the Vicar of the son of the heavenly Emperor, 
In summam, pag. 152  hath Universal jurisdiction over all kingdoms and Empires. And is not this power over both sword? Is not this to challenge power proper to God alone? I ween it is, let others judge.  S. R. 
But the words which Bell most urgeth are, 
Page 78.  that the Pope can make something of nothing. For saith he, it is a thing proper to God alone, to make something of nothing, in all cases and at all times.  T. B. 
I say so good jesuit, neither are you able with the help of all your jesuitical brood (whom for all that I confess to be very learned) to prove the contrary while the world stands.  S. R. 
But besides that the gloss neither saith, 
Page 78  that the pope can make De nihilo aliquid, but, the nullo aliquid, neither yet in all cases, and at all times, as Bell addeth; the foresaid words are taken our of justinian. C. de rei uxor. 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 human contracts touching spiritual matters, the gloss attributeth to the Pope. And this he meant, when he said, the Pope can the 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 Christ's sake gentle Reader, be here an indifferent judge between our jesuit and me. Which if thou shalt truly affirm; thou canst not but clearly behold, that our jesuit is at his wit's end, what to say or write in defence of late startup Popery. His Doctrine smelleth of nothing, but of wind, 
The first lie.  vanity, and leasings. His first lie is this? That the gloss saith not, de nihilo, but, the nullo.  
The second lie is this; 
The 2. lie.  that I affirm the gloss to say, in all cases, and at all times.  
The third lie is this; 
The 3. lie.  that the words by me alleged are taken out of justinian.  
The 4. 
The 4. lie.  lie is this, that the gloss speaketh of Civil contracts. Lies abundant for one short sentence. And why doth our jesuit thus shamefully heap lies upon lies? Doubtless because he now seeth the halter about the Pope's neck, & the Pope ready for his treachery to be hanged on the Gallows; as one that is convicted, by the flat Testimony of his own sworn Vassals, of most notorious blasphemy against the son of God.  
For first, to make of nothing something, is undoubtedly proper to the blessed Trinity, the Father, the son, and the Holy-ghost, three in distinction of persons, and one in Unity of substance. And consequently, if the Pope can make something of nothing, he must perforce be another God. This consequence our jesuit and his Pope dare not admit in verbal phrase, although they practise it in real act; and that the truth may evidently appear, because it is a matter of great consequence, I will examine every parcel of the Jesuits answer, severally by itself.  S. R. 
The gloss saith not, the Pope can make de nihilo aliquid, but, the nullo aliquid.  T. B. 
This is a most notorious lie, & I refer myself for the truth hereof to all indifferent Readers, that have the pope's decretals, 
Glos. lib. 1. decr●t●tit. 7. ca 3.  and can read and understand the same. And if the gloss say not de nihilo, as I affirm, but the nullo, as our jesuit saith; let me be discredited for ever. Oh sweet jesus? Who could ever think that the Papists would be so impudent, as to deny the express words of the text. Nay, I will prove it by the circumstances, to the Jesuits everlasting shame and confusion.  
For first, if the assertion were borrowed from the civil law, and meant of civil contracts, pacts, or stipulations, as our jesuit impudently avoucheth, (but against his own conscience, if he have any left) then should it not be aliquid, but aliquod; as every mean Grammarian, can and will testify with me.  
Again, the gloss saith, the Pope can change the Nature of things, by applying the substance of one thing to another. But doubtless, when the Emperor maketh that to be a civil contract, which afore was none; he doth not apply the substance of one thing to another, but only commandeth his subjects to accept that for a law, which before was none.  
Thirdly, no mortal man can apply the substance of one thing to another, and so change the nature thereof. Although the Pope take upon him, to change bread into Christ's body. And therefore, when the gloss addeth immediately; (and of nothing he can make something,) he meaneth of that divine power, which is proper to GOD alone. Like as Antoninus affirmed, (as is already proved) that the Pope doth challenge power, super omne quodcunque est, over every thing whatsoever is and hath any being; and consequently, over God himself. And so, whether he be Antichrist or no, I refer it to the judgement of the Reader; for if the Pope be above God, 
Anton. 3. pag. tit. 22: cap: 5 §. 8.  I dare not take upon myself to be his judge. Neither will it serve to say, that Saint Antoninus doth not affirm the Pope to be above God. For though he say not so expressly, yet doth he affirm so much virtually; when he telleth us, that he is above every 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 jesuit were not intrinsically as it were made of lying, he would never for shame delight so much therein. These are my words in my Book; 
In the downfall of popery. Page 16  and yet the truth is, that as man can in some cases at some time make one thing of another; so in all cases, at all times, to make something of nothing, is proper to God alone. Yet the lying and impudent jesuit, not able to encounter me, nor to gainsay my proofs and reasons, laboureth with might & main to disgrace me with the Reader, & to get the victory with flat lying. Our slanderous and railing jesuit, reporteth my words in this manner; for saith Bell) it is a thing proper to God, to make something of nothing in all cases, and at all 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 perform the same.  S. R. 
The foresaid words are taken out of justinian, 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.  T. B. 
The foresaid words cannot be found in justinian: it is a lie with a witness. The Popish Religion cannot be defended, but with falsehood, 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 have applied it so in very deed; and I have proved it so sufficiently, as the jesuit cannot tell what to say to the same: and therefore did he bethink him, to betake himself to his accustomed art of Lying.    

The second Article;  
Touching the Mass.  

Chapter first.  
¶ Of the real presence of Christ's body in the popish Mass.  S. R. 
THough saint Thomas teach, that Christ's quantity is also in the Sacrament; yet affirmeth he it not as a point of faith. In like manner Bellarmine, in the place which Bell citeth, teacheth (and truly) that Christ's quantity is in the Sacrament, but not with Bells addition, As a point of Faith.  T. B. 
Here I perceive, I have an Eel by the tail; Anguis est, elabitur. Do our Papists teach that, which they believe not to be true? And do they that in the Sacrifice of their most holy so supposed Mass? Who would have believed it, if our jesuit Parsons had not said it? But good Sir, tell me this? Do you teach that of your real presence, in your holy Mass, which ye believe not to be true? Then doubtless your silly subjects, your jesuited Papists, have need to look to your fingers. Then must they remember Christ's rule; 
Mas. 7, 15  Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheeps clothing, but inwardly are ravening Wolves. And if you teach us as ye believe, then must your doctrine be an article of your faith. Again; two Popes, Vrbanus the fourth, and Innocentius the fifth have confirmed Aquinas his Doctrine for Authentical; and strictly commanded to admit and receive all that he hath written, for a mere undoubted truth. It followeth therefore by a necessary consecution, that the quantity of Christ's body to be in the Popish Mass, is an article of popish faith.  S. R. 
Let us see therefore, 
Page 92  how Bell disproveth it: Forsooth, because it implieth contradiction for a greater body as Christ's is, to be contained in a lesser, as in a Cake. Behold the foundation of Bells faith. We bring Christ's express words, that what he gave to his Apostles at his last supper, was his body given, and his blood shed, for remission of sins.  T. B. 
Our jesuit flieth quite from my argument (because it striketh him dead) and laboureth to prove that Christ's body is in the Sacrament. But all in vain: For first, that is not now in question. Again, he is to answer me, and not to wander about impertinent matters. Thirdly, I have answered all that he objecteth here, as also all that can be objected on their behalf, in my Survey of Popery many years ago: to which no Papist durst ever frame an answer unto this day. Fourthly, I willingly grant, the holy bread in the blessed Eucharist to be Christ's body, and the holy wine to be his blood; yet not really and substantially, as the Papists hold; but mystically and sacramentally, according to the truth of God's word. And I retort the Jesuits reason out of Christ's words, against himself. For, if Christ had not meant, that his body was then given sacramentally, and not really; he would have said (which shall be given) not which is given, in the Present tense. I prove it; because, if Christ's body had then been given really, and his blood then shed really for the sins of the world; no other Sacrifice, atonement, satisfaction, or reconciliation had been needful on our behalf: which how absurd it is, every child can discern. Christ's meaning therefore is this; This is my body sacramentally, Or this is the sacrament of my body and blood: but not, This is my natural body, and my real blood. He that desireth the proof hereof at large, I refer him to my Survey of Popery.  S. R. 
But to come to Bells reason: 
Pag 95  How proveth he it to be contradiction, for a greater body to be contained in a less?  T. B. 
here our jesuit bestirreth himself to prove if it would be, that Christ's body is not both contained and not contained in their Sacrament; but all in vain. For his proofs (if they were true, as they be false) would only 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 greatness, to be contained in a less, (for so it should both be contained and not contained in the less,) yet no contradiction at all it is, for a greater body retaining it greatness, to be so coarct by God's omnipotency, that it fill a place far less, then is naturally due or proportionate to it greatness. For in this case it followeth not, that it should both be contained, & not contained in the lesser body, (as in the former case,) but contained only. And thus we say, hath Christ disposed of his body in the Sacrament. We prove it by many ways.  T. B. 
I answer, with all subjection and due reverence unto God's omnipotent power, that God cannot do any thing which either implieth contradiction in itself, or imperfection in God. Not because there is any defect in GOD himself, (God forbid we should so think) but because there is defect in the thing that should so be done. By reason of the former, God cannot make a dead man remaining dead to be living; albeit he can raise a dead man to life again. So neither can God make a blind man remaining blind to see, nor a deaf man remaining deaf to hear; nor a dumb man remaining dumb to speak; albeit he can restore seeing to the blind, hearing to the deaf, and speech to the dumb. By reason of the latter, God can neither make another God, nor any creature equal to himself, nor commit any sin, nor fail in his promise, nor repent of any thing that he hath done. Now, to coarct a great body so, retaining it greatness still, that it may be contained in a less body, implieth flat contradiction; not for the reason which our jesuit bringeth, but because it is against the intrinsical reason and the very Essence of quantity, which is to have part extra partem, one part without another. And consequently, our jesuits supposed coarctation, implieth flat contradiction. For it is impossible to conceive or understand, how a body eight cubits long, and eight cubits broad, remaining so long & so broad, having every part without other, to be contained of another body, being but seven cubits long, and seven cubits broad. It implieth as flat contradiction, as to make a deaf man remaining deaf to hear. It is therefore impossible to all power, both create and uncreate; to make Christ's body to be contained in a little round cake, in the Popish Mass.  S. R. 
First, 
Page 96.  because Christ's body in his nativity, opened not his Virgin-mothers' womb. Ergo, than it occupied not a room, naturally proportionate to the greatness. The consequence is evident, and the antecedent is proved by many fathers.  T. B. 
I deny both the consequence, and the antecedent. The consequence, because if it were as the jesuit supposeth, (which I deny) yet should Christ's body have occupied a room, naturally proportionate to the greatness thereof. And our jesuit denying it, unawares affirmeth all Children to be unnaturally in their mother's wombs. The antecedent, because Christ opened his mother's womb as other children do.  
For first, 
Luk. 2, 23 Exod. 13, 2 Num. 8, 15 Heb. 2, 17 & 4, 15. Survey page 474.  Christ was presented to the Lord according to the Law, as the Holy-ghost doth record; yet the Law required such presentation, only of them, which opened their mother womb. Secondly, Christ was made like unto his Brethren in all things, sin only excepted. Thirdly, the ancient Fathers, Tertullian, Origen, Ambrose, and Hierome, are of the same opinion. Their express words are set down at large in my Survey of Popery. And it will not serve the turn, to say as some do, that though Christ was borne of a Virgin, yet should she have been corrupted, & no Virgin, if her womb had been opened in the birth of Christ.  
For first, not only holy writ, but the ancient Fathers also, and other learned Divines, are to be heard before all Physicians, in the mysteries of our faith.  
Secondly, Fernetius maketh nothing for the Papists, as who speaketh only of the dilatation of the Matrice, & that after the natural and ordinary course.  
Thirdly, albeit it be most true, (as all holy Writers with uniform assent do contest) that Christ's holy Mother the blessed Virgin Mary, was ever a pure Virgin, before his birth, in his birth, and after his birth; yet it is likewise true, 
Aquin. 22, q. 52. ar. 1. ad. 3  that her womb was opened in his birth, as is already proved. For as their own angelical D. saith, (whose Doctrine sundry Popes one after another have confirmed) Virginity is not lost by fraction of the signacle, but by corruption of the mind, and purpose of the will.  
Saint Augustine hath a learned and large discourse, concerning this only point of Doctrine; wherein he showeth gravely, 
Aug. lib: 1 de civit. dei cap. 18  that the apertion of the matrice, may be done, sundry ways; (viz) either by Art in the way of medicine, or by violence of the corrupter, or by other accidental means; and that Virginity this notwithstanding, may be free from all corruption. Much more might Christ's most holy mother's womb, be opened by his divine power, and nevertheless her most sacred womb, still remain inviolable.  S. R. 
God can by his omnipotency bring a Camel through a Needle's eye, 
Pag 99  as well as a rich man into heaven; but he can bring a rich man to heaven keeping his riches: Ergo, a Camel, keeping his greatness through a Needle's eye.  T. B. 
I answer first, that this syllogism is unfitly couched, & hangeth together, as York and fowl Sutton.  
Secondly, that the consequence is so against all rules of Logic, as the framer thereof, is worthy to be hissed out of all schoooles.  
Thirdly, 
Mat. 19, 24  the Gospel saith indeed, it is easier for a Camel to pass through the eye of a Needle, then for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven. But no Prophet, no Apostle, no Epistle, no Gospel saith, as our jesuit doth. For as these words, (keeping his riches) are the Scripture of our saucy Popeling, but not the holy scripture; so also are these words, (keeping his greatness,) the invention of his own brain. And therefore I must salute him with these words of the holy Apostle; though we, 
Galat. 1, 8.  or an Angel from heaven preach any other Gospel to you, then that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed.  
Fourthly, that by the word (Camel) may be understood a cable rope, and not a beast. For the Greek word is indifferent to them both. 
Vide tu Theophil: in humo locum:  Cavinius obseruerh out of the Thalmudists, that it is a proverbial phrase, by which Christ doth insinuate unto us, that rich men do not without great difficulty enter into heaven.  
Fiftly, that a Camel keeping his greatness still, cannot possibly by any power pass through a Needle's eye, the Needle still keeping the former quantity. The reason is evident, because it implieth flat contradiction, as is already proved. Not for that there is any defect in the omnipotency of God, (who is able to do more, than man's wit can comprehend) but because there is repugnance in the thing that should be done.  
Sixtly, that God can dilate the eye of a Needle so, as a Camel may pass through the same, and that without any prejudice to the natural quantity of his body.  S. R. 
GOD made the furnace of Babylon, 
Page 99  though never so hot, 
Dan. 3, 35  not to heat, yea to refresh the three children. Why then can he not make a great body, to occupy but a small room? For to occupy place is an effect and accident of quantity, as to heat, is of heat.  T. B. 
I thus reply; first, Scripture is to our jesuit as a nose of wax. He addeth to it, and taketh away from it, as seemeth good in his own conceit. For, that fire did refresh the 3. hebrews, no Scripture doth affirm.  
Secondly, whether to occupy place be an effect and accident of quantity, or no, because it is diversly holden of divers learned men, and nothing pertinent to our controversy, transeat for the present. For, whether occupying of place be intrinsical or extrinsical to quantity, it skilleth not for this matter, and this question now in hand. The reason is evident, because to have partem extrapartem one part without another, is by uniform assent of all learned Writers, as well of Philosophers as of Divines, so intrinsical and essential unto quantity, as it can by no power, neither create, nor uncreate, be taken away from it. And this is the cause, not occupation of place, why Christ's body being greater, cannot be contained in the Popish round cake.  
This was my former reason, and it stands still untouched, neither can all the Jesuits in the world, ever yield a sound answer to the same. For if they could, it should now have been performed. Because our jesuit hath had the best advice and help, that any of them could possibly make him. here by the way I m●st tell our jesuit of another monster in the Popish host or Cake, (viz) of their accidents without subjects. Which their position is against all Philosophy, all reason, all learning. It is a constant axiom generally received in all Schools: Accidentis esse est inesse. The essence and being of an accident, is the inherence and being in the subject. No Text in the law of Moses; no sentence in the Prophet; no word in the Psalms; no affirmation out of the Gospel; no Testimony out of the Epistles of the Apostles; no verdict out of the holy Fathers; no note out of the Ancient Counsels can ever be found; which once maketh mention of accidents without subjects. This may suffice for answer to sundry other impertinent bibble babbles, which our jesuit poureth out by ladle fools in this Chapter.   

CHAP. 2.  
¶ Containing a confutation of the Jesuits answer, to my reasons against the real presence.  S. R. 
CAietane affirmed, as josephus Angles (saith Bell) reporteth; that there is no Text that convinceth the Reader, to understand these words, this is my body, properly. But Bell greatly wrongeth both Caietan and Angles, in changing the word Heretic into Reader.  T. B. 
Let us hear josephus Angles speak for himself, & then shall we know Bells dealing in that behalf. 
●o. Ang. in 4 sent. part. ●● pag. 144.  Thus doth he write. Exconclusione posita & probationibus, quae à prens à Castro affermiter, coligiter, cantè legendum esse Caietanum dicente, non apparere ex evangelio aliquod, coactinum, quo possimus convincere haereticos ad intelligenda verba haec, hoc est corpus meum proprien: sed tenendum hoc esse solum authoritate Ecclesiae, quae ita verba consecrationis declarat. We gather out of the conclusion and proofs which father à Castro bringeth, that Cajetan must be read warily, who saith, that there appeareth not any coactive thing in the Gospel, by which we may convince Heretics to understand these words, This is my body, properly. But we must hold this to be only of the authority of the Church, which so declareth the words of consecration. Thus writeth josephus Angles, out of whose words, I note first, that Cajetan who was a learned man, a Domincan Friar, 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 convinceth these words (This is my Body) to be understood properly.  
Marry sir, it is high time indeed, to read this Cardinal warily, for if his words were well known and marked of all Papists, I ween they would forsake the Pope, thick and threefold; If these words (this is my body) be not understood properly, as Cardinal Cajetan telleth us; then doubtless farewell the Popish real presence: then down with the Pope, than down with Popish Mass and at all. Secondly, Cardinal Cajetan telleth us plainly, that it is not the scripture, but the authority of the Pope or Church (which is all one in effect) that causeth us so to understand these words (this is my body.) If this Cardinal durst have said all he thought against the Pope's doctrine, it seemeth, he would have told us more. Now, let the Reader judge, whether I have wronged Caietan and Angles, or the jesuit hath wronged me.  S. R. 
Aquinas (saith Bell) affirmeth constantly, 
Page 20  corpus christi non esse in pluribus locis simul, secundum proprias dimensiones. That Christ's 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 himself, as God willing, shall by and by appear.  S. R. 
But Bell herein, 1. contradicteth himself. 2. belieth S. Thomas. 3. understandeth him not.  T. B. 
Let us hear his dispute, And mark it well.  S. R. 
He contradicteth himself. For before he said, Aquinas hold constantly as an Article of the Christian faith, that the true body of Christ is truly and really in the Sacrifice of the mass; and now he saith, that he affirmeth constantly an assertion, which is Bells flat position to the contrary. How can Aquinas hold constantly two contradictory points?  T. B. 
Mark gentle Reader, for Christ's sake, and then shalt thou see, that our jesuit hath nothing in him but falsehood, lying, and Hypocrisy. The jesuit will needs have me to contradict myself, because Aquinas contradicteth himself. What equity? What charity? What reason is in this man? I charge them in my Motives and elsewhere, with manifold dissensions and contradictions: plainly telling them, that if they would be consonant to their writings, than we and they should soon agree. But our jesuit cannot endure, to hear himself and his fellows confounded by their own writings.  
Now let us see, who understandeth Aquinas aright. Aquinas holdeth, that Christ's body is in the popish cake, and withal, that one body cannot be in two places at once. Our jesuit would reconcile this apparent contradiction thus. Aquinas meaning saith he, is plain and evident. For he thinketh Christ's own dimensions to be the cause of his being in that place, where he is naturally; 
Page 102  and the dimensions of the body which is Transubstantiated, the cause of his being, where he is Sacramentally. Here our jesuit first taketh upon him, to tell what men think; which is proper to God alone. Then he feigneth a distinction, of a double being of Christ's body. For if we once take away feigning, Popery will soon come to mourning.  
Christ's own dimensions, saith our jesuit, are the cause of Christ's natural being; but the dimensions of the bread changed and Transubstantiated into Christ's body, (O horrible blasphemy,) are the cause of Christ's sacramental being. The Papists hold generally, that the accidents of bread in their consecrated host or cake, remain there without a subject. But here we have another tale: viz. That they are in Christ's body. Most miserable is that Doctrine, which must be maintained with such beggarly shifts. Well, I will prove with one insoluble argument, that Christ's body cannot be in many places at once. unum est indivisum, in se, & divisum à quocunque alio. One, (as all learned men do grant,) is that which is undivided in itself, and divided from every other thing. 
An argument unstable.  But, if Christ's body can be in many places at once, it is both divided in itself, and undivided from other things; Ergo, it neither is nor can be in many places at once. When our jesuit shall truly answer to this argument, he will deserve a cardinals hat; and I verily think, that the Pope for the time being, will willingly bestow it on him. Marry withal I add this; that I would not for the Popedom, be bound too fast till that time. Here for the better clearing of this controversy, I will propound an Objection, which seemeth to make for the Papists, at least in Popish sense and meaning.  

The Objection.  
Two adequate bodies may be in one place at once, and yet neither the place be divided 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 Christ's body in many thousand Altars at popish Mass,) and yet neither the body divided into two places, neither the two places contracted into one.   T. B. 
When you (O jesuit) shall be able to prove the Antecedent, which will be ad Calendas Graecas, when men use to clip Pigs and Rats) I will yield unto you.  S. R. 
First, in Christ's nativity, two bodies were in one place at once, because Christ's body opened not his mother's womb.  
2 Again, Christ arose out of the sepulchre, the stone not being rolled away.  
3. Christ came to his disciples when the doors were shut, and so both his body, and the wood of the door, were in one place at once: Ergo, two bodies may be in one place at once: and consequently, one body may be in two places at once.  T. B. 
Concerning the opening of the Virgin's womb, I have answered sufficiently already. For the rolling away of the stone from the Sepulchre; I answer, that the Angel of God had done it away before Christ's resurrection, 
Mat. 28, 6.  and had brought it to the mouth of the sepulchre again. What need many words? the answer of the Angel to the women, doth fully determine this question. He is not here (saith the Angel) for he is risen as he said. Lo, Christ's body was not in the Sepulchre, because Christ was risen: so doth the Angel reason. But God's Angel must go to the school again, to learn to frame his argument in better manner, if one body can be in two places at once. And why? for the women might have said to the Angel. What if he be risen? Yet may his body be here still in the grave. For one body may be in two places at once. But the Angel reasoned thus. He is risen, therefore he cannot be here. Or he not here, because, he is risen. These are the words of the Ang. oukestin oode, egerthe gar, kathoos eipe. He is not here, for he is risen, 
Mat. 28, 6.  as he said. Where I observe, first the assertion simply in itself. Secondly, the cause and reason of the same assertion. The assertion is this; Christ is not in the Sepulchre. The reason hereof is this; because Christ is risen.  
Now then, since Christ cannot be in the sepulchre, because he is risen; it followeth of necessity, that either the Angel of God inspired with God's holy spirit, made a very foolish and frivolous argument (which to affirm is void of all Christianity) or else, that Christ's body cannot be in two places at once; which is that indeed, which I intend to prove. For, if it were not as I say; the women might have replied effectually against the Angel 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 Angel of GOD reputing it a thing clear and evident, that Christ's body could not be in two places at one and the self-same time; concluded directly and forcibly (as he thought) Christ's absence in the sepulchre, because he was risen again.  S. R. 
Bell citeth Durand, whom he saith holdeth the same opinion. True it is, that Durand thinketh the quantity of Christ's body not to be in the Eucharist, yet he both affirmeth and proveth the substance of his body to be there.  T. B. 
Durand holdeth indeed, that Christ body is in the Eucharist; yet after another manner, than the Pope and his Jesuits do at this day? for he affirmeth, that the matter of bread remaineth still. Nevertheless, as we here see, Durand denieth the quantity of Christ's body in the Popish Mass; and even so do I with Durand, and with other learned Papists. The jesuit confesseth here enough, to his utter shame and confusion. (viz) That their doctrine is so foolish and unsound, that the best learned of them cannot agree therein.  S. R. 
Bell allegeth Saint Austen, 
Page 103  that Christ as man is in some place of heaven, for the manner of a true body. Again, that his body must be in one place. Item, that he cannot be at once in the Sun, the Moon, and on the cross, according to his coporall presence. In all which places, he speaketh of the natural manner of bodies being in place.  T. B. 
This is a short answer, but as unsound as short. Let the Reader peruse my Book, (the Downfall of Popery) and he shall see the Jesuits folly. 
Aug. epist. 57 tom. 2  Saint Austen writing to Durandus, hath these words; cum ergo sit corpus aliqua substantia etc. When therefore any substance is a body, the quantity thereof is in the magnitude of the bigness; but the health or soundness is not the quantity, but the quality thereof. The quantity therefore of the body could not attain that, which the quality could. For the parts being so distant, which could not be together, because all severally keep their spaces of places, the less, lesser places; and the great, greater places; there could not be in all the places severally, the whole, or so much; but there is a larger quantity in the larger parts, a shorter in shorter parts, and in no part so much as in the whole. For if spaces of places be taken from bodies, they shall be in no place; and because they shall be in no place, neither shall they have any being at all▪ Out of these words of this holy father, and most grave writer, I observe, first that every quantitative body, hath one part distant from another.  
Secondly, that the same parts occupy distinct places.  
Thirdly, that two quantities cannot be in the same place, and at and the same time.  
Fourthly, that a greater quantity must have a greater place, and that it cannot be contained in the lesser.  
Fiftly, that no one part can contain so much, as the whole.  
Sixtly, that when bodies are without places, they then lose their Natures and beings. I therefore conclude, that it is impossible for Christ's Natural body, to be contained in a little round Popish cake, and his whole body in every little part thereof. All which for all that, the Papists this day, most impudently and blasphemously do avouch   

CHAP. 3.  
¶ Containing the confutation of the Jesuits third Chapter, of the second article.  S. R. 
NOw let us hear Bells, 
Page 108  or rather the devils Arguments against Mass.  T. B. 
Our jesuit before he come to my Arguments, hath many fond & impertinent digressions of the Popish mass; for answer whereunto, I refer the Reader to my Survey of Popery; where he shall find answered, whatsoever can be said in that behalf. It is now impertinent, and nothing to the question in hand, ro stand upon those points. But our jesuit will not aim at the mark, because he knoweth, he cannot give the upshot. Now in God's holy name, I defy both the jesuit and the devil, speaking (as it may seem) within him; and heartily pray God (if it be his holy will) to forgive him, Credidi propter quod locutus sum. I defend nothing, (God is my witness) but that which as I am persuaded in my conscience, is the truth.  S. R. 
The Apostle telleth us, that Christ rising from the dead, dieth no more; the Papists tell us, that Christ dieth every day, nay a thousand times a day in the daily sacrifice of their mass. But better might we say, that Bells tale of the Papists containeth a thousand untruths.  T. B. 
Go on jesuit; plead for thyself, what thou canst; delight not in lying, for the truth in time will prevail. If your Doctrine be true, Christ dieth a thousand times, nay ten thousand thousand times a day in your most blasphemous Mass.  S. R. 
Bell will wring the contrary out of Bellarmine: as water out of a flint. First, because he granteth, that a sacrifice implieth intrinsically the consumption of the thing sacrificed. 
Page 100L  But this is answered out of Bellar. teaching that Christ hath two kinds of being; to wit, naturally, and sacramentally. And the consumption of his sacramental being in the Mass, is no killing, because is is not by real separating his soul and body, but only by consuming the Sacramental forms, in which he was sacramentally.  T. B. 
We see here freely granted to us, that a sacrifice implieth intrinsically the consumption of the thing sacrificed. Let us hold this while we have it, or else our jesuit will out of hand take it from us. Then let us add this unto it; viz: That no living thing after it be consumed, can still have life in it. And consequently, either Christ is not truly sacrificed in the Popish Mass, (contrary to the doctrine of the Pope and his Jesuits) or else he is there consumed a thousand times a day, and so often killed in the Mass. For to be consumed is more than to be killed. The case is clear, every child may perceive it. But what? hath our jesuit no evasion? Yes forsooth, but it is a very silly one. Christ (saith he) hath a double kind of being; a being natural, and a being Sacramental. According to the latter, he dieth in the sacrifice of the Mass; but according to the former, he still liveth in heaven.  
What a wonderment is this? Christ is both living and dead at once; both sacrificed and not sacrificed at once; both consumed and not consumed at once. If these be not flat contradiction, my skill is nought, let the reader judge. Now, methinks this is in deed and in plain terms, the Jesuits answer; and consequently, the best answer that all the Papists in Europe can make; for he hath learned and heard the best advise of them all, (viz) that Christ in the Popish Mass, both is consumed and dieth; yet not really, but Sacramentally. All which myself will most willingly admit, and agree unto. But our Papists will say and unsay. They say that Christ is in their Mass, truly and really sacrificed, and not only Sacramentally. For otherwise, we should agree to them, and they to us. And then must they needs say, that he is really, not only sacramentally sacrificed in their Mass; and consequently, that he is killed and consumed in the same really.  S. R. 
Again, Bellarmine (saith Bell) telleth us, 
Page 110.  that Christ's body and blood are offered truly and properly in the Mass. That a true and real sacrifice, requireth true and real kill, seeing the Essence of the sacrifice consisteth in killing. But this proof relieth only, upon Bells false translating the word, (Quando, seeing,) which he should have translated, (When.)  T. B. 
here our jesuit would have his Reader believe, 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 us examine this point to the bottom. First, that Quando doth aswell signify seeing, as when, I refer myself to all skilful Grammarians.  
Secondly, that it is so taken in Bellarmine, 
Tom. 2. col. 1063. A.  I prove by the circumstances of the Text. These are Bellarmine's express words; 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 & real, veram & realem occisionem exivit, 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 Mass either a true and real killing of Christ, or there is not. If there be not, neither is the Mass a true and real sacrifice. For, a true and real Sacrifice, requireth a true and real kill, seeing the Essence of Sacrifice consisteth in killing. Again, Bellarmine hath these words; Per consecrasionem, res quae ofertur, ad veram, realem, & externam mutationem & destructionem ordinatur, 
Vbi supra. D.  quod erat necessarium, ad rationem sacrificij. By consecration the thing that is offered, is ordained to true, real, and external mutation and destruction, as being necessary for the Essence of a Sacrifice. Again, thus; Name oper consecrationem, etc. For by consecration Christ's body receiveth the form of meat, 
Vbi supra. D.  and meat is ordained to be eaten, and so to mutation and destruction. Again, in these words; Neque obstat, quod corpus Christi nullam in se laesionem patiatur, neque esse suum naturale amittat, 
Vbi supra. D.  cum manducatur eucharista. Nam amittit esse sacramentale, & proinde desinit realiter esse in altari, desinit esse cibus sensibilis. Neither is it any hindrance, that Christ's body receiveth no hurt in itself, neither loseth it natural being, when the Eucharist is eaten. For it loseth it Sacramental being, and therefore it ceaseth to be really on the Altar, it ceaseth to be sensible meat. Out of these words of Cardinal Bellarmine, I note first, that a true and real Sacrifice, requireth a true and real kill. Bellarmine proveth it, because otherwise the Mass should not be a true and real Sacrifice. He 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, real, and external destruction, as a thing needful to the Essence of a Sacrifice; and consequently, that if Christ's body be really in the Mass, it must be really killed or destroyed.  
Thirdly, that Christ's body suffereth no hurt in the Mass, because only it loseth the Sacramental being, in ceasing to be really on the Altar. These observations being well marked, it will appear as clear as the Sun shining at noonday: that Bellarmine granteth the Essence of every true and real Sacrifice, to consist in killing or destruction. 
Tom. 2. col. 1063.  And therefore doth he grant freely, that Christ is killed in the Mass sacramentally, though not really. Christ's body (saith he) although it suffer no hurt in itself, neither lose it natural being; when the Eucharist is eaten; yet it loseth it sacramental being, and ceaseth to be really on the Popish Altar. But every one knoweth, that when any thing loseth the being or life, them it is killed and destroyed. In regard hereof, Bellarmine (as is already proved) affirmeth resolutely, that either there is a real kill in the Mass, or else no Sacrifice there at all. Marry he expoundeth this real kill in the Mass, to be nothing else indeed, but the sacramental destruction of Christ's body in the Eucharist. But therein he contradicteth himself; because neither a sacramental body is a true and real body, neither a sacramental killing a true and real kill. And so when all is said and done, Bellarmine can conclude no more indeed, but that Christ's body is in the Eucharist sacramentally. And therefore when Christ saith, (This is my body,) the true sense & meaning is this, & no other; This is my body Sacramentally, or the Sacrament of my body.  S. R. 
Bell fond inferreth Christ to be killed, 
Page 111.  if his body and blood be put apart in the Mass; because not to put body and blood apart where they were not before, but to separate them where they are united, is to kill: Else GOD should kill a man, if he created a Soul and body apart.  T. B. 
The Crow thinketh her own Bird the fairest, and every fool thinketh himself a wise man. How fond soever Bell inferreth, and how wisely soever our jesuit disputeth, this must ever be true, (viz) That the Popish Priest in the Popish Mass, doth what in him lieth to kill christ in the Mass, so often as he pronounceth their supposed consecration words; if it should be true which the Pope and his popelings hold, that by virtue thereof Christ's body is put apart from his blood, and his blood apart from his body. For most certain it is, that no true man, & consequently Christ, can live any longer, than his body and blood be united together, & it is a meerfoolery to say as our jesuit doth; that to put a man's body & blood apart where they were not before, is not to kill the man. For example sake, because our jesuit seemeth very gross (I will not say a fool) if it will please his worship to call a Butcher to him, to take all his blood from him, as he doth from an Ox or Calf, and to receive it into a great vessel, so as no part thereof fall upon the ground; and that done, to carry the same to Saint Peter's Church in Rome, and to put it under the high altar there; and when he hath so done, to carry his body to Hexam, in the north parts of England, there to be solemnly buried; if then (I say) our jesuit remain alive, and be not killed, I will subscribe to this his doctrine. And yet is it clear, that in this case his body & blood should be put apart, where they were not before. But our jesuit seemeth to aim at a farther mark. What is that? at the creating of Christ's body and blood. Is it so indeed? Is it possible so to think? It is very so. For these are his words, as you hear, else God should kill a man, if he created a Soul and body apart. Well, now I remember an old said saw, 
The Papists have two Gods and two Christ's.  (which doubtless is as foolish as it is old) that the priest in the popish mass can create his God. God so bless me and all good Christians, that we never hearken to such Theology.   

CHAP. 4.  
Containing the confutation of the lesuites fourth Chapter of the second Article.  
IN this fourth Chapter, 
Page 113.  our jesuit rehearseth sundry absurdities, which are found in the Popish Mass. But the more he busieth himself to discharge their Mass thereof, 
Page 115.  the more the same absurdities do increase. Let us take a taste of one for all. Bell (saith he) inferreth, that either Christ's Sacrifice was unperfect in his last Supper, or else that it was needles in his bitter passion on the cross. To which he answereth, that neither of both doth follow. For (saith he) Christ's Sacrifice at his Supper, was a most perfect unbloody Sacrifice; and yet his Sacrifice on the Cross was needful, as the peculiar price which GOD exacted at his hands, for the redemption of the World. Lo, 
O horrible blasphemy.  he granteth freely, that Christ's 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 be added. This notwithstanding, he affirmeth these three things.  
First, that the Sacrifice on the Cross was needful.  
Secondly, that it was the peculiar price which GOD exacted.  
Thirdly, that it was for the redemption of the world. Which three points being as truly marked and remembered, as they are truly granted; all but such as are Sensus communis inopes, men without all, both sense & reason, will plainly perceive, and constantly hold, that Christ's Sacrifice at his last Supper, was either imperfect (which our jesuit denieth;) or else no real sacrifice at all (which I defend.) All the rest of the chapter is full of the like vanity; for consideration whereof, it is enough to peruse The Downfall of Popery.   

CHAP. 5.  
Containing the Jesuits confutation, touching Berengarius.  
WHere in The downfall of Popery, I related truly the cruel dealing of the Pope and his Popish council with Berengarius; our jesuit would gladly excuse the Pope and his Synod, but it will not be.  S. R. 
Bell exclaimeth mightily, 
Page. 126.  because Berengarius was compelled to believe, that Christ in the Eucharist is sensibly touched, broken with the hands of Priests, & torn with the teeth of the faithful.  T. B. 
Bell doth so, Idque merito. He hath just cause so to do.  R. S. 
Nevertheless Christ's body is said to be touched, broken, 
Page. 127.  and chewed in the Eucharist, because the sign of bread in which it really is, is so used. As GOD is said to have been crucified, because the humanity in which he was, was so handled; and Christ touched, when his garment was touched.  T. B. 
here is all that confessed, which I intended for to prove. (viz) That the bread of the Eucharist is called Christ's body, because it is the sign and Sacrament of his body; And therefore, that Berengarius was most cruelly and villainously dealt withal, when he was enforced either to be burnt with fire and Faggot, or else to swear, that he believed in his heart, that Christ's body was truly touched and broken with the hands of Priests, and truly torn with the teeth of the faithful. When for all that, many learned Papists, Bellarmine, Melchior Canus, and others, with this our jesuit, (who would and doth say the best he can for the Pope's defence,) do freely grant, and plainly confess, that Christ's body can neither be broken with hands, nor yet torn or chewed with teeth. Lo, Berengarius was compelled to believe, as an article of his faith, that Christ's body was truly, (in veritate,) broken with the hands of Priests, and torn with teeth; and yet the truth is far otherwise, as both Bellarmine; Canus, and our jesuit do confess. Fie on such religion, hang up such Popish Faith, accursed be such doctrine.  S. R. 
The holy Fathers, Saint Cyprian, Saint Chrysostome, and others, do teach us plainly, that Christ's body is broken with hands, and chewed with teeth: yea, Christ himself saith, This is my body which is broken. Will Bell now condemn Christ and these holy Fathers of wickedness, villainy, blasphemy, and horrible impiety? Nay, will he condemn both English & many foreign Protestants, whose doctrine (saith he) is, that Christ's body is broken, torn, and consumed with mouth and teeth. Behold (good Reader.) For Papists to say, Christ's body is touched, broken, and torn, is villainy and horrible impiety; but for Protestants to say the same, and add consuming too, is good doctrine.  T. B. 
I proved out of Cardinal Bellarmine, that famous jesuitical Friar, that Christ's body cannot be broken and torn, save only in a figure or Sacrament. And that by his doctrine, 
Read the Downfall.  it may be said to be broken and torn, when the sign thereof is broken and torn. Out of whose doctrine, I inferred this golden Colorrary: (viz) that if it be true to say, Christ's body is broken and torn, because the sign of his body is broken & torn; then truly may we say, and truly do we say, that Christ's body is in the Eucharist, because the sign of his body is there, because the Sacrament of his body is there, because the representation of his body is there. And much more truly might Christ himself say, 
The jesuit is stricken dead.  This is my body, when he gave the sign 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 approve therein) that Christ's body is received, broken, torn, and consumed with mouth & teeth, figuratively, significantly, mystycally, sacramentally. And consequently, if the Papists would be judged by this doctrine, which by the pen of the jesuit Bellarmine they here deliver, the controversy would soon be at an end. Now, I refer myself to the indifferent Reader, whosoever he be; whether the jesuit S. R. be an honest man, or no. For first, he beareth the Reader in hand, that I condemn Christ and the holy Fathers.  
Secondly, that I condemn both the English Church, and many foreign Christians.  
Thirdly, he chargeth me to hold the same Doctrine, which I utterly condemn in Popery.  
Fourthly, he justifieth the condemnation of Berengarius; whose doctrine for all that, both Bellarmine and Melchior Canus do justify, and himself unawares in this chapter. If I should deal with the Papists in this manner, all the world would exclaim against me. If any indifferent Reader shall duly and truly, (all affection and partiality set apart) read both The Downfall of Popery, and the Jesuits answer to it, I persuade myself, he will detest both the Pope and popery, until his lives end.  S. R. 
Saint Austen (saith Bell) telleth us, 
Page. 132.  that the bread which the Apostles ate, was our Lord. I would Bell had marked this himself: for it is the upshot of this Controversy, and unanswerable by any Protestant. For, if (as Bell noteth out of Saint Austen) the bread which the Apostles are was our Lord; How can Protestants 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 jesuit triumpheth before the victory, and boasteth that that which I said, was the upshot on my side, is the upshot on his side, but how truly, he saith, he will declare. Saint Austen saith, the Apostles are Panem Dominum. The bread our Lord, but that judas ate Panem Domini, the bread of our Lord. Mark well the words, gentle Reader. Saint Austen putteth a clear difference, between that which the Apostles are, 
See the Downfall.  and that which judas ate. The Apostles (saith he) are the Bread which is our lord but judas 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, blood, & bone, under the accidents of bread, and that so long as the same accidents remain uncorrupt, as the popish faith holdeth; the doubtless, judas should have received his redeemer; them perforce judas should also have received Panen dominum; them judas could not by any possibility, have barely received Panen 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 Christ's body natural, as it truly consisteth of flesh, blood, and bone; And again, if it were also true, that the self-same body remained under the form of bread, until it were corrupted, as Popish Doctrine telleth us; then say I, (and it will be proved an undoubted truth) that all the Papists in Europe, and elsewhere, are never able to show me, how judas did not receive Panem Dominum, the bread which is the Lord, but Panem Domini, The bread of our Lord. That is to say, how judas could receive the form of bread, with the Flesh, blood, and bones of Christ's Organical and natural body hidden under the same; and for all that, not receive Christ himself, and Panem dominum, as the other Apostles did. This indeed is the upshot of this Question, and striketh the Papists stark dead: they can never answer it truly, while the world stands. Now, where our fond jesuit asketh me, 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 have a great head, yet seemeth he to have but little wit. For I willingly grant with the same Saint Austen, 
T●m. 2. p. 474.  that judas ate the price of our Redemption; with Saint Cyprian, that the bread which Christ gave to his disciples, was his true flesh; with Saint Chrysostome, that Christ offered to judas the blood which he had sold; but all this, sacramentally, 
Acts, 3. v. 21.  mystically, figuratively, and significantly. For his sacred, true, and organical body was, is, and must be really in Heaven, until his second Advent; yet is it Sacramentally in the holy Eucharist. Alas, alas, must Berengarius be enforced with fire and Faggot, to swear that Christ's body was truly broken, and truly torn with men's teeth; and that only, because the figure of his body is broken and torn; and we for all that and the holy fathers, may not once say, that christs body & blood is in the holy Eucharist Sacramentally. Yea, the holy Fathers do often call it the unbloody sacrifice, and the blood that issued out of Christ's side, & whatsoever else is truly verified of his natural and organical body indeed; and this they do, because it is the sacrament and representation of that most sacred body and Sacrifice, which was offered for our sins upon the Altar of the cross. All that possibly can be objected in these cases. 
For these matters see my Survey.  is fully and sound answered in my Survey of Popery.   

CHAP. 6.  
Containing the confutation of the Jesuits sixth Chapter, touching co●radictions in the Mass.  S. R. 
THe Papists say, 
Page 136.  that Christ's body is the same in the Mass which was on the cross, and yet confess it to be a figure thereof. This Bell proveth to be a contradiction, because Bellarmine saith, a figure must needs be inferior to the thing figured. But I deny every figure to be inferior to the thing figured. For God the Son is the figure of the substance of his Father, 
Heb. 1. v. 3.  and yet true God. And Seth an Image of Adam, and yet true man: and such a figure of Christ is the Eucharist.  T. B. 
Our jesuit may learn in the Schools, that Nullum simile est idem, no similitude is the same with the thing, whereof it is a similitude. Which if it be true, (as true it must be granted, or else farewell Schoole-Doctrine,) then doubtless, Christ's body being the same in the Mass (as Papists tell us) which was on the cross, cannot possibly be a figure thereof. But our jesuit objecteth, that the Son of GOD is the figure of GOD, and yet true God withal. Likewise that Seth was the Image of man, and yet true man withal. I answer to the former, with the ancient Father and reverend Bishop Haymo Halberstatensis, 
Heb. 1. 3. Haymo in hunc locum.  whose express words are these; Quantum ad homin●s pertinet, aliud est figura, aliud est substantia, quia dum pingitur, imago & figura alicuius hominis in pariete, non est illud figura quod est substantia. Apostolus autem figuram in hoc loco pro ipsa substantia & pro aequalitate essentiae posuit. Concerning men, a figure is one thing, and substance 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 own dear Doctor Nicolaus de Lyra, 
Lyr. in hunc loc.  teacheth the self-same Doctrine. These are his words; Dicitur imago vel figura substantiae. 1. Eiusdem substantiae cum patre. He 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 delivered by these two learned writers, we see evidently, that the Apostle understandeth by figure Substance, so as this is the sense; 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 heat, and the brightness, and in the brightness is showed to us the fire and heat, (though humane things may not be compared with things divine;) even so the nature of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghost, is united inseparably; and by his word, as by brightness, he hath vouchsafed to show himself unto us. Fondly therefore doth our jesuit dispute, when he would prove Christ's body, to be both the figure and the thing figured out of the apostles words; wherefore by the word (Figure) understandeth the Essence and equality of God. He useth a Metaphorical speech, for the dullness of our capacities; who can understand nothing in the admirable & divine mysteries, but by similitudes drawn from Creatures.  
To our Jesuits second Objection, 
Gen. 5, ver. 3.  that Seth was both a true man, and withal the figure of a true man, I make this answer, (viz) That it maketh against himself. The reason is evident, because (as I have proved out of Haymo) the figure of the thing figured, in humane Creatures are different, and the one distinguished from the other. And the jesuit must needs grant so much, or else say, (as I think he will not for shame;) that Seth was Adam, and his own Father. But in Christ's body the case is otherwise; for the Papists hold, that Christ's body in the Eucharist, is Idem corpus numero, the same body in number with his body on the cross, and his body now in heaven. If they shall say otherwise, then perforce must they say, that which they dare not; that Christ hath more bodies than one.  S. R. 
I return Bells Argument upon himself, because if figures must needs be inferior to things figured, the Eucharist is some nobler thing than bread.  T. B. 
Our jesuit careth not what he say, so he seem to say somewhat; so gladly would he and his fellows have the vulgar sort to think, that they have answered The Downfall of Popery. But God be thanked, they still fall down, that strive against it. I answer; First, that albeit all figures were not inferior to the things figured; yet should my manner of disputation be good against Bellarmine, because my argument is deduced out of his own ground, and therefore called after their use, Argumentum ad hominem. Secondly, that our holy Eucharist is far nobler than bare Baker's bread, (viz) Christ's true and real body sacramentally; even that very body, which was nailed on the cross, & that very blood, which with the spear issued out of Christ's side. All which I have proved at large, in my Survey of Popery; and there have answered all that possibly can be said, for the Popish real presence.  S. R. 
Neither Christ's whole body, 
Page. 139.  nor part thereof, is in the Eucharist before the pronuncication of the last word; yet are not the former words superfluous. For the last worketh the transmutation, not by his own virtue alone, but with the virtue of them also, or rather God worketh all when the last word is pronounced.  T. B. 
Behold here gentle Reader, what uncertainty is in popish faith and Doctrine. For first, our jesuit telleth us, 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 he cannot tell us.  
Secondly, 
Aqui●as, part. 3. q. 75. art. 4. &. art. 7. ●●  their Angelical Doctor, and Saint Aquinas saith, that this conversion is not like to natural conversions, but is altogether supernatural, wrought by the only power of God. Thirdly, the same Saint Aquinas telleth us, that this conversion is done 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, every action that God doth, is done in an instant; the reason is evident, because God is of infinite power, to whose action no resistance can be made: All learned papists grant this to be so. On the other side, every action that man doth is successive & in time, because man is of finite and limited power: the words therefore of consecration either work 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 God's infinite power. here I must tell our jesuit, that he passeth over with silence two most notable contradictions, whereof he speaketh not one word for fear of biting. I told him in the Downfall, that Berengarius was compelled to confess and believe, that Christ's body is broken with hands; and yet doth Bellarmine grant, that it is not broken with hands: Ergo, it is broken with hands, and not broken with hands. What can be a plainer contradiction? None at all.  S. R. 
Catholics think indeed, that when the Priest wanteth both actual and virtual intention, 
Page. 142.  or omitteth any essential word, that there is no Consecration, and the priest sinneth therein grievously; but the people worshipping erroneously upon invincible ignorance, offend no more, than did Saint john, when he worshipped an Angel as God; or as did jacob when he lay with Lia who was not his wife, thinking verily she had been his wife Rachel.  T. B. 
This is horrible impiety, that by Popish Religion, men & women are compelled to adore that with divine worship, as the everliving God; which perhaps, even by the Pope's own faith and belief, is nothing else but a piece of bread: Yet is it far greater impiety and flat blasphemy against the son of God, to excuse the people from sin, which commit openly such palpable and gross Idolatry. But invincible ignorance (saith our jesuit) doth excuse them as it did S. john and jacob. Howsoever the case stand with S. john and the Patriarch jacob, (whereof I am not now to dispute) ignorance can never excuse Idolatry. He (saith Christ) that knoweth the will of God and doth it not; shallbe beaten with many stripes. He that knoweth not the will of God, 
Luke, 12, 5, 48  and yet doth things worthy of stripes, shallbe beaten with few stripes. 
Ezech. 3. 18.  And we are taught in Ezechiel, that the wicked shall die in his iniquity, though the watchman gave him no warning. The man of God which believed the old Prophet that lied unto him, sinned grievously, as appeared by his punishment, 
1. Reg. 13.  because he transgressed the word of the Lord; albeit he offended ignorantly, thinking he had done the will of God.  S. R. 
What maketh it against the mass, 
Page 114. He speaketh of the counsel of Trent.  that three or four Catholics did in a difficult matter, before it was defined by the Church, descent from the rest? Let Bell if he can, show this diversity now since the Council.  T. B. 
In the Downfall of Popery, I proved out of Durand, that only the form of Bread is changed in the Eucharist, & that the matter of Bread remaineth stil. Out of Rupertus the Popish Abbot, that the bread is united Hypostatically to the son of God. That Caietanus, Henrieus, Capreolus, are of another opinion. That johannes Parisiensis, held also that the bread was assumpted, but in a different manner from the opinion of Rupertus. That another opinion affirmeth the annihilation of the bread: And that Bellarmine holdeth with the counsel of Trent. Now, to this pleasant harmony, our jesuit addeth this goodly Corollary, (viz) that the Church of Rome never knew how to think of their real presence, for the space of one thousand, five hundred, forty years, and odd; until the late days of their counsel of Trent, in which Counsel, they received (as it may seem) some new (no Revelation from heaven,) concerning the being of Christ's body in their mass. And here may the indifferent Reader clearly behold, the original of late Popish Mass; which the Papists for all that, would make the common people believe to be the old Roman religion. I say (the late Popish religion) because (as we hear) it was but determined & found out in the late counsel of Trent. For the old Roman mass or communion (which is all one in effect) was the same in substance, with the communion this day used in our English Church.  S. R. 
We say after Saint Hierom and Saint Pontian, 
Pa. 142, et 143  that priests Conficiunt Corpus Christi, make Christ's body; but dream 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 grant these contradict one another. But what is this to the Mass? Are these contradictions in it? The matter 〈◊〉 which these three Authors contradict one another, is no point of faith. For with catholics it is no more matter of faith, whether all the said Priests or one only Consecrate; than it is with Protestants, whether all or one should christian the Child, if many at once should dip him into the Water, and pronounce the words of Baptism.  T. B. 
Here is first granted, that priests make Christ's body, but not God. To which I say first, that such making is great villainy against the son of God. Secondly, that I know not how popish priests can make Christ's body, and not make God: Unless perhaps they be Arrians, and so deny Christ to be God. For where Christ's body is, there is Christ, true God, and true man. And therefore, when they make Christ's body apart from Christ, than they either make a distinct body from Christ (and so Christ must have two bodies) or else they take Christ's body from the Godhead, and so make him no God at all.  
here is secondly granted, that one Papist contradicteth another in the high mystery of the Mass. But forsooth it skilleth not, because it is no matter of faith. This is our Jesuits short answer, but as much to the matter as a poke full of Plumes. Marry sir, this is a jest indeed, For he must be a right wise man indeed that can tell what Popish faith is. Many most godly men and women have been burnt, for denial the Popish Transubstantiation, and yet could not the Papists tell what it was, until their late Counsel of Trent. God keep us from such Popish faith.  
here is thirdly confessed, that it is no more matter whether many Priests do make Christ's body one after an other, then whether many Christian a child one after an other. Behold here, how roundly this jesuit hudleth up many sacred mysteries, as things of small or no account. I must tell him, that with Godly Christians of all ages, rebaptisation was ever reputed a grievous sin: and yet we see here, that one may be baptised of many, one baptizing after another, as one consecrating, after another; for so is the case in this controversy. I must tell him likewise, that it is not only great irreverence, but also execrable idolatry, and more than Heathenish Villainy so to abuse Christ's most sacred body. And I cannot but wonder, if any that shall know truly their faith and opinions, do not detest their late startup Religion.    

The third Article of the Pope's dispensations.  
COncerning this Article, I think two things only needful.  
First, that though our jesuit cannot deny contracted matrimony to be de iure Divino, and a sacrament with them before carnal copulation, neither that the best learned Papists do hold it indispensible; 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 own natural sister, as his brother or rather himself (for Robert Parsons, is the Author of both) had done before in the forerunner of Bells Downfall. But that which he should have done, & which he would undoubtedly have done, if he had been able to have performed it, that hath he not done, viz: he hath not replied to my answer, neither said one word to my large confutation of the said forerunner. I there proved by the express verdicts of three famous Popish writers; (viz) Silvester Prieras, Bartholomaeus Fumus, and Angelus de Clavisio: that the Popish famous Archbishop and canonised Saint 
See the Pope's funeral.  Austoninus affirmed resolutely, that pope Martin dispensed with one to marry his own natural and full sister, of the same father and mother. I proved likewise out of Cardinal Caìetan, that the Pope can disspence in all the degrees of Consanguinity, save only with the father and his daughter, and with the mother and her son. It is therefore no strange thing to charge the Pope to grant licence for marriage, even between the brother and sister. For larger discourse hereof, I refer the reader to my book, entitled the Pope's Funeral, where this point is so handled, as neither this jesuit nor any of his fellows, is ever able to answer the same: and therefore it is an undoubted truth, that the Pope taketh upon him, to licence a brother to marry his own sister.  S. R. 
I omit Bells error in affirming that Austen of Ancona, 
Page, 186  dedicated his book to Pope john the twelft, who was dead almost 400. years before him.  T. B. 
I cannot omit to tell you and the Reader, that he may take heed of you hereafter, that you are a liar more impudent than impudence itself. For Augustinus de Ancona, the Author himself saith plainly, in the very title and dedication of the Book, that it is Dedicated to Pope john the twelft of that name. Now, whether the Author of the book, or Robert Parsons that Traitorous and shameless jesuit (as the secular Priests termed him) knew better to whom the Book was dedicated, let the Reader judge. Would not this fellow trow ye, gladly find a hole in my coat? If we had a good matter in hand, he would not use such miserable shifts.   

The fourth Article, of original concupiscence in the regenerate.  
THe state of this Question is this. The Pope and Jesuits deny original concupiscence to be sin in the regenerate, because if they should grant it to be sin, it would follow against their doctrine, that none could be saved by the merit of his works. I have therefore proved it sufficiently in The Downfall of Popery to be sin, and therefore will now only confute by way of reply, such answers and authorities as he thinketh make for his purpose.  S. R. 
Nothing done against our will is sin, 
Pape 165.  but diver acts of concupiscence be such; Ergo no sin.  T. B. 
Sin (as the holy Apostle defineth it) is Anomia, that is to say, iniquity or transgression of God's law. 
1. john, 3, 4. Aug. de eos, evang. cap. 4. Tom. 4.  Here we see what sin is. Let us proceed. The eternal law (saith Saint Austen) is the reason or will of God, commanding the natural order to be kept, and forbidding the same to be perturbed. Thus doth S. Austen describe God's law. So then, whatsoever is against God's Law is sin, and whatsoever is against God's will, is against the law; Ergo whatsoever is against God's will is sin. Let this foundaon thus laid, be remembered, for by it, all Objections will soon be answered. I therefore deny the proposition of the Jesuits Argument, when he saith, nothing done against our will is sin, and they are enforced to confess the same against their wills, in Children not regenerate. For (as the Pope's law teacheth us) Children dying without Baptism, are damned, and therefore they are not buried in any Churchyard with the Papists. Now must they tell me, either what sin they did with their will, or else confess with me, that some thing done against man's will is sin. And the reason is yielded already (which I wish the Reader ever to remember) (viz) that whatsoever is against the will or law of God is sin, whether it be voluntary, or not voluntary. For Saint john placed not voluntary, in the definition of sin.  S. R. 
In regeneration, 
Page 173.  either we remain guilty of damnable sin, or become guiltless of all such sin. If we remain guilty, then is not our sin forgiven. For it is impossible to be guilty of sin, and to have sin forgiven.  T. B. 
I distinguish the proposition. The regenerate are guilty by nature, and in respect of sin which still remaineth, for which they might justly be damned; and yet guiltless by way of acceptation in Christ jesus, for whose sake and merits, God doth not impute sin unto them. And this is Saint Austin's mind, when he saith. The concupiscence of the flesh is forgiven in Baptism, 
Aug. de nup. et concupisc. li, 16 cap, 25, t● 7  not so that is remain not, but so as it is not imputed for sin. In which words Saint Austen showeth plainly, That concupiscence remaineth, though not imputed for sin. It followeth in S. Austen. Non ergo aliquid remanet, quod non remittatur. Not any thing therefore remaineth, which is not forgiven. Where the Reader must well observe, that he saith not; nothing is sin, that remaineth; or thus, no sin remaineth; but thus: Not any thing remaineth, which is not remitted or forgiven. As he had said; Sin indeed remaineth still in the baptised, but shall not be imputed to the faithful.  S. R. 
A justified or regenerate man cannot be guilty of damnation, 
Page 173. Rome, 8, 1,  because there is no damnation to them, who are in Christ jesus.  T. B. 
It is one thing good jesuit, not to be damned or not to receive damnation; another thing, to be guilty of damnation: for Gods elect Children may be guilty of damnation, that is, deserve damnation, as David, Peter, and Paul did, but there is no damnation to such, because they shall never be damned.  S. R. 
Bell confesseth, 
Page 173.  that a man cannot be justly condemned for sin remitted.  T. B. 
I grant it. What then? Albeit original sin truly remain in the elect, yet because it is forgiven and not imputed to them, they shall never be condemned for it, for otherwise God should be unjust and unfaithful in his promise.  S. R. 
If involuntary acts done against our will be true sins, 
Page 167.  much more the acts of fools and mad men, yea of beasts, which are not done against will, but only without will, and they true Malefactors and Sinners before COD and men, which I think, none but a mad man will grant.  T. B. 
There is great disparity (by your leave good Master Friar) in these subjects which you name. 
Omnes er●●u● in Adamo, se● in principio & ●adice totius humani 〈◊〉.  For God's commandments were never given to the brute beasts, neither were they ever made capable of doing the same. But all men were once enabled to have kept Gods ordinances, even in the protaplast Adam, in whom we all were originally. And the Pope and his Jesuits must needs confess so much, or else condemn God of injustice, in punishing eternally the unregenerate Infants, for that sin which they never consented unto, neither possibly could avoid. And therefore gravely saith Saint Austen, that every sin is voluntary, 
Aug. retract. lib. 1. cap. 15 Pag. 16.  either in the act, or else in the Original.  S. R. 
Saint Austen is so far from thinking, 
Page 170 Aug. ep. 200 Tom. 2.  that we sin by involuntary motions of the flesh; that he saith, if we consent not unto them, we need not say; forgive us our trespasses.  T. B. 
Saint Austen saith not, if we consent not unto them, we need not say, forgive us our sins; but if we were thoroughly renewed, and were as Adam was in Paradise before his fall, we should have no debts to be forgiven; & consequently, have no need to say, forgive us our sins. But our case is otherwise, because that perfect renovation cannot be had in this life, but only in the World to come. And for this cause doth the ancient council Mileuita● accurse him, 
Conc. Mileu. can. 7. & 8.  that saith he is so holy, that he need not say the lords prayer for himself, but for others.  S. R. 
Saint Austen saith, 
D● civit. lib. 1. cap. 25.  if concupiscential disobedience be without fault in the body of one sleeping, how much ●ore in the body of one not consenting.  T. B. 
I answer, that Saint Austen and other Fathers do comparatively, as it were extenuate and excuse innate concupiscence, but not simply make it no sin. When they seem to make it no sin, than they so speak, either for that it is not imputed to the regenerate, who manfully fight against it; or else, because it is an engrafted pravity of Nature, and not a voluntary transgression of God's law. Briefly, the Fathers call it sin, yet not simply, but comparatively in respect of actual sins. Saint Austen in the place which our jesuit citeth, disputeth against the fond opinion of some persons, who to avoid those sins, to which they thought their original raging concupiscence would draw them, resolved to commit one sin for all, in murdering themselves, and so be delivered from many sins, to which they feared their concupiscence would allure them. Saint Austen therefore dissuading from such heinous crimes, encourageth such timorous consciences by way of extenuation, telling them that concupiscence is without fault, in those that strive against it, & do not consent unto it. Not for that it is no sin in itself, but because it is not imputed to the godly. For, (as we have heard already, and as I have proved at large in the Downfall of Popery) whatsoever deflecteth, or swerveth from the will of God, the same is most properly sin. The reason is evident, because not to be correspondent and agreeable to God's will, is the very intrinsical reason, essence, and nature of sin. Yet so it is, that the Ataxia, disorder, and concupiscence in the regenerate, is repugnant and disagreeable to the will of God; and consequently, it must be sin indeed. And as for the opinion of Saint Austen, 
See the Downfall of Popery.  I have proved at large in the Downfall, out of five several places of his works, that it is both the punishment of sin, the cause of sin, and sin itself.  S. R. 
As blindness of heart (saith Bell out of Austen) is sin, 
Page, 185.  punishment of sin, and cause of sin, so concupiscence of the flesh is sin, punishment, and cause of sin. But I answer, that Saint Austen compareth concupiscence with blindness of heart, in the material disorder of sin.  T. B. 
I answer; that I know not whether I should pity the ignorance of our jesuit, or exclaim against his malice. For first, Saint Austen cannot be expounded, as Master Friar saith, though Bellarmine his Brother hath lent him his solution. For if Saint Austen had meant materially, & not formally, he would never have called it sin the third time, after he named it twice sin matterially before, (viz) when he called it the cause of sin, and the punishment of sin. Yet after both these, he addeth, that it is sin formally. For else he had said no new thing.  
Secondly, because our jesuit confuteth himself unawares, when he writeth thus; Saint Austen proveth by the blindness of heart, that it was not only punishment and cause of sin, 
Page. 186.  but also sin; that is, nought, evil, and disorderly; because it is against the rule of reason, which is to be sin materially, though it want the form of sin, which is voluntariness. This is his answer: Now I pray you Gentle Reader, judge indifferently between me and this Friar. First, he granteth that Original concupiscence is nought, evil, and disorderly. Secondly, that it is against the rule of reason, and all that he can say for himself is this, that it is indeed sin materially, but not formally. Where if I may find an indifferent Reader, the victory is mine own: GOD is my judge, I speak as I think. For to be against the rule of reason, is formally sin. 
August, ubi supra.  Which Saint Austen (as is already proved) declareth evidently, when he defineth the eternal law to be nothing else, but the reason or will of God. The reason is confirmed, because Saint Austen compareth it with the blindness of heart, which (as every good Christian knoweth,) is sin most formally. For if master Friar Parsons, shall deny blindness of heart, through which man believeth not in God, to be sin formally, he will be hissed out of all good schools; howsoever our holy Father the Pope, sitting in his chair upon men● shoulders, give him ten hundred thousand years pardon for the same. Nay, I will yet say more to our holy Friar master Robert Parsons, (the Author of this fond presensed answer to the Downfall of Popery,) (viz) that in the last precept of the Decalogue or Ten commandments, (Thou shalt not lust,) is prohibited not only actual and voluntary concupiscence, but the very Original and Fountain of all concupiscences with all her involuntary branches.  
I prove it first, because that concupiscence actual, wherewith we covet that that is another man's, and not our own, is forbidden, by all the sixth, seventh, and eight precepts of the second Table. This doth our master Christ teach us, when he saith; That whosoever shall see a woman to lust after her, 
Mat, 5, 29  hath already committed adultery with hi● in his heart. The same doctrine teacheth S. john, when he showeth the hatred of our brother to be against this precept; Thou shall not kill. 
I. john, 3, 5, 15.   
Secondly, because if no other thing were prohibited in this commandment, but actual concupiscence, there should be but nine precepts in the Decalogue; seeing the last should be no new Commandment, but only a bare recital or repetition of the nine former precepts.  
Thirdly, because S. Paul granteth himself to be carnally sold under sin, 
Rome, 7, 14 5, 19, 20.  by reason of original concupiscence, and not actual; against which he fought stoutly, and never gave consent unto it.  
Fourthly, because that which the Saints of God detest, & call sin by the judgement of the holy ghost, must needs be sin properly. But so it is, that S. Paul in the name of all the Saints of God, detesteth this Original concupiscence, calleth it sin, and mourning, termeth himself unhappy for it, and desireth to be delivered from it: Ergo, it must needs be sin properly.  
Fiftly, to say that it is called sin figuratively and unproperly, is against that general rule which all Divines have delivered, when the scriptures must be understood properly, and when figuratively, viz: that then they are taken figuratively, when the sense, which the words in their proper signification yield, do not agree with other scriptures, and the Analogy of faith, but are repugnant unto the same.  
Now, no scripture can be produced, which denieth that Original concupiscence with the involuntary motions thereof, 
Romans, 7.  is properly sin: Nay, the Apostle above twelve times in one Chapter, plainly and simply calleth it sin, neither will it help to say, that the scripture freeth Gods children from sin. 
August, ubi supra.  For as saint Austen saith, they are not delivered from sin 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 Lord imputeth no sin. 
Psalm, 32, 2.  And the Papists must either recall their doctrine in this point, or else cry fire and faggot for their chief master Petrus Lombardus, surnamed the Master of sentences (whose Book to this day is publicly Read in the school of Divinity, 
Lombard. lib. 3 sent. dist. 19 c.  for thus doth he write:) Secundum animas vero iam redempti sumus etc. But touching our souls, we are redeemed in part, not wholly; from the sin, not from the pain; neither wholly from the sin or fault: For we are not so redeemed from it, that it be not (in us) but that it rule not (over us.) Lo, Master Lombard that famous Writer, granteth first, that we are redeemed in part, but not in the whole.  
Secondly, that we are not wholly redeemed from sin.  
Thirdly, he telleth us, how we are redeemed from sin, viz: that albeit sin shall remain in us, yet hath it not such dominion over us, that it can enforce us to consent thereunto. Lo, the greatest and best learned Papists, teach the same doctrine that I do.  
Sixtly, Saint Austen affirmeth plainly, that Original Concupiscence is prohibited by this Precept (Thou shalt not Lust;) and not only the habitual concupiscence itself, but also all the actual involuntary motions thereof; 
Bellar●. tom. 3. col 400. vide Aug. de spir. & litter. cap, ult. tom. 3.  Thus doth he write, as the jesuire Bellarmine allegeth him; These things (saith Bellarmine) are spoken after Saint Austin's mind, who by this precept (Thou shalt not Lust) understandeth all the motions of concupiscence, even the involuntary, to be prohibited in some sort; and that the consent to these motions forbidden by that other precept; follow not thy concupiscence. Thus writeth our jesuitical Cardinal; by whose doctrine it is evident that S. Austen affirmeth the first motions of concupiscence, which pervert reason, and cannot be avoided, to be condemned by S. Paul, as sinful 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 he shall answer to the same. And therefore he addeth deceitfully in his exposition of S. Austin's 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 plainly, simply, and absolutely, without all and's, or ifs, or other qualifications, that such motions are forbidden by this commandment (non concupisces.) If I (gentle Reader) should thus deal in reciting or expounding my authors, what exclamations, what outcries would be made against me? all the cursed brood of Jesuits and jesuited Papists would pursue me with hue and cry, as if I were a rank Traitor. But S. Austin's words are so plain, as no denial or legerdemain can have place: for he saith, that Original concupiscence with the involuntary motions thereof are forbidden by the last precept of the Decalogue, and the consent to the same, by that other precept, Go not after thy concupiscence. 
Let this be well marked  here S. Austen uttereth his own meaning, concerning this great controversy. For he plainly and flatly distinguisheth, between original concupiscence itself, and the consent that is given to the same. He telleth us simply and resolutely, that the concupiscence is prohibited by one precept, and the consent to it, by another. Which the jesuitical Cardinal seeing to be an invincible Bulwark against him, and against the very essence of all Popish doctrine; he thought it stood him in hand to invent some (though never so miserable) Legier demain to dazzle 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 be granted him, yet will it not serve his turn. For, if it be prohibited in a sort, and in a sort be against God's commandment, then must it needs follow, that at least in a sort, it is sin; and so the victory is mine own.  
Lastly, it is a constant Axiom, generally received of all Logicians in all Schools; that the cause being taken away, the effect must needs be taken away also. But death is the effect of original sin, Ergo if Original sin, 
Ablata causa tollitur effects. Rom. 6. v, 23▪  which is the cause, be taken away in baptism, than death which is the effect thereof, must be taken away with it. Wherefore, seeing both old and young after Baptism still die, as we daily see; it is an evident Argument, that the cause thereof (which is original concupiscence) is not taken away.  S. R. 
If in regeneration we become guiltless of all damnable sin, 
Page 173. Lib. 1. de imp. & concu. cap. 26. tom. 7.  then have we no such sin in us. For as Saint Austen saith, to be not guilty of sin, is to have no sin.  T. B. 
I answer, that we are guilty in the nature of the thing, yet guiltless & freed by God's mercy in Christ jesus. And I tell our jesuit, that he inverteth Saint Austin's words, as one that never read the same. Thus writeth Saint Austen; Hoc est. n. Non habere peccatum, reum non esse peccati. For this is to have no sin, not to be guilty of sin. And what is this? Forsooth S. Austen saith, he may be thought or said to have no sin in him, (though his sin remain in act) whose sin is not imputed to him.  S. R. 
Sins remain but by their guilt: as adultery once committed, 
Page 177.  remaineth in the committer, only because he is still guilty of the adultery that he did, until it be remitted.  T. B. 
Some sins, as Adultery, pass in act when they are done, and remain in guilt. Others pass in guilt, and remain in act, as original concupiscence in the regenerate, which remaineth in the unregenerate, both in guilt and in act.  S. R. 
Though it were true which Bell saith of the reprobates, yet would it not follow thereof, 
Page. 184.  that concupiscence in reprobates is formal sin, but only that original sin is not truly forgiven in baptism to any reprobate: which is false.  T. B. 
I proved by the testimony of the Rhemists, 
See the Downfall.  that original sin still remaineth in the baptised; and consequently, that it is sin formally in the regenerate. And so I have my purpose, (viz) that sin still abideth in the regenerate, though it be not imputed to them. For, if original sin be truly remitted in baptism, and be not truly sin indeed in the Baptized; then can none be justly damned, that are baptised. For how shall they be justly condemned, for that which is remitted? It cannot be. And this notwithstanding, to grant that all baptised shall be saved, is most absurd. For larger discourse hereof, I refer the Reader to the Downfall itself. I study to be brief.  S. R. 
When Saint Austen asketh, 
Page. 188.  why concupiscence is sin in the child, if it be in the parent baptised without sin, he supposeth that it is no true sin in the baptised, contrary to Bells allegation.  T. B. 
S. Austen worthily demanded, how concupiscence can be sin in the Child, if it be none in the baptised Parent. For how can any man impart that to another, which he hath not himself? and thereupon Saint Austen concluded, that original sin still remaineth formally in the baptised Parent, though not imputed for sin. This reason is unanswerable.  S. R. 
Saint Austen answered, 
Pape 189.  that by baptism Non imputatur in peccatum, It is not imputed for sin. In which answer, unless he did by not imputing for sin, mean, making no sin, he had not answered the question, why concupiscence was no sin in the baptised Parent. Therefore with him, concupiscence not to be imputed to or for sin, is to be made no sin.  T. B. 
If you Master Friar jesuit, or jesuited Friar, may expound Saint Austen at your pleasure, and without either Scripture, Father, Text, Circumstance, or Reason, say this is his meaning; it must be as you say, I shall in vain dispute against you. But I hope the indifferent Reader will not afford you that freedom. The Question which Saint Austen moveth, 
Mark, for the lesuite is stricken dead.  is this: Why original concupiscence is sin in the Child, and no sin in the Baptized Parent. And Saint Austen himself, answereth himself, because it is not imputed for sin in the Parent. Thus standeth the case; this is the question; this is the answer: The difficulty is this; How the Child can contract and receive of the Parent, that which is not in the Parent; because no man can bestow and impart that, which he himself hath not. The answer to the difficulty is this; that original concupiscence is still in the Parent after baptism received, as truly and formally sin in it own Nature, as it is truly and formally sin in the unbaptized Child: and so the Child contracteth nothing of the Parent, but that very same which was in him. This notwithstanding, there is this difference between the sin formally in the Parent, and the sin formally in the Child, (viz) that though it be formally, really, and truly in them both; yet is it is in the one after one manner, in the other after another manner. It is formal sin in the Parent, but not so imputed, yet in the child before Baptism, it is both formal 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 he saith; Non imputatur in peccatum, It is not imputed for sin. As if he had said, it is still sin aswell in the Parent as in the Child, (or else the Child could not receive and contract it of his Father) in the nature of the thing itself: Nevertheless, it is as if it were not in him, because of mercy it is not imputed to him for sin. Briefly, it is sin in the Parent, but not so imputed; In the Child it both is sin, and for sin imputed.  S. R. 
Neither indeed can God otherwise not impute sin, 
Page. 189.  but by taking it away: For his judgement is according to truth; and therefore, if there be sin in us, he must needs impute it to us, and account us Sinners, else he should not account us as we are, and according to truth.  T. B. 
It is time to say with Christ's holy Apostle; 
Apoc. 22. 20.  Come Lord jesus. For, if the World shall continue, and jesuitisme be permitted to reign, 
Luke 9, 58,  Foxes may have holes, and Fowls of the Air Nests, but the Son of man hardly where to lay his head. For I pray thee, gentle Reader, doth not our jesuit, who termeth himself S. R. (Saucy Rebel, if ye will so interpret it, and know Robert Persons for the man,) take upon 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? Even 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 ever be loved of God in this life, seeing all men are full of sin, which God ever hateth as a thing most odious in his sight. Who but jesuits will ever say, that they are not Gods enemies in truth, if God respect them after their deserts? Who but Jesuits will refuse to say with the Prophet; 
Psal, 143, 2.  Enter not into judgement, with thy servant (O Lord) for none living shall be justified in thy sight. Therefore wisely, and most christianly saith Saint Austen; 
Aug. conf. libr. 9 cap. 13.  Woe even to the best liver on earth, if thou O Lord examine his life, (thy mercy set apart.) What? Must GOD needs impute sin, where he finds it? Then a sharp Vae vobis will fall upon our jesuit, unless he be holier than either Saint Peter or Saint Paul. 
Mat▪ 18, 24.  But Sir; Herd you never of a King, whose Servant ought him ten thousand Talentes, which he was not able to pay? Know ye not, that the King his Lord imputed not the debt unto him? But ye will say, the King forgave it him. True it is, but how did he forgive it him? Forsooth by not imputing it to him. For neither did he pay, neither was he able to pay the debt. So then, as that King (the King of Heaven if ye will,) did impute the ten thousand talents as paid, though they remained unpaid indeed, and esteemed him as no Debtor, who had his debt still unpaide: even so, our merciful God, both can deal, and doth deal with us, in not imputing our sin to us, though they still remain in us.  
Secondly, God's judgement is ever according to truth, even when he imputeth not our sins to us, as well as when he imputeth them to us. For, as the King knew right well that the debt was unpaid, judging rightly that it was unpaid, and withal accepted of it as if it had been paid, not imputing the debt to the debtor; even so, our merciful GOD and loving Father, knoweth right well, Original Concupiscence remaineth really and formally in us, rightly judging that sin to be in us, and withal accepting us as if we were no Sinners, not imputing our debts unto us. And this he doth of his own free mercy, for the merits of his dear Son CHRIST JESUS, 
1, Cor, 1, 30.  in whom he is well pleased. 
Tit, 3, 5.   
So then, we see here, 
Mat, 3, 17.  not only the Jesuits blasphemy against GOD, but also of his fond manner of disputing every where. For every Child can tell him, that it is one thing to know and judge that man oweth him Money; another thing, not to impute the debt to him that oweth the same. For example sake, (because sensual things work most with sensual men,) if Thomas Bell were bound in an Obligation of one thousand pounds unto S. R. for the payment of one hundred pence upon the first of july next, at which day Thomas Bell should make default of payment, and the said S. R. should not impute the default and Non payment unto the said Thomas Bell, (as I think he would not) should not the Obligation be still in force, and Thomas Bell still remain indebted to S. R? Should not Thomas Bell stand still in the curtcs●e of S. R? Might not S. R. commence suit against Thomas Bell, for his debt, notwithstanding his forbearance in not imputing the breach of day unto him? I cannot tell, I am not skilful in the Law; but I fear me, Thomas Bell might be entreated of S. R. as the fellow-servant that ought an hundred pence, 
Mat, 18, 28,  of whom we have mention made in the holy Gospel.  S. R. 
The second thing which Bell inferreth, 
Page 193.  and biddeth us mark it well, is, that the tenth Commandment forbiddeth Original lust without consent, and habitual Concupiscence. Did every man read more markable folly? First, he maketh Original lust to be committed, which is to make Original Actual, because what is committed is actual, as commission is action. Secondly, that habitual and Original, inclination to evil, is forbidden by the tenth Commandment, and calleth the contrary most absurd.  T. B. 
Doubles, Bell will confess plainly, that he hath not often read more markable folly indeed, than our markable Friar uttereth in this place, who will never gain any thing at T. B. his hands, unless it be with his markable folly, and deceitful dealing. He first leaveth 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 habitual inclination to evil, is forbidden in the tenth precept. Bellarmine shall be witness against Robert Parsons, whose words are these; 
Bellarm. tom. 3. col. 400. Aug. de spir. & litter. cap. ult. tom. 3.  Haec dicta sunt ad mentem, S. Augustini, qui precepto, non concupisces, intelligit prohiberi aliqua modo matus omnes concupiscentiae, etiam, involuntarios. These things are spoken after the mind of Saint Austen, who understandeth all the motions, even those which be involuntary, to be forbidden in some sort by this Commandment, (Thou shalt not Lust.) Where we see, that not only Bellarmine their Cardinal, but Saint Austen that worthy Pillar of the Church, affirmeth both Original 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 Austin's words (In some sort,) yet doth Saint Austen write very simply, and saith flatly, that they are prohibited, and addeth not (Quodam modo, In some sort.) That is Bellarmine's addition, it is not in Saint Austen.  
Secondly, that habitual Original Lust is not idle, but worketh ill desires in us continually against our will.  
So saith S. Austen, 
Aug. de nup. et concup. lib. 1. co, 2. 27.  in these words; Agit. n. Aliquid concupiscentia carnis, etc. For concupiscence of the flesh worketh something, even when there is not given unto it, either the consent of the heart, where it may reign; or the members as Weapons, which may accomplish what it appointeth. And what doth it, but the very wicked and filthy desires? For if they were good and lawful, the Apostle would not forbid to obey them.  
Mark these words, gentle Reader, for they are of great consequence, and give a deadly blow to the Papists. Two things are cleared by this Testimony of Saint Austen; the one, that Concupiscence to which consent is not given, bringeth forth ill desires; the other, that the said desires are unlawful, and prohibited by the Law of God. And so we have evidently proved, that habitual Concupiscence, to which the regenerate yield no consent, but stoutly resist the same, is so far from being meritorious, as the Papists would have it, that it is sin formally, and properly so called. And we have further, that habitual concupiscence worketh ill desires in us against our will, and therefore that those desires are truly called original, because we do them not, but rather suffer them to be done in us.  
Thirdly, that though the Law in saying, Thou shalt not lust, seemeth by the force of the word which signifieth action, to prohibit only the voluntary act of concupiscence; yet doth it forbid the very Original Concupiscence itself, withal the branches, effects, and involuntary motions thereof, as is already proved at large: Yea, Saint Austen doth understand it, as Bellarmine himself doth grant.  
here for the help of the Reader, I note, that a threefold Concupiscence is forbidden by the tenth Commandment. The first, is merely called Original. This is that which we all contracted of Adam, and which is the Fountain of all concupiscences and sins, and therefore truly called of the Apostle sin. 
Rome, 7,  The second, is partly Original, and partly Actual. Original, because it issueth naturally from the Original pravity of our nature. Actual, for that we covet in act, albeit against our will, and because it is against our will, it is more properly & truly called Original, then actual. The third, is merely actual, because it is voluntary.  S. R. 
I must note Bells important untruths. First, 
Page. 202.  that Pope Vrban and Pope Innocent confirmed Saint Thomas his doctrine for authentical. Secondly, that Pope Vrban gave it the first place after cannonicall scripture.  T. B. 
This Friar seemeth to be framed of lying, and as he hath usually spent his whole dispute, so in the end of the article he closeth it up with leasing. Whosoever shall peruse The Downfall of Popery, will soon espy, how this Friar loadeth my back with slanderous speeches and false reports. I will here in regard of brevity, only set down the Testimony of a famous Papist Augustinus Hunnaeus, by name, in that Epistle which he sent to Pope Pius the fifth. These are his words; Vrbanus etc. Vrbanus that worthy Prelate of the Apostolic sea, admiring the excellent doctrine of this man, (he speaketh of Aquinas) & beholding it as fallen from heaven to drive away the natural mist of ignorance from men's minds, doth gravely exhort to the study thereof, and commandeth the university of Tholouse to follow it as the chief, in all their disputations and answers concerning faith and manners. Innocentius the fifth of that name, esteemed the same man's Doctrine so greatly, that he doubted not to give it the first place after the Cannonicall scripture. Thus writeth Hunnaeus. By whose words it may appear, in what reverence the Doctrine of Aquinas is with the Papists; as also that our jesuit cannot answer me, but by lying. And thus I will end this article, 
Page, 161.  with these words of our jesuit; Habitual concupiscence includeth not only proneness to evil, but also difficulty to do good: and want of habibituall order in the inferior powers, and therefore is both positive and privative evil. Thus writeth our jesuit; who after he hath long wearied himself in struggling against the truth, doth at the length unawares confess the same. For doubtless, when he granteth, that habitual Concupiscence in the regenerate, includeth want of habitual order in the inferior powers, and therefore is both positive and privative evil; he granteth in substance & in the truth of the matter, as much as I desire. He denieth in words, that Original concupiscence, is formally sin, but in effect and substance, he granteth the very same. Whosoever shall seriously ponder both my discourse here and in the Downfall, especially concerning the Nature, definition, and essence of sin; he will perceive with all facility, that the jesuit would say as I write, if he were not afraid to displease the Pope.   

The fifth Article, of the merit of Good works.  S. R. 
Bells first position containeth two parts; the first is, that good works, 
Page, 212  neither do nor can go before justification. Behold Bell even where he would prove himself a friend to good works, showeth himself to be an enemy, and excluding them from any going before, or any way concurring to justification; to which they so concurred in Saint Mary Magdalen, as our Saviour said, Many sins are forginen her, because she loved much, making her love a kind of cause, 
Luke 7, 47  (viz) disponent of her justification.  T. B. 
Our jesuit would gladly persuade his reader, that I am an enemy to good works. The best mean he hath to defend himself and Popery withal, is cogging, lying, and false dealing. I must needs be an enemy to Good works, because, I will not admit evil works for good. I say with S. Austen; Sequuntur, justificatum, non precedent iustificandum. 
Aug. de fide & oper. cap. 14, tom 4.  Good. Works follow him that is justified, but they go not before him that is to be justified. Behold here, gentle Reader, that S. Austen is the same enemy to Good works that I am. He affirmeth them to follow justification, and so do I. He denieth them to go before justification, and so do I. What a thing is this? Our jesuit dareth not call Saint Austen an enemy to Good Works; and yet doth he call me so, who defend and hold the same doctrine that Saint Austen doth. Nay, how is it possible to have Good Works, before we have faith? Seeing (as the Apostle teacheth us) Without faith it is unpossible to please God. 
Heb, 11, 6  Who so listeth to peruse my Survey of Popery, shall there find every thing sound answered, whatsoever can be said for Popery in this kind of subject. But our Friar will prove Good works to go before justification, because Christ said to Mary Magdalen; 
Luke, 7. 47  Many Sins are forgiven her, because she loved much. I answer, that Christ's Argument is not drawn from the cause, but from the effect. As if Christ had said; we may know by her great love, that great gifts are bestowed on her, that many sins are forgiven her. For, that no remission of her sins proceeded from her love, but her love of the forgiveness of her sins, appeareth by the similitude of the debtor. For Christ told Peter of two debtor, whereof the one ought five hundred pence, the other fifty, and that when they had not wherewith to pay, the Creditor forgave them both. He therefore demanded of Peter, whether of the debtor loved the Creditor more? Peter answered, that he to whom more was forgiven. Christ approved Peter's answer, and concluded thereupon, that seeing Mary Magdalen loved more, he might know that she had more forgiven her, because saith Christ, To whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little. Neither is it possible, to draw any other meaning out of christs words. The reason is evident, because christ saith plainly, that the debts were freely forgiven the debtor, who were not able to pay the debts. For otherwise, Mary's forgiveness should have no coherence with the similitude of the debtor.  
The second part of his position is, that good works ever follow (as fruits the tree) the persons that are freely justified. This is most manifestly false in infants, whereof many justified in baptism, die before they do any good work. And if his comparison of the tree be good, some justified, never do good work; and all, want them long time, some give over doing good, as some trees are barren, some cease to bear fruit, and none bear always.  T. B. 
This Friar thinketh he can dance in a net naked, and yet no man see him; but I ween, every indifferent Reader doth easily espy his manner of dealing, (viz) that he hath nothing in him, but Cavils, Slanders, and notorious leasings. Good works, saith he, cannot ever follow justified persons, as fruits follow trees, because some trees never do good, and all want a long time, and none bear always. Is this Friar trow ye, well in his wits? Hath not malice so blinded him, that he cannot see wood for trees? Hath the Pope dispensed with him, to say what he list? Good works say I, ever follow persons freely justified, as fruits follow the Tree, by God's mercy in Christ jesus for his merits and condign deserts. Now what doth our jesuit? he aplies himself wholly to cavils & extreme folly. He perceiveth, that truth will prevail, & therefore struggleth with cavils and deceitful dealing against the same.  
First, he leaveth out GOD'S mercy, and the merits of Christ jesus.  
Secondly, he inferreth a fond conclusion of his own making, and beareth the Reader in hand, that it is mine.  
Thirdly, he triumpheth before the victory, boasting that he hath confuted my position, when indeed he hath only confuted himself, and fought the combat with his own folly. For I do not say, that Good Works do ever and continually without all interruption, follow persons freely justified. Let the Reader duly and truly peruse my words, and then tell me, if our Friar jesuit be not a notorious liar. I say Good Works do ever follow but not simply, absolutely, & at all seasons; but as fruits follow trees. Now, I pray you gentle Reader, how do fruits follow trees? Our Friar telleth us. Some trees never have any fruit (saith he) some want a long time, and none bear fruit ever. Alas, alas, what a fond fryer-Iesuit is this Robert Parsons? Where were their wits, that made him the Provincial of England? If good works follow persons justified no otherwise, but as fruits follow trees, which is my position; then doubtless are they not to be expected every hour, but when the due circumstances of time, place, and persons do require. For good trees do not ever bring forth their fruits, but in due times and seasons.  S. R. 
His first argument is taken out of Saint Paul, Rom. 
Page 22●  6. 23. But the gift of GOD is life everlasting in Christ jesus our Lord. He argueth in this manner; Eternal life is the free gift of God, therefore it can no way be due to the merit of man's works. I answer, that the Antecedent is false, and neither here nor any where else taught by S. Paul.  T. B. 
Our jesuit shall answer and confute himself, 
Page 230  for these are his own words a little after. Because (saith our jesuit) as works are rewarded even above their virtual & proportionate equality, as Divines say▪ ultra condignum; no marvel, if S. Paul called eternal life rather Grace, or Gift, than Stipend, seeing it hath much more of Grace, than it hath of justice; yet he no where calleth it mere grace. Beside that, as Saint Austen writeth, he might have called it a Stipend, as hec calleth Death in respect of Sin, but forbore, lest we should think it were so justly deserved by Good Works, as death is by evil. Thus discourseth our Friar. Where we have first by his own free grant, that Works are rewarded above their desert. Albeit before he called them condign, and of condign merit. These are his words: Good works (saith he) done in God's grace, are condignly meritorius of eternal life. Secondly, 
Page 221  that Saint Paul calleth eternal life rather Grace then Stipend, because it hath much more of Grace, than it hath of justice, where unawares he confuteth himself doubtless; because where there is more of Grace then of justice, it is unpossible to establish condign merit. For as the Apostle teacheth us; To him that worketh, the reward is not reckoned of Grace, 
Rome, 4, 4.  but of debt or duty. And the same Apostle declareth it more plainly in another place. For by Grace (saith he) you are saved through faith (& that not of yourselves, 
Ephes, 2, 8:  for it is the gift of God) not of works, lest any man should boast himself. 
Tit. 3, 5.  And again in another place thus; Not by the works of righteousness which we did, but according to his mercy he saved us.  
Thirdly, that the Apostle calleth eternal life, rather grace then stipend, as S. Austen writeth; because it is not so justly deserved by Good Works, as death is by evil works. No, no, S. Austen saith plainly; Cum Deus coronat merita nostra, nihil aliud coronat quam munera sua. When God crowneth our merits, 
Aug. Ep. 105. tom. 2.  he crowneth nothing else but his own gifts. First therefore, seeing Good Works are rewarded above their deserts. Secondly, seeing Good Works have more of grace then of justice. Thirdly, seeing Good Works cannot so merit heaven; as ill works merit hell. Fourthly, seeing the best merits are nothing else, but the mere gifts of GOD; I must needs conclude, that Works are not condignly meritorious of eternal life.  S. R. 
Bell citeth Theophilact, 
Page, 236.  because he saith, Saint Paul called eternal life Grace, and not a Reward, as though he had said, It is not the reward of our labours. But this is nothing against us, who willingly confess erernall life to be grace, and not to proceed of our own labours done by ourselves, but done and wrought also by the grace of Christ.  T. B. 
Our jesuit 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, he is become a Semi-pelagian Heretic, for he affirmeth eternal life to be wrought and done of ourselves, yet not wholly of ourselves, but partly also of the holy Ghost. And after such a silly manner, he is enforced to answer all the rest, viz: ever against himself.  S. R. 
True it is, that Angles as a follower of Scotus, 
Page 247  seemeth to think that the condignity of Good Works, riseth not of any equality which is in them unto glory, but of God's promise to reward them.  T. B. 
It is well, that ye will once seem to grant a truth. The truth is this; that both josephus Angles, and your Cardinal Bellarmine, do freely grant being overcome with the force of truth, that Good works can merit nothing, but by reason of GOD'S promise freely made unto men. I have proved the Controversy so evidently, that our jesuit doth nothing else but weary both himself and his Reader, in writing most frivolously against the same. I refer the Reader to The Downfall itself; where he shall find every Argument and piece of reason sound answered, before our jesuit had published the same. And therefore for me to use any further reply therein, were but Actum agere. For doubtless, whosoever shall duly (all partiality set aside,) peruse The Downfall as it came from my pen, and lay down this Jesuits answer to it in every place, and compare them together; he will (I am fully persuaded) freely confess, that no further reply is necessary in that behalf.   

The sixth Article, of the distinction of mortal and venial sins.  S. R. 
ALl his proofs may be reduced to this Syllogism. What is against God's Law is mortal sin; 
Page, 269  all sin is against God's law, Ergo all sin is mortal. Behold, Bell here absolutely concludeth all sin to be mortal, and after calleth our venial sins cursed and deformed: which argueth, that he thinketh all sin to be indeed mortal, notwithstanding God's mercy. The proposition he supposeth, the assumption he proveth out of scripture, fathers, and schoolmen.  T. B. 
This controversy consisteth wholly in this viz: whether every sin be of it own nature mo●al, or no. I hold the Affirmative, our jesuit the Negative. And for all that, he freely granteth unawares as you see, that I have proved mine opinion and doctrine, both out of the holy scripture, and also out of the fathers and schooledoctors.  S. R. 
Christ (saith Bell) telleth us, 
Vbi supra.  that we must give account for every idle word; and S. john saith, that every sin is Anomia, that is, Transgression of the law. Saint Ambrose also defineth sin in general, to be transgression of God's law, and S. Austen describeth it, to be every word, deed, or desire against God's law. Yea, Bellarmine arffimeth every sin to be against God's law. The Rhemists also confess, that every sin is a swerving from the Law. Likewise josephus Angles and Durandus, teach venial sins to be against the law. To this argument Catholics answer differently, some by denial of the proposition, others by denial of the assumption. Some say, that every sin which is against the Law is not mortal, but only that which is perfectly against it. Others say, that venial sins are not against the Law, but besides the Law.  T. B. 
here is an answer, aunswerelesse. For first, our Friar granteth, that I have proved by the Scripture, by Saint Ambrose, by S. Austen, by Bellarmine, their famous Cardinal, by the Rhemists, their learned brethren, by josephus Angles, their religious Friar, and reverend Bishop, and by Durandus, their famous school-doctor; that every sin, more and less is against the Law of God; and consequently, mortal of it own nature.  
Secondly, our Friar freely confesseth, that this argument of mine, doth so trouble the Papists, that they cannot agree among themselves, how to answer the same. Some saith he, deny the proposition, some deny the assumption, other some say they cannot tell what: and our jesuit himself stands amazed, whether it is better to yield to the truth, or to face it out desperately, and impudently with Legierdemain, juggling, falsehood, and deceitful dealing.  S. R. 
Yet better it is to say, 
Page, 270.  that venial sins are beside the Law, then against the Law.  T. B. 
Our jesuit being in perplexity, (like as Buridanus his Ass) what to answer to my argument, resolveth to take the best way as he supposeth: for, he thinketh as felons & Traitors standing at the bar 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 all one in effect. For as our master Christ saith, He that is not with him, is against him, and consequently, 
Mat, 12, 30.  if he do beside Christ's commandment, he doth against the same.  
The other, that Durandus, and many Popish Schooledoctors confess resolutely, that every sin is against God's law. And josephus Angles affirmeth constantly, that Dwrands opinion is now adays the Doctrine of their Schools. Where I wish the Reader to note by the way, the mutability of late start up Romish Religion. Read the Downfall, where this point is set down at large.  S. R. 
Therefore if Bell grant indeed (as he doth in words) that by God's mercy some sins are made venial; 
Page 271.  he must also confess, that by God's mercy, they are not against his charity and friendship.  T. B. 
I grant, that as all sins is mortal of their own nature, (which I have proved copiously in The Downfall, even by the testimony of very famous Papists:) so are all sins venial by God's mercy for the merits of his son jesus, to the regenerate his elect children, and consequently, though all sins be against God's friendship (who hateth and detesteth all sin) in their own nature, 
1, Cor. 6, 11,  yet are all the sins of Gods elect, 
Ephes, 1, 7.  reputed not only as venial, but none at all in Christ jesus, 
1, Cor. 1, 30.  & they received into God's favour for Christ's sake. 
2, Cor, 5, 21.   S. R. 
Bell proveth out of Saint Ambrose, 
Page. 276.  that sin is defined the transgression of the law. And out of S. Austen, that it is divine reason, or the will of God, commanding the order of nature to be kept, and forbidding it to be broken. But these Fathers define only mortal sin.  T. B. 
Mark for Christ's sake, and behold our jesuit at a great Non plus. I have proved both by the Scripture out of Saint john, 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 God's Law. That God's law is nothing else, but his eternal reason or will decreeing what ought to be done, or not to be done, and consequently, that every sin is mortal, as being against God's reason, Will, and Law. Now, our Friar being indeed at his wit's end, knoweth not what answer to make; but saith at random, that the Fathers only define mortal sin. He neither hath Rhyme 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 jesuit will needs have them, to define only mortal. What a thing is this? Who ever hath heard the like? The Question is, whether every sin be mortal, or no. I affirm every sin to be mortal; and I prove it, because the holy Scripture, the Ancient Fathers, and the Doctors do define sin to be so; yet our jesuit thinketh it enough barely to answer, that they all speak of mortal sin, not of venial. O sweet jesus? Our jesuit is either too too foolish, or else too, too malicious. His fond answer is termed in Schools, Petitio principij, the begging of the Question. He will needs have the Fathers to except venial sins, and to acknowledge such sins, although they take no notice of such sins, neither once name such sins; but chose affirm, all sins without exception to be mortal. These Fathers (saith our fatherly jesuit) define mortal sin, not venial. Even so sorsooth, for why should they define that, which is not? The Fathers were wise; they knew that every sin in it own nature deserved death and therefore defined sin accordingly. They knew, 
Rome, 6, 23,  that Saint Paul saith; The reward of sin is death. They knew, what God saith by his Prophet Ezechiell; The Soul that sinneth, 
Eze, 18, 20,  shall die the death. They knew what God saith by his Prophet David; 
Psal, 5, 4,  Thou art not a GOD that loveth wickedness, neither shall evil dwell with thee. They knew what Christ will say, at the day of doom; Depart from me ye cursed, into everlasting fire. But our jesuit saith, 
Math, 25, 41  that venial sins break not friendship with God. Well, 
Page 271.  let him stand in judgement against God for his venials; 
Psal, 143, 2.  I will say with the humble Prophet: Enter not into judgement with thy Servant (O Lord) for no flesh can be justified in thy sight.  S. R. 
I admit, 
Page 275.  that by sin Saint john understood all kind of Actual sin, and deny that Anomia Iniquity, is taken for wickedness, and perfect transgression of the Law; but generally as it is common to perfect transgression, & only swerving from the Law.  T. B. 
I answer, 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 granteth.  
Secondly, that iniquity is perfect sin and wickedness, 
Psal. 6, 9  as the Prophet telleth us; Discedite à me omnes, qui operamini iniquitate. Depart from me all ye, that work iniquity. So the Latin Vulgata editio readeth, which the papists must approve perforce, because the Pope hath so enjoined them. here iniquity, must needs be taken for mortal sin: for as our jesuit saith, Venial sins do not break friendship with God: and I may presume to affirm of holy David, that he commanded not them to depart from him, who were in favour with God. No, no, God loveth not those that work iniquity.  
Thirdly, 
Page 273.  that Saint john speaketh of mortal sin, by our Jesuits own confession.  
Fourthly, that Saint Bede, Lyranus, and Carthusianus, do all three with uniform assent, expound it of mortal sin.  
Fiftly, 
Page, 278  that our jesuit unawares granteth no less. These are his words; For iniquity requireth only want of equity, and conformity to God's Law. Lo, he granteth iniquity, to want conformity to God's Law: and so (say I) unawares he granteth, iniquity to be against God's law, seeing it is here confessed of our jesuit, that it wants comformity thereunto: for that is to be against Gods Law.  S. R. 
Durand and Angles (I confess) did think venial sins to be against the Law; 
Page 280.  but neither is this a matter of Faith, neither do they intend to favour Bell any thing.  T. B. 
Here our jesuit granteth me the victory, confessing that his own dear friends, Durand and Angles defend mine opinion. But he addeth two things for his defence, as he thinketh, yet I deny them, and so I think 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 Faith? Is it a matter of faith, that your Pope cannot err? That he is above a general Council? That he can depose kings? Nay, that either he or yourself be an honest man? And what is a matter of faith? Forsooth, whatsoever the Pope will have a matter of faith. Secondly, he saith, Durand and Angles intent not to favour me. This is brother-folly to the former. How far to London, a pokefull of Plumbs.  S. R. 
All formal sin is formal iniquity, but not contrariwise. 
Page 278.  As Adultery or murder committed by a fool or mad man, is iniquity, but no more sin, than it is in Beasts.  T. B. 
First, Iniquity is wickedness, and consequently sin, as is already proved.  
Secondly, Iniquity is formally against equity, as our jesuit hath granted.  
Thirdly, it is formally transgression of God's Law, 
Page 278  as I have many ways confirmed. Ergo, it is formally sin.  
Fourthly, If Adultery or murder done by a fool or mad man be iniquity, it is also sin; for all iniquity is sin, as is already proved.  
Fiftly, to say that Adultery done by a fool or mad man, 
Ignorantia juris divini vel naturalis, non excusat. cans. 17. q. 4. cap. siqui●.  is no more sin than it is in beasts, seemeth to me a beastly affirmation. Our jesuit barely saith it, he proveth it not. I know his supposed ground; because forsooth, it is not voluntary. But I would have him to tell me, how it is not as well sin in Fools and mad men, as Adam's fault is sin in Infants against their will. Because (saith he) they cannot avoid it. The same say I, of Infants. I add, that Beasts never had it in their power, to avoid sin, and sinful acts; but Fools, mad men, and Infants, were all at once enabled to have kept the Law, when they were in Lumbis Adae; which is enough for their just condemnation. And it is confirmed, because they may as well be freed from Original sin, as from murder and Adultery. It is a common saying, that if a drunken man, kill a man, 
Aristotle, libr. 3. ethic. cap. 5. §. 72.  when he is drunk; he must be hanged, when he is sober: Yea, the Ethnic Philosopher can tell us, that a murderer in his drunkenness, is worthy of double punishment. First, for his drunkenness, then for the sin that followeth upon the same. For though the sin consequent, be not voluntary in the act and deed done, yet is it voluntary in the cause.  S. R. 
Bell noteth the Romish Religion of mutability, 
Page 280. 281.  confessing that the old Roman Religion was Catholic, sound, & pure, with which he will not contend. But seeing you have granted the old Roman Religion to be pure and Catholic, and slander the late, I bring an action of slander against you, and charge you to bring good witness, when, wherein, and by whom, the late Roman Religion corrupted the purity of the old.  T. B. 
This is the point indeed, that seduceth the silly ignorant sort throughout the Christian world. For the Pope & his flattering Parasites bear them in hand, that the late start up Romish doctrine, is the old Roman religion, which S. Peter and Saint Paul, preached to the Romanies in their life time: But my life and salvation I gauge for the trial, 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 undoubtedly utterly forsake the Pope, and detest from their hearts all Popish faction. Here our Friar jesuit threateneth me, to bring an action of the case against me; for that (as he saith) I slander their Religion. He would have 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 Jesuits name, because we may perhaps agree without suit in Law. Secondly, that I have in a printed Book published many years ago, to the view and judgement of all the Christian world, showed in plain and express terms, at what times, in what points, & by what persons, the old Roman Religion taught by Saint Paul, (as holy Writ telleth us) and by Saint Peter, (as Histories Ecclesiastical do relate,) was successively corrupted, errors embraced, superstition nourirished, ignorance countenanced, and false Doctrine decreed for the truth. This Book is entitled the Survey of Popery, published about ten years ago, in the year of our Lord God, 1596. I have challenged all Jesuits and jesuited Papists, jointly and severally, to answer it, and all my other Books. They have oftentimes in many of their slanderous Libels, made mention both of the Survey, and of my other Books, and promised answers to the same, but while the Grass grows, the Horse dies. This is the first answer, that ever I received to this day. Which how silly it is, let others judge. For their late forerunner did but snatch here and there, and answered directly nothing at all. Our jesuit here insinuateth something, which he cannot well tell how to shuffle up. I also alleged out of josephus Angles, a famous Popish school-doctor and Bishop, 
jos. Ang. ●. ●2. s. Page 175.  that the Popish Doctrine daily altereth in their Schools. S. Thomas (saith he) and his followers hold; That a Venial sin is not so much against the Law, as besides the Law. But Durand, and many others impugn this opinion, and avouch Venial sins to be against the Commandments. And this opinion (saith he) seemeth now adays to be more common in the schools. Here I wished the Reader to note by the way, out of the word (Modo, Now adays) the mutability of the Romish Religion.  S. R. 
Angles insinuateth School opinions to be mutable. 
Page 280.  Bell applieth it to the Roman Religion, as if it consisted of School opinions, which may be held Pro & contra with unity of Faith.  T. B. 
If School opinions be mutable, then Popish Religion is mutable of necessity. For how dare the Schoole-Doctours teach publicly, contrary to the Pope's mind? Was not your famous Doctor Michael at Louvain, threatened to frame his opinion to the Pope's liking, or else ye w●●e what would have followed? Did not the Pope send Toledo the jesuit, to confer with him, and tell him what the Pope thought, and therefore he must, and so forth? You know it was so. Be not grieved I pray you, 
Rhenan. in annot. ad libr. Tertul.  to hear Beatus Rhenanus, one of your dear friends, speak a truth of your Schools and Schoole-Doctou●s. These are his words? Thomas Aquinas & Scotus, etc. Thomas Aquinas and Scotus, men too much delighted with subtleties, have brought confession this day to such a p●sse, that joannes Geilerius, a Grave and reverend Diui●e, and a Preacher a long time at Argentoraium, said many a time to his friends, that it was impossible for a man to make his confession, according to their Traditions. Thus writeth Rhenanus. Out of whose words I note. First, that the vain, curious destinctions of the Schole-doctors, have brought much mischief into the Church of God. Which thing if a Papist had not spoken it, would seem incredible to the world.  
Secondly, that it is impossible for a Papist to make his confession, according to the Popish law; and consequently, that all Papists by Popish doctrine, must perish everlastingly. Mark well my words (Gentle Reader) the Papists teach us to hold for an article of our belief, that we are bound to make our confessions as the Popish law prescribeth; that is, as Aquinas and Scotus have set down the same. And for all that Gielerius a Papist himself & a great divine, 
Lo, Papists dare not say all they think.  complained often to his friends, that no man could possibly perform the same. Now then, since on the one side, Popish confession must be made under 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 Papists must be damned eternally. O miserabie Popery, coufounded by thyself! O late startup Religion, patched like a beggars cloak! Thine own Doctors, O Popery, (such force hath the truth) have 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 evident by the secret complaint of the learned man Gielerius, who told that to his trusty friends, which he durst not tell the pope.  S. R. 
Their canonised Martyr Bishop Fisher (saith he) and their Popish Bishop Gerson wrote, 
Page, 281.  that Venial sins were such only by the mercy of God. 
Behold the Original of Venial Sins.  here Bell for one truth, uttereth two untruths. True it is, that Bishop Fisher & Gerson were in that error; but that was both before it was condemned in the church, as it was since by Pius the v. & Gregorius, 13. Neither did they account involuntary motions of Concupiscence for Venial sins, as Bell doth; but such as Catholics account Venial. But untrue it is, that either Bishop Fisher, is canonized, or Gerson was a Bishop.  T. B. 
here our jesuit granteth freely, that both the famous learned Bishop Fisher, and that excellent Doctor Gerson of high esteem in the Counsel of Constance, held for a constant position and sound Doctrine, that every sin is mortal of it own nature, our Doctrine therefore is the same, which great learned Papists do defend. And I must needs here put the Reader in mind, of the newness of late Romish religion. (viz) that Venial Sins were never known to the Church, until the late days of Pius the fifth, and Gregory the 13. that is to say; about forty years ago. 
An: Dom: 1566.  O Popery! thou art but a child, thou must never from this day, 
Venial sins were hatched.  be called the old Religion, for here our jesuit confesseth thine Nonage, and proclaimeth thee to be the New religion. I must likewise insinuate to the Reader, another point of great importance (viz) that the pope's act is reputed the decree of the Church, and that no part of Romish religion is a matter of faith, until it please the Pope so to appoint it. Now, for Fisher and Gerson, the one is a cannonized Popish Saint, the other a Popish Bishop. But these are not matters to stand upon, though they help our jesuit to pass over the time, and to dazzle the eyes of the Reader.  S. R. 
He concludeth this Article with this goodly reason. 
Page, 281  One stealeth just so many Eggs, as are necessary to make a Mortal sin; another stealeth one less. But there can be no reason, why God may justly condemn the one to hell, and not the other. Therefore they both sin Mortally alike. To this I answer, by demanding a reason, why the judge may condemn him to death that stealeth thirteen pence half penny, and not him that stealeth one penny less. If he answer, because the law condemneth one and not the other; I ask again, 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 will find one in his own Question. The reason of both is, because such a quantity, is a notable injury to our neighbour, and consequently, it is against charity, and so breaketh the Law; and a less quantity is not.  T. B. 
The distinction between Mortal and Venial Sins lately invented by the Pope, doth so trouble our jesuit after his consultation with his best learned friends, that he can shape me no answer, touching a few Eggs. Gladly he would seem to say something; yet after he hath wearied himself with struggling against the truth, he is where he first began. Not knowing how to answer, he demandeth two Questions; and that done, he telleth me, I must answer myself. This notwithstanding, after better advisement and consideration had of the matter, he pretends to show a reason of both his own questions. But howsoever that be (which is indeed a mere mockery) he leaveth my argument untouched. Let us suppose for explication sake, that Eggs worth thirteen pence half penny makes a Mortal sin, and that God may justly condemn him that stole them; as also a Mortal judge, among Mortal men. Let us likewise suppose for example sake, that neither the Civil judge, nor God himself can justly condemn him, that hath stolen but so many Eggs as are worth twelve pence half penny. Now, this is my Question; Nay, this is mine assertion; that there can no good reason be yielded, why God may justly condemn the one to Hell, and not the other. To answer as the jesuit doth, after he hath deeply pondered the matter, that one is a notable injury to our neighbour, not so the other, is too teo childish and frivolous. For, if thirteen pence half penny be a notable injury, so is also twelve pence: One penny doubtless, cannot make Mortal and Venial difference: neither is it to the purpose, to say as our jesuit doth; viz. that the civil judge cannot condemn the thief, that stealeth one penny less. The reason is evident, because the civil judge is under the law and subject to it, but God Omnipotent is above his Law, and may dispense with it at his good pleasure. So did Christ answer the Pharisees, on the behalf of his disciple. The sabboath saith Christ, 
Mark, 2, 27.  was made for man, and not man for the sabbath. Therefore is the son of Man, Lord of the sabbath also. The Jesuits reason thus rejected as frivolous, and nothing to the purpose, let us examine the matter to the bottom, for it is a point of great consequence. First then, this is an undoubted truth, that the supreme civil Magistrate, may as lawfully appoint death for stealing of twelve pence, as for 13. pence half penny, for the penalty of death, is wholly arbitrary to the judge. He must frame his laws, as serve best for the peaceable government of his people. Whereupon it cometh, that in divers countries, divers punishments are designed for the same faults, and all agreeable to God's law. This is likewise an undoubted truth in Popery, (viz) that some Sins are Venial of their own nature, other some mortal. Against this false ground of Popery, do I now contend. We have seen already, that a thief may as well be condemned to die for twelve pence, as for more, even so then, God à fortiori, may as justly condemn one for a Popish Venial sin, as for a Mortal, for every sin deserveth death of it own nature, be it more, be it less. Yea, if any sin should of it own nature, be Venial, them should Original sin in an infant, be Venial most of all, because the Infant neither can avoid it, neither hath any will to do it. I therefore conclude, that it is against all sense and reason, to say, that God may justly condemn a man, for stealing so many Eggs as in Popery make a Mortal Si●n●, (let them name what number they will,) and that he cannot likewise condemn him, that stealeth but one Egg less. And it is absurd to say or think, that the least sin that can be named, doth not break off amity and friendship with God, 
Psal, 5. 4  if we respect the sin in it own Nature. 
Psal, 6. 8  I prove it, because the least sin that can be named, doth avert and turn the doer from the face of God; Ergo, from the amity and favour of God. I prove the Antecedent, for the consequence is good, and cannot be denied. No sin whatsoever, more or less, can be referred unto God, who detesteth all sin; Ergo, every sin, be it never so small, turneth us away from the favour of God. Truly therefore wrote Bishop Fisher and Master Gerson, that every sin is mortal of it own nature. And so is that proved, which I defend.   

The seventh Article, of Unwritten Traditions.  
THe jesuit useth many impertinent digressions, and needless Ta●tologies in this Article. I standing to be brief, will only answer to such allegations, as shall seem necessary for the contentation of the Reader, referring him for the rest to the Downfall, where he may find all necessary points, virtually confuted, though not in express terms.  S. R. 
All such points of Christian faith, 
Page 284.  as are necessary to be actually believed, of every one that hath use of reason though he be never so simple, are actually contained in scripture, either clearly or obscurely.  T. B. 
This doctrine is good, I approve it with all my heart, and willingly subscribe unto it with my pen. If our jesuit will stand to this Doctrine, we shall soon agree.  S. R. 
For surely, 
Page. 285.  the Prophets and Evangelists, writing their Doctrine for our remembrance, would omit no one point, which was necessary to be actually known of every one; especially, seeing they have written many things, which are not so necessary. 
〈◊〉. in joan. tract. 49. to. 9  And this thing teacheth S. Austen, when he saith; those things are written, which seemed sufficient for the salvation of the faithful.  T. B. 
This Doctrine I likewise approve; it is the very same that I defend. Keep thee here jesuit, and we shall not contend.  S. R. 
Methinks S. Austen plainly avoucheth, that God hath procured every thing to be clearly written, 
Page 286  which to know is necessary to every man's salvation. The same teacheth S. Syril saying; 
Aug. de peci. mer. lib. 2, c. vlt tom. 7.  Not all things which our lord did are written, but what the writers deemed sufficient, 
Ciril. in job. lib. 12. cap, ult.  as well for manners, as for Doctrine; that by right saith and works, we may attain the kingdom of Heaven. S. Chrisostome saith; 
Chrisost. in 2. Thes. Hom. 3.  what things soever are necessary, the same are manifest out of the scripture.  T. B. 
This doctrine I still approve, as which the Reader may find, to be taken out of the Downfall. And so our jesuit doth here subscribe unto my Doctrine, though he take upon him to oppugn the same. For the truth is mighty, & will in time prevail. This being so, I have no need to stand long upon this point. For as the Reader seeth, the jesuit approveth that Doctrine, which I in the Downfall do defend.  S. R. 
Truly said Saint Ephiphanius, 
Page 291  that we may tell the invention of every question, out of the consequence of Scriptures. 
Epipha. heres. 65  He said not, out of the Scripture. For all cannot be taken thence, as himself writeth; but of the consequence of them. 
Heres. 61.  Because all questions are resolved 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 Downfall. And consequently, the very weapons which our jesuit hath put into our hands, are sufficient to defend us and our cause against him. For if the Reader shall remember these grounds, and these positions freely of him granted, and withal have recourse unto the Downfall; he shall be able with all facility, to answer to all that the jesuit objecteth in this Article.  S. R. 
All points of Christian faith, cannot be sufficiently and immediately proved out of scripture. 
Page 293  For there is no place of all the scripture, which sufficiently proveth all the rest to be cannonicall; our B. Lady to be a perpetual Virgin, and the Sabbath to be lawfully translated from Saturday to Sunday.  T. B. 
Now our jesuit forgetteth himself, and what doctrine he hath already delivered. It were a sufficient answer to tell him, that he here confuteth himself. But for the Readers help, I will briefly answer his particulars. To the first I say, 
Page. 134.  it is sound and largely answered in the Downfall of Popery. In regard of brevity, I refer the Reader to the place quoted in the Margin. To the second, I answer first, that I willingly acknowledge the most blessed Virgin, to be the Mother of true God and true man, and to have been a perpetual Virgin, both before Christ's birth, and in his birth, and after his birth.  
Secondly, that albeit I defend (as our jesuit also hath granted) all things necessary to be believed unto salvation to be contained in the holy scriptures; yet do I not deny, but willingly grant, and reverently admit many things, received by the perpetual consent of the church, and not repugnant to the written word, 
Aug ad Iam●ar. ep. 118  as true, wholesome, and godly. For I am persuaded with S. Austen, that whatsoever is neither against Faith, nor against good manners; may indifferently be observed for their society amongst whom we do converse. Again, it is one thing to say, that all necessary points of faith and Doctrine, are contained in the holy scriptures; another thing to say, that nothing not contained in the scripture, hath been received by tradition, & may be admitted for a truth. It cannot be convinced out of the scriptures (and therefore no matter of faith) that Saint Peter and S, Paul died together at Rome; yet do I admit it for a truth, as received by Tradition from the primitive Church, and testified by uniform consent of all approved antiquity. To the third, I have already said enough both in my Book of Survey, 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 (saith Bell,) forbiddeth us to add to his word. 
Page, 295  I answer, that such places make nothing against Traditions, which are necessary to man's salvation, because such are indeed God's word, though unwritten.  T. B. 
I answer our jesuit with his own words, which follow immediately, and are these; for the two first places only forbid, adding to God's word any thing of our own head, or which is man's word, as may be proved by the reason of the forbiddance; 
Prou, 30, 6  viz: lest we be disproved, & found liars as no doubt we might, by adding man's word which is subject to lie; but not by adding God's word, which never can prove untrue, though it be not written; Thus writeth our jesuit, confuting himself so sufficiently, as more needs not be required.  
In these words he telleth us two things, the one quite opposite to the other. First, he truly saith (confuting himself) that the Scripture forbiddeth, to add of our own head, any thing, which is but man's word, and subject to falsehood and lying.  
This is good. But secondly he addeth, that to add God's word though unwritten, is a lawful thing: but this is a silly begging of the question, as the Schools term it. For I deny that unwritten Word to be God's Word, which our jesuit should prove, but cannot. And our jesuit hath already confessed, that all necessary points of faith, 
Page, 284, 285.  are contained in the Scriptures & written Word. And consequently, it is to late to tell us now, of adding or admitting the unwritten Word. I admit his former assertion, as consonant to the Scriptures; this latter I reject, as childish, vain, and frivolous. I prove it, because every word of God is to be admitted as a matter of faith; and yet all matters of Faith are written, as is already proved and granted. This therefore not being written, must be hissed out of the School of Christians.  S. R. 
Bell allegeth the Prophet's words; To the Law rather, 
Page 301.  and to the Testimony. 
Esa, 8, 20.  This place maketh nothing for him. First, because the Prophet nameth not only the Law, but Testimony also, which comprehendeth Gods unwritten word. Secondly, because Esay doth not absolutely bid us recurre to the Law and Testimony, but rather to them, then to Witches; of whom he had immediately forbidden us to inquire.  T. B. 
I answer, that our jesuit maketh no conscience how he interpret the Scripture, so he may any way make it seem to serve his turn. For he desperately here affirmeth without all reason and authority, that by Testimony, is understood the unwritten Word. Whereas indeed it is the written Law, added only for explication sake: as if he had said; Ye must not seek help at the dead, which is the illusion of Satan, but ye must seek remedy in the word of God, where his will is revealed: ye must in all doubts and difficulties have recourse to the Law of God, which is the testification of Gods will towards man. In it ye shall find, whatsoever is necessary for you to know. Briefly, as if he had said; Ye must ever have recourse to the Law, as to the Testimony of God's holy will. Saint Hierom yieldeth the same exposition of this place, 
Hier. in hune locum.  in these words; Si vultis noscere quae dubia sunt, magis vos legi & Testimoniis tradite Scripturarum. If ye will know the things that are doubtful, ye must have recourse to the Law, and to the Testimony of the Scriptures. Lo, he joineth 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 joas; 
2. Par. 23. 11.  who received at his coronation these three things; Unction, the Testimony, or the Law; and the Diadem, or Crown. Where the Latin Vulgata editio (to which the Pope hath tied all Papists) expoundeth the Testimony to be the Law. Which gloss striketh our Jesuits exposition dead. So then, by the Pope's own approbation, the Testimony is taken for the written word of God's Law, and his jesuit hath here proved himself, to be a very Daw. And where our jesuit weeneth to find some help in the word (Rather;) It seemeth to me, that it doth him hinder: For, if his sense be admitted, it will be lawful in some cases and times, to have recourse unto Witches. But I will leave him to himself, as a careless and fond Disputer.  S. R. 
Esay indeed bids us go to Gods written word, 
Page 301,  which we refuse not to do in all doubts, wherein it resolveth us, but forbids us not to go to any other, which is as he saith, agreeable to this word. Wherefore either must Bell prove, that the Church's Traditions are not agreeable to Gods written Word; or he must know, that God not only not forbids us, but rather commands us to seek after them.  T. B. 
here our jesuit seems to correct himself, and to grant, that the Prophet speaks of the Written Word. But he adds of his own head, that the Scripture will not resolve them in all things; and that therefore they must have recourse, to their Unwritten Traditions withal. Yet like a good Fellow, he makes one exception, which is this; Unless I prove their traditions not to be agreeable to God's word. Which thing God be thanked, 
This is done in the Downfall of Popery.  is already done in the Downfall itself. Touching the time, when Saint john the Apostle died; seven famous Chronologers will contest with me, that he lived an hundred years after Christ's sacred incarnation (though the Printer negligently put down Ascension amiss, as many other things;) (viz) Eusebius Caesariensis, johannes Nauclerus, Rhegino Prumiensis, Marianus Scotus, Martinus Polonus, Pontacus Burdegalensis, and Hermannus Contractus; that Saint john the Apostle was living almost 32. years after that our jesuit saith he was dead. Now, whether our Friar be skilful in Chronology, or no; that will not I define, let the Reader judge. He himself boasteth of his skill; what he hath performed, we see: But whatsoever his skill be, his lying is in the highest degree.  S. R. 
But omitting these errors, as Testimonies of Bells, 
Page 304.  ignorance in Histories, which I regard not, to his Argument I answer.  T. B. 
They are not mine errors, but your own lies. You are full of boasting and bragging, but truth have ye none, & all good conscience from you is quite gone. Let us hear your grave answer.  S. R. 
I answer, that those words (These are written) are meant only of Miracles done by Christ, and written by Saint john, to move us to believe that Christ was God.  T. B. 
It troubleth our jesuit more than a little, 
Aquinas understandeth these words, both of Christ's sayings and doings,  that I affirm Saint john to have written his Gospel, about 100 years after Christ's ascension into Heaven. And for that end (as we have heard) he hath addicted himself wholly to cogging, falsehood, and lying; in so much as he would needs have Saint john dead, while he was living: and wherefore is all this huge Mass of lying? forsooth, 
P 3. q. 42. art. 4. ad primum.  because these words of Saint john (These a●e written) are thereby proved to be meant of the whole corpse of the holy Bible. For Saint john writing after all, when the Cannon of the scripture was complete, perfect, & fully accomplished, must needs mean of all; and that for two respects. First because all the rest of the Scriptures tend to one and the same end, which Saint john aimeth at, (viz) that we may believe, That jesus is the Son of God. Secondly, because Miracles alone without Doctrine, are not able to work the effect, whereof Saint john speaketh. For Faith is not grounded in Miracles, but in the promises and word of God. Miracles cannot beget Faith, 
Mar, 16, 20,  they only are helps and means to confir me it in us. 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, understand these words of Saint john, affirming all things necessary for salvation, to be contained in the holy scriptures. Their words are set down, in The Downfall of Popery.  S. R. 
We confess scripture to be an infallible rule, 
Page 308,  but not the total rule, but as Bellarmine saith, the partial rule.  T. B. 
What is this, but to confess Christ an unperfect workman? But to confess Christ, to have set down an unperfect rule of Faith? But to confess, that the Scripture containeth not all things necessary for salvation? Which for all that, 
Page, 284.  you have confessed again, and again. As before like a Pelagian, you said, Eternal life was not mere grace, 
Page 285,  nor the mere gift of God, 
Page, 286.  but dependeth partly to man's merit; So now you say here, 
Page 230.  That the Scripture is not a total rule of Faith, but must have some help from men's Traditions. But I will confound you with your own words, which before came from your own Pen. Thus do you write; For surely, 
Page 285.  the Prophets and Evangelists writing their doctrine for our better remembrance, would omit no one point, which was necessary to be actually known of every one; especially, seeing they have written some things which are not so necessary. Again, 
Page 284.  in another place you have these express words; All such points of Christian Faith, as are necessary to be actually believed, of every one that hath use of reason, are actually contained in the Scripture. Now, out of these words 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 salvation.  
Thirdly, that the Prophets and Evangelists wrote many things not so necessary for us, and therefore, would in no case omit those things which were necessary for our soul's health.  
Fourthly, that all things which every one is bound to believe actually, are actually set down in the Scripture. This being true, as it is most true indeed; I am content to stand to the censure of every indifferent Reader, whether by the Jesuits confession and free grant, the Scripture be a total rule of our Faith, or no. For doubtless, that which containeth all necessary points of Christian Faith, cannot be a partial rule, but a total and consummate rule of our faith.  S. R. 
The most that Bell hath out of S. Cyprian, is, 
Page 314.  That what is no true Tradition, 
Page 315.  must be proved by Scripture, which I willingly grant. Saint Cyprian thought the Pope only to er●e in a Commandment to be done; 
Cypr. lib. 1. ep. 3.  Bell condemneth him, in his judicial sentences of Faith. Whereas S. Cyprian professeth, that false Faith can have no access to S. Peter's Chair.  T. B. 
I have proved in the Downfall, that though our Papists of late days do impudently affirm, that their Pope cannot err, when he defineth judicially; yet this notwithwithstanding, Saint Cyprian teacheth and telleth us plainly and roundly, that in his time the Bishop of Rome had no such authority, as this day he proudly, & Antichristianly taketh upon him. For he roundly withstood the decree of Pope Stephanus, who was then the Bishop of Rome, and both sharply reproved him, and stoutly contemned his falsely pretended authority. And for all that, Saint Cyprian was ever reputed a very holy bishop in his life time, and a glorious Martyr being dead. But, if the Bishop of Rome had been Christ's Vicar, and so privileged, as our Papists bear the World in hand he is; then doubtless Saint Cyprian must needs have been an Heretic, and so reputed and esteemed in the Church of GOD, For, if any Christian shall this day do or affirm, as Saint Cyprian did in his time, or publicly deny the Popes falsely pretended primacy in any place, Country, Territories, or Dominions, where Popery beareth the sway; then without all peradventure, he must be burnt at a stake, with fire and Faggot for his pains. Now, what doth our jesuit answer to this discourse? Forsooth, that whatsoever is no true Tradition, the same must be tried by the Scripture. Alas, alas, Who seeth not, that our jesuit, (and consequently all Papists, seeing he hath the advise of all the learned among them,) is at a Non plus? I contend, that Traditions ought to be tried by the Scripture, whether they be true and sound, or no: Our Friar answereth, that false Traditions, and such as be not true, must be so tried. What a jest is this? The Scripture is the Touchstone, by which we must try false and true Traditions; and so we cannot know them to be true Traditions, before we try them by the Scripture. How fond therefore answereth our Friar, that if they be not true, they must be tried by the Scripture? We deny these, and these Traditions to be true, and therefore appeal to the Scripture for the trial thereof. No, no, saith our jesuit, these may not be tried by the Scripture, because they are true Traditions. Marry Sir, this is indeed an answer answerless. For ye take all the trial to yourself, and leave none at all to the Scripture. You will first set down in your judgements, which be true Traditions, and which be false; and that done, we must go try those to be false by the Scripture, which you hold for false; but with the other, we must not deal at all. By this kind of dealing, I must needs say, the Scripture is but a partial rule of Faith indeed. And what shallbe the total rule of our saith? Our jesuit here tells us, that it is the Pope's judicial sentence, whose faith cannot fail. For false Faith (saith he) can have no access to Saint Peter's chair: as though forsooth Saint Cyprian did think, that the Bishop of Rome's Faith could not fail, where he meaneth nothing less, then to ascribe such a privilege to the Church of Rome. For, if he had been of that mind, he would never have urged Pope Stephanus, to be tried by the Scriptures. No, no, Saint Cyprian speaketh not of error in Faith or Doctrine, but of neglect of discipline and false dealing of Schismatics, to whose false tales and reports, the romans would never yield their consent. As if he had said; The schismatics which we have driven out of Africa, seek entertainment at Rome, but the Romans (whose Faith the Apostle praised,) will never hearken unto them, or give credit to their reports. He speaketh of one Felicissimus, and other bad fellows his Companions, whose naughty dealing Saint Cyprian thought Cornelius and the godly romans would never favour. But such beggarly shifts as these be, are good enough for Popish falsely pretended primacy. Of which subject I have written at large, in the Hunting of the Romish Fox.  S. R. 
Bell citeth Saint Ambrose, 
Page 319.  who biddeth us not believe Argument and disputations, but to ask the Scriptures, Apostles, Prophets, and Christ. But it maketh for us, because it alloweth inquiring of others besides the Scriptures: namely, of Apostles, from whom the church's Traditions came.  T. B. 
Our jesuit is a notable covetous Fellow; he will have all to make for him, though it be never so much against him. Because Saint Ambrose, after he hath willed us to have recourse to the Scriptures, and there to know the resolution of all doubts, doth forthwith name the Apopostles, Prophets, and Christ, he will have S. Ambrose, (Will he, Nil he) to send us to others besides the scriptures, whereas Saint Ambrose doth only explicate himself, telling us what Scriptures we shall search; (viz) not O●ids Metamorphosis, nor Tully's Offices, but of the Prophets, of the Apostles, of Christ himself.  S. R. 
Bell citeth S. Chrysostome, 
Page 318.  who saith, that if any thing be spoken without Scripture, the hearers mind wavereth, sometimes doubting▪ sometimes assenting, otherwhiles denying. But marvel it is, that he would touch Saint Chrysostome who Hom. 42. Thessaly. Upon these words, (Hold Traditions) saith. Hence it appeareth, that the Apostles delivered not all things by Letters, & that one aswell as the other are worthy of the same credit. Wherefore we think the Church's Traditions to deserve belief. It is a Tradition, ask no more.  T. B. 
Here I might tell our jesuit, that Saint Chrysostome hath but five Homilies in all, to the second of the Thessalonians, though he name it the 42. Our Friar would exclaim, if he could ●ind such a fault in my writings. True it is, that Saint Chrysostome and other of the Fathers, and myself with them, do willingly admit, and greatly reverence, many unwritten Traditions being consonant to the Holy Scriptures; but neither as matters of Faith, nor as parts of necessary doctrine, but as things tending to order & comeliness 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 be too curious, in this kind of Traditions. It is enough to hear of them, to whom the chief care of the church is committed, that it is a Tradition of the Elders: and so have I answered enough to all frivolous objections of our jesuit; especially, if The Downfall be well marked. The rest which I let pass, is sufficiently confuted there. Saint Chrisostoms' meaning, is plainly (as I have said.) Hence it may appear, because, in the former part of this Objection, he will admit, nothing without the scripture; (In things concerning faith, and Doctrine, ever under stand;) in the latter part of the Objection, he admitteth unwritten Traditions, and will not have us too curious in receiving them; (In thing which are indifferent, ever understand.)  S. R. 
Bell citeth Bishop Fisher because in one place, he calleth the Scripture the storehouse of all truths, 
Page, 324.  necessary to be known of Christians: and in another sayeth, that when Heretics contend with us, we must defend our cause with other help, than by the holy scripture. His meaning is, that when we dispute with Heretics, we ought to have other helps beside scripture.  T. B. 
His meaning is as you say, and I approve the same. But why doth he require other help then the scripture, seeing the scripture as he granteth, is the storehouse of all necessary truths? Shall I tell you? You will not thank me for my pains. I have set down at large in my Book of Motives, what this your holy bishop hath written of Purgatory and Pardons. I will now recount the argument, 
See my Motives, in the 7. Preamble.  only referring the Reader to the place.  
First, Master Fisher telleth us, that the Greek church never bell eeved Purgatory.  
Secondly, that the Latin Church and Church of Rome did not believe the said Purgatory, for many hundred of years after S. Peter's death, whose successor for all that, the Pope boasteth himself to be.  
Thirdly, that this Purgatory was not believed of all the Latin Church, at one and the same time; but by little & 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 papists more than a little I ween.  
Fourthly, that Purgatory was believed in these latter days, by special revelation of the holy Ghost.  
Fiftly, that Pardons came not up, till Purgatory was found out, for in Purgatory resteth the life of Pardons; as which (if there be no Purgatory,) are not worth a straw.  
Sixtly, that Purgatory was a loug time unknown.  
seventhly, 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 Revelations. And here we see that verified, which our jesuit out of Bellarmine telleth us, (viz) that the holy Scripture is but a partial rule of faith. For, if it be a total rule of faith, the Pope (as Master Fisher affirmeth) must both want his Purgatory, and be bereaved of his pardons.  
Ninthly, that pardons were not heard of, or known, to the primitive Church.  
Tenthly, that then Pardons began, when men began to fear the pains of Purgatory.  
This is the sum of that worthy Doctrine, which Bishop Fisher hath published to the world; even at that time when he defended the Pope and Popery, after the best manner he could. He that shall read his words in my Motives at large, cannot but detest the Pope and all popish faction. Hence it is most apparent, why the Bishop said that they must use other helps then the holy Scripture, for the maintenance of their Religion, for the Scripture is but a partial rule of popish faith, as we have heard already.  S. R. 
Bell citeth S. Thomas, that whatsoever Christ would have us to read of his doings and sayings, 
Page, 328.  he commanded the Apostles to write, as with his own hands. But this maketh nothing against us, both because S. Thomas saith not, what Christ would have us believe, but what he would have us read, and Traditions be such, as Christ would have us believe, though we read them not. As also because S. Thomas speaketh not of all points of belief, but only of Christ's sayings & doings, besides which the very sayings and doings of the Apostles recorded in their Acts and Epistles, or testified by Tradition, are to be believed.  T. B. 
I answer; First, that Popery is this day a most miserable Religion, and woe unto them that do believe and obey the same. This is, or may be evident to every one, throughout this whole discourse. Secondly, that Aquinas avoucheth very plainly (as I said in the Downfall) that all things necessary to our salvation, are contained in the Scriptures. For in Christ's deeds are contained his miracles, his life, his conversation; in his sayings Semblably, are contained, his preaching, his teaching, his doctrine, and consequently, whatsoever is necessary for us to know. If then this be true, as it is most true, (for the papists may not deny the doctrine of Aquinas) that whatsoever Christ would have us to know, of his miracles, of his life, of his conversation, of his preaching, of his teaching, of his doctrine, the same is written in the Scriptures; then doubtless, none but such as will Cum ratione in sanires, can deny all things necessary for our salvation, to be contained in the holy scriptures. Yea, if our jesuit will stand to his own doctrine, plainly avouched in this present Pamphlet, this Controversy is at an end, for we agree therein. These are his express words: For surely, 
Page 278  the Prophets and Evangelists writing their Doctrine for our better remembrance, would omit no one point, which was necessary to be actually known of every one; especially, seeing they have written many things, which are not so necessary. And this teacheth S. Austen when he saith, that those things are written which seemed sufficient for the salvation of the faithful.  
Thus writeth our Friar jesuit: Out of whose words I note first, that the Prophets and Apostles wrote their doctrine for our good.  
Secondly, that they left no point unwritten, which was necessary for us to know.  
Thirdly, that he yieldeth a reason why all things necessary are written; (viz) because the Prophets & Evangelists have written many things which were not so necessary for us to know.  
Fourthly, that S. Austen teacheth us the same doctrine, (viz) that all things necessary for our salvation are committed to writing and set down in the Scripture; yea, the jesuit affirmeth in another place, out of the same Saint Austen, 
Page 286.  that all things are plainly set down in the Scripture, which concern either faith or manners.  
Fiftly, that our jesuit granteth all things to be written of Christ's both sayings, and doings, which Christ would have us to read. Marry, he addeth three worthy exceptions. First, that though all Christ's sayings and doings, be written, which Christ would have us to read, yet not all which he would have us to believe. As though forsooth Christ would have us believe something, which we may not read. What a fond saying is this? Nay, what a fond Religion is Popery? All things necessary for us, are written (saith our jesuit,) and yet he telleth us withal, that we must believe things which are not written. And consequently, we must believe things which are necessary for us. Nay, which is more, that Articles of the Christian faith are not necessary for us. Lo, Popery is a very strange Religion.  
Secondly, that we must believe Traditions, which Christ would not have us to read, and consequently, that Christ would not have us to read our belief. Lord have mercy upon us, and keep us from this doctrine.  
Thirdly, that we must believe many unwritten Traditions of the Apostles, which are neither contained in Christ's sayings, nor in his doings. But the holy Ghost came down from Heaven, not to teach the Apostles new Revelations, save those things only which Christ had foretold them, and which they did not perfectly understand. 
john 14, 16.  But the comforter the holy Ghost (saith Christ) whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you, so is the Original in Greek. Panta ha eipon humin. But the Latin Vulgata editio, to which the Pope hath tied all Papists, readeth thus; Whatsoever I shall say unto you. And hence it is, that they would establish their unwritten Traditions. But the truth is, as we have seen, (viz) that Christ hath commanded his Apostles to writ● all things, both of his miracles and of his Doctrine, which he would have us know and believe; as also, that Christ's Apostles received no new Revelations of the holy ghost, but the perfect understanding of those things, which Christ afore had taught them, and here we may note by the way, 
john ●0, 31.  that Aquinas understandeth Saint john's words, (These things are written) aswell of Christ's Doctrine, as of his Miracles.  S. R. 
Bell citeth an Apocryphal sentence out of Esdras, 
Page, 327.  3. 4. under the name of the wise man, as if it were Salomon's.  T. B. 
If our jesuit were not at a Non plus, he would never be so frivolously occupied. I name the wise man, of whom I spoke; even Esdras, as our jesuit granteth. If our Friar, deny all men to be wise (Solomon only excepted;) then doubtless, not only himself is a fool, as it well seemeth by his Writing; but his Pope also (for he is not Solomon) and so all Papists must be ruled by a Fool, and believe that a fool, cannot err. And in the end, they sha●l have a fools Babble, and a Fox tail for their pains.  S. R. 
Bell citeth Victoria thus; I am not certain of it, 
Page 329  (saith Victoria) though all Writers affirm it, which is not contained in the scripture. But Vistoria meaneth of things spoken, not by Tradition, but by probable Opinion, as the conception of our Lady without Original sin, and such like; or he meaneth of things, neither actually nor virtually contained in Scripture, as Traditions be, according to our second conclusion.  T. B. 
If I should answer fully to all our Jesuits fond sentences; my reply would grow to a bigger book, then is the great Bible. For our jesuit thinketh himself a very wise man, though before he would have none wise but Solomon. First, our Friar telleth us, that Victoria meaneth not of Traditions, but of probable opinions, yet secondly he granteth, that he cannot tell what Victoria meaneth, But perhaps (saith he) he meaneth of things, neither actually nor virtually contained in scripture.  
Lo● here, Gentle Reader, Popish Traditions be neither virtually nor actually, contained in the Scripture. Ergo say I, they are no points of Christian faith. And I prove it, by our Jesuits own express words: 
Page 290  All points (saith our Friar) of Christian faith, are virtually contained in scripture. Thus I now frame an Argument, 
A syllogism unanswerable.  against Popish unwritten Traditions, to which when our jesuit shall answer sound, I will think him worthy to be Pope of Rome. All points of Christian faith, are virtually contained in the Scripture; but Popish unwritten Traditions are not contained virtually in the Scripture, Ergo Popish unwritten Traditions, are no points of Christian faith. The consequence is good, and cannot be denied. It is in the second figure, and mood, called Baroco. The assumption is the Jesuits own, 
2. Figura. Baroco,  in the Page quoted in the Margin; (viz) 329. 
Page 329  The proposition also is the Jesuits, in another place; (viz) Page 290. 
Page, 290.  and so I infer this Golden and inevitable Corollary; (viz) that Popish unwritten Traditions, are no points of Christian faith. Well therefore may they be parts of turcism, of judaism, of Atheism, but parts of Christianity they cannot be. Apage, Apage, they smell of Infidelity.  S. R. 
Bell again citeth Victoria, who saith, That for Opinions we no way aught to depart from the rule of scriptures. 
Page, 239  What is this to the purpose? Let Bell prove, that we either for Opinions, or any thing else depart from Scripture.  T. B. 
Bell hath proved your departure from the holy scripture, in many of his Books many years ago published to the view of the world, yet to this day, this is the first answer, the last, and all, that ever came from your pens. But to satisfy your itching ears a little, I must put you in mind, what lately you have heard in this short reply.  
First, that the greeks never believed your Popish Purgatory, as which cannot be proved, out of the Scriptures.  
Secondly, that the bishop of Rome to challenge power to depose Kings, is against the holy Scripture.  
Thirdly, that to acknowledge sins Venial of their own Nature, is to depart from the scripture.  
Fourthly, that to give Pardons as the Pope doth, is to depart from the scripture.  
Fiftly, that to establish Works of condign merit, is to depart from the Scripture. And so in the rest, as I have both here and else where proved at large. For the Reading of Holy Scripture, and the facility thereof touching things necessary for salvation, our jesuit bestirreth himself more than a little; but the bare peruse of the Downfall, will be a sufficient reply to the same. Once let us hear him in this point.  S. R. 
The first point is not against us, 
Page 34●.  who grant that in Reading the Scripture, we may find all things necessary.  T. B. 
You told us even now, (Good Sir Friar,) that your popish unwritten Traditions, 
Page 329.  are neither actually nor virtually contained in the Scripture; Ergo, by your Doctrine now delivered, they are not necessary. Behold here, (Gentle Reader,) how uncertain Popish Doctrine is, and into what Fooleries and Contradictions the Papists fall, while they busy themselves to fight against the truth.  S. R. 
Bell Objecteth out of Theodoretus, that the Haebrewe Books were Translated into all Languages. This is nothing against us, who deny not but Scripture hath been and may be, upon just and urgent causes, translated into all languages, so it be not vulgarly used, and common to all kind of vulgar people.  T. B. 
You say, you deny not, but Scripture hath been, and also may be Translated into the vulgar Languages: yet you add two restrictions, by which, you in effect unsay that, which you had said before.  
First, you say, it may be in the Vulgar languages, so it be not vulgarly used. What is this? Fast and loose, your legerdemain? To what end I pray you, shall it and may it be turned into the vulgar Languages? That the vulgar people may Read it, or no? If you say, yea; then may it be vulgarly used. For that is to be vulgarly used, to be read vulgarly. If you say, no; then in vain do you grant it to be Translated into the vulgar tongue.  
Secondly, you say, it may also be Translated, so it be done upon just and urgent causes. You should have done well, to have named those just and urgent causes. But Sir, seeing the thing may be done, and seeing also there may be just and urgent causes, why it should be done; how cometh it to pass, that none may do it, unless the Pope licence him thereunto? How happeneth it, that none may read it when it is translated, unless he have the Pope's licence so to do? How chanceth it, that it was never done, since the Bishop of Rome aspired to his usurped primacy? This would I learn.  S. R. 
The Holy Fathers affirm, 
Page 364.  that there are unwritten Apostolical Traditions; Bell and some few startup Heretics deny it. Whether believe ye Christians?  T. B. 
Bell denieth not simply, that there be no unwritten Apostolical Traditions. It is a notorious calumny; sor I willingly admit unwritten Traditions, as is apparent by my Books published to the World. But I constantly reject all unwritten Traditions whatsoever, which are obtruded as necessary to salvation, or as necessary parts of doctrine, because all such things are contained in the written Word. Other Traditions not contrary to God's Word, which the Church observeth, I am so far from condemning them, that I both willingly admit them, and highly reverence the same. And if you were constant to your own writings, 
Page, 284. 285. 286. 290. 291.  you would subscribe to this my doctrine. For you grant in many places, that all things necessary for salvation, are contained in the holy Scripture. Which being granted, you contradict yourself, when ye urge unwritten Traditions, as necessary points of Christian Faith.  S. R. 
There are certain and undoubted Apostolical Tradions. 
Page 385.  This is against Bell.  T. B. 
It is not against Bell, for Bell admitteth (as we have seen already) such unwritten Traditions, as are repugnant to the holy Scripture, and have ever been approved of the whole Church. But such neither are Articles of the Chrian faith, neither necessary to Salvation.  S. R. 
But I prove it, because the Traditions of the Bible to be God's word, 
Page. 385.  of the perpetual virginity of our blessed Lady, of the transferring of the Sabboath, and such like, are certain, and undoubted.  T. B. 
Cram bis posita mors est, saith the Proverb. This Cuckoo song, soundeth often in our ears. This irksome Tautology of yours, doth you good service. The perpetual virginity of the most blessed Virgin, I admit with all reverence; and semblably, I approve the translation of the Sabboath. As this is not the first time ye urged them, 
Page, 364.  so neither the first time I answer them. 
Page 292.  But neither are they repugnant to the holy Scripture, nor necessary points of Doctrine. To the Tradition of the Bible (which is ever your last and best trump,) answer shall be made God willing, in the end of this Article. It is the most colourable thing, you can allege, and the only foundation, upon which you continually rely. I therefore reserve it for the upshot, and to entertain you with such a collation, as may be to your best liking.  S. R. 
Bells conclusion is, 
Page 386.  that Traditions are so uncertain, as the learnedst Papists contend about them: and he proveth it, because S. Victor contended with the Bishop of Asia; Saint Policarpe with Saint Anicetus. Surely, he meaneth, that these men were Papists, or else his conclusion is unprooved: and consequently, Papists and Popery were 1400. years ago.  T. B. 
Two things our Friar urgeth, neither of which will do him any service, (viz) my meaning, and the proof of my conclusion. My meaning is clearly uttered, 
See the place▪ Page 129.  when in the Downfall I affirmed Saint Policarpus, Saint Polycrates, and other holy Fathers, to be so far from acknowledging the Bishop of Rome to be the supreme head of the Church, and that he could not err; that they all reputed themselves his equals, touching government Ecclesiastical; that they all reproved him very sharply; that they all with uniform assent, affirmed him to defend a gross error, & to hold a false opinion; and therefore they with might and main withstand his proceedings. Whereas this day, if any Bishops, Magistrates, or other Potentates in the World (where Popery beareth the sway) should do the like; they might all roundly be excommunicated, and not only deposed from their jurisdiction, but also to be burnt with fire and Faggot for their pains. Thus I then wrote, so as our Friar could not doubt of my meaning, but that malice carrieth him away to lying. Well, but how is my conclusion proved? Thus forsooth; I alleged this great contention among the holy Fathers, to prove the uncertainty of obtruded unwritten Traditions in these our days. My Argument was, A maiori ad minus, as the Schools term 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 find no certainty in unwritten Traditions; much less can we trust to unwritten Traditions in these days, when the Pope and his jesuited popelings, employ all their care, study, & industry, to bury the truth of Christ's Gospel under the ground. And so have I both proved my conclusion, and also our Friar to be either full of malice, or a very fool.  S. R. 
Bell denieth the keeping of Lent to be Apostolical, 
Page 389.  because Saint Crysostome writeth, That Christ did not bid us imitate his fast, but be humble; and to be certain, because Eusebius out of jeremy writeth; That in his time some thought we ought to fast one day, some two days, others more, and some forty. Here Bell showeth his lack of judgement, in citing a place clearly against himself. For here Saint Ireney & Eusebius affirm clearly, that at the beginning there was one manner of fasting Lent appointed, though some afterward, either of ignorance or negligence, did break it. Which proveth not the said Tradition to be uncertain in the whole Church, unless Bell will impute the fault of some few to the whole. And by this is answered, what he bringeth out of Socrates touching the diversity of time and meat used in the fast of Lent. Albeit what Socrates saith of the Roman Church, fasting but three weeks before Easter, 
Dist. 8. cap. si consue●udine.  and not on Saturday, is an untruth. See the eight distinction of the Pope's decrees, and note it well.  T. B. 
I proved in the Downfall out of Eusebius Caesariensis, the uncertainty of Popish unwritten Traditions, by the great diversity about the keeping of Lent. Because some thought they ought only to fast one day, some two days, others more days, and some forty. I proved semblably out of Socrates, that the people did differ no less in their manner of eating, than they did in their days of abstaining. For some (saith he) would eat no living thing; othersome of living things, eat only Fish; some together with fish, did eaten also Birds; but some ate only Bread, and others at night eat all kind of meats without difference: yea, he telleth us in the same place, that the Romans fast three weeks before Easter, besides the Sabbaoth and the Lords day. And that the Illirians and Alexandrians do fast six weeks, and yet do they all term their fast, Lent. Here I inferred in the Downfall, the uncertainty of Popish unwritten Traditions. Now our Friar thinketh to answer all this (though a Bulwark invincible) with his only bare Word; (viz) in telling his Reader, that Bell showeth his want of judgement, in bringing a place clearly against himself. Mary Sir, this is a ready answer indeed. If such answers will serve, in vain is all disputation. But our Friar would seem, to yield a reason of this his answer. And what is that? Forsooth, that in the beginning all observed one manner of Fast, though some afterward, either of ignorance or negligence (he cannot tell whether) did break it. To my Testimony out of Socrates, he saith it is an untruth, because the Romans fasted the Saterdays. But I answer thus; First, that the uncertainty of Traditions is hereby so apparent, as it is great impudence to deny the same. For how can there be any certainty, where not only the time of fasting, but also the meats that must be eaten, is uncertain? Both which happen is this case.  
Secondly, that the ancient Cannons of the Apostles confirm Socrates his affirmation; for there is it thus written; Si quis dominicum diem, aut Sabbathun, uno solo dempto, 
Can. 65. ●postlop.  ieiunare deprehendatur, deponitor. If any shall be convicted to fast the Sunday or Sabbaoth, one only excepted, let him be deprived. So then, either our Friar must grant, that Socrates spoke the truth, & that he hath falsely accused him; or else (if he like this better) that the Pope contemned the cannon Apostolical. Yea, the sixth Synod general of Constantinople, affirmeth it to be against the Tradition of the Church, 
Conc. constū● can. 55.  to fast on Saterdaie. Behold here, the comely certainty of Popish Traditions. The Tradition of the church saith, We must not fast on Saturday; the Pope holdeth the contrary; and yet saith our jesuit, Traditions are most certain.  S. R. 
Popish Traditions (saith Bell) tell us, 
Page 393.  that all the Bishops of Rome, one after another, have taught successively the same Doctrine with Saint Peter: howbeit their own dear Friar and learned Doctor, Nicholaus de Lyra, avoucheth plainly, roundly, and boldly, to the whole Christian world; that many bishops of Rome have fallen away from the faith, and become fit Apostates. But well may one be an Apostata, and yet teach the Doctrine of his Predecessor. As S. Peter denied his Master, and yet taught no contrary Doctrine. Saint Marcellin offered sacrifice to Idols, and yet taught no Idolatry. 
joh. 11. 51.  Caiphas murdered Christ, and yet prophesied.  T. B. 
Mark Gentle Reader, the case is so plain, that Popes have swerved from the right faith of Christ, that our Friar cannot deny the same. They may (saith he) be flat Apostates, forsake the Faith, yet never preach a false faith. They may sacrifice to Idols, yet never preach Idolatry. They may deny Christ, yet never preach against Christ. And indeed for preaching, it may be true, in an usual Popish sense & meaning. For since they came to their Lordly primacy, they have abandoned preaching with solemnity. Well, he that list to know what your Popes have been, and what Faith they held, I refer him to my book of Survey, and to my Motives. For I desire to be brief, especially, since our jesuit bringeth nothing to be answered, which was not in effect confuted before it came to light.  S. R. 
Bell telleth us of Constantius baptism, 
Page 394.  but it is a mere Historical Tradition, & concerns no matter of salvation, & it is unawares contested by Bel himself, when he saith, that he hath seen 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 baptised at Rome, in a Font remaining there to this day; & that myself have seen the Fons in which (as they say) he was baptised. Howbeit, Hyeronymus, Eusebius, Socrates, Theodoretus, Sozomenus, Cassiodorus, and Pompontus, do all affirm very constantly, that he was baptised at Nichomedia. But our jesuit thinks it enough to say, that it concerns no matter of faith, & that myself confess unawares, that I have seen the Font, in which they say Constantine was baptized. I answer to the former, that if a man shall go to Rome, and there reprove any Tradition which the Pope holdeth, or practiseth, he shallbe burnt as an Heretic. To the latter, that I only report what I have seen; I neither say, Constantine was christened in it, nor deny the same. This I constantly affirm; that since so many learned men deny it, it must needs argue great uncertainty, in Popish unwritten Traditions.  S. R. 
The Papists (saith Bell) by their Popish Traditions, 
Platin. in vita Bonifacij. 8. & Martin. polon. p. 237. in append.  make some to honour Heretics for saints. For both their own dear friend Platina, and their famous bishop Martinus Polonus do tell us, that the dead corpse of Hermannus were worshipped for a Saints Relics at Ferrara, the space of twenty years together, who for all that (Oh impious Idolatry, and Idolatrous impiety) was a known Heretic, as the same Platina avoucheth. Is not this a strange thing, to make the error of common people a Popish tradition? Besides, Platina affirmeth no such thing himself, but only 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 be one è fraticellis, whose sect at that time abounded. But their Bishop Martinus Polonus, or whosoever was the Author of the appendix joined to his Chronicle, telleth us plainly; that the Masters of the Inquisition sought out the truth of the matter, and caused Harmannus his body to be digged out of the Grave, and to be burnt as an Heretic, and his sumptuous shrine to be pulled down. O holy Worshippers of Devils! But this was but the error of the common people and no Tradition from the Pope. Alas, alas, could such a public concourse of people be in such a famous place as Ferrara, and flock together to adore and worship an Idol in the Church, and the Governors of the Church be ignorant thereof? Nay, would the people have yielded any such worship and adoration, if their Pastors, or the Pope's Catchpoles had not induced them so to do? It is unpossible, they received it by Tradition. And whosoever shall inquire such matters of them, shall find that their ready answer, (viz) that their ancestors have been taught to do so.  S. R. 
The Scriptures (saith Bell) are called Canonical, 
Page 398. Read the Downfall.  because they are the rule of Faith, therefore all things are to be examined by them: And for this cause (saith he) Esay sent us to the Law, and to the Testimony to try the truth, etc. Answer. The Bible alone is called Canonical Scripture, because it alone of all Scriptures the Church followeth, as an infallible rule in believing or defining any thing. But it neither is, nor is called the only Cannon of Faith.  T. B. 
First our jesuit granteth, that the Scripture is the only rule & Cannon which we must follow in believing & defining any thing. That done, he by & by telleth us, that it neither is, nor is called the only Cannon of Faith. This is a wonderment doubtless. The Scripture is an infallible rule to be followed, in believing or defining any thing. This is true, hold thee here good Friar. But what followeth? The Friar will have one foot further, though it cost him dear. But it neither is, nor is called the only Cannon of Faith. Lo, first he granteth the Scripture to be an infallible rule of Faith, and then he denieth it to be the only rule of Faith. Is not that worthy to be the only rule of Faith, which is the infallible rule thereof? Shall we forsake the infallible rule, & betake ourselves to a fallible rule? There is no remedy, the Pope will have it so. The Scripture therefore by Popish grant (GOD reward them for their kindness) is the infallible rule of our faith, but not the only rule of the same, for unwritten Traditions, must be a joint-rule of Faith with it.  
The scripture is an infallible rule, yet not the total but partial rule of the Christian faith's Well, let us hold fast that which our jesuit hath granted afore, (viz) that all things necessary for our salvation, are contained in the Scripture. And let us thereupon conclude, 
Page 284. Page, 285. Page 286.  that Popish faith is as unconstant as the wind, and let us add withal, that it is execrable blasphemy against the son of God, to make man's Traditions a partial rule of our faith. For, as Christ teacheth us, they worship him in vain, that for doctrines, deliver the Precepts of men. Read the Downfall. 
Mat. 15, 9 2 Tim, 3, 15.  Saint Paul telleth us; That the Scriptures are able to make us wise unto salvation. Which being so, we stand in need of no more, it is enough. Let us reply upon the written truth, and let the Papists keep their unwritten vanities to themselves. Nay, let us remember what our jesuit hath told us already, even in these express words; For surely the Prophets & Evangelists writing their Doctrine for our better remembrance, 
Page 285.  would omit no one point, which was necessary to be actually known of every one; especially, seeing they have written many things not so necessary. These are the Jesuits own words, in the Page quoted in the Margin. And yet they contain fully as much as I desire, and the whole truth now in Controversy, whereby the Reader may persuade himself, that it is the truth that I defend, and which the Papists oppugn maliciously, confessing the same unawares.  S. R. 
Bell saith, Saint john bids us Try the spirits; 
Page 400, 1, john, 4.  but he speaks not of Apostolical spirits, nor of Traditious. Besides, he bids us not try them only by scripture, and therefore he maketh nothing for Bells purpose.  T. B. 
What an answer is this? Saint john saith our jesuit, speaks not of Apostolical spirits, nor of Traditions. Saint john speaketh of doubtful spirits, and consequently of all spirits & all Doctrines, not grounded & contained in the holy scriptures. Again, our jesuit saith, He bids not try them by the scripture. Saint john indefinitely bids try the spirits, and seeing he nameth not the way, (though after he giveth some general marks thereof) we have to follow the infallible rule of judging and defining every thing, which Rule or Canon (as our jesuit hath freely granted) is the scripture.  S. R. 
Bell saith, the Berhaeans examined the truth of S. 
Page 399.  Paul's Doctrine. I ask of him whether they were faithful whilst they examined it, or faithless? If faithless? why proposeth he them to us, an example to imitate? If faithful, How could they examine whether that were true or no, 
Acts 17, 11.  which they assuredly believed to be Divine truth? Wherefore they examined not the truth of S. Paul's Doctrine, but searched the scriptures for confirmation and increase of their faith. And this kind of examining, which disallow not.  T. B. 
I answer, that the faithful though they believe the Articles of the Christian faith, yet may they without doubting or staggering, examine unwritten Traditions and what Doctrine else soever, not expressed in the Holy scripture. Take heed of false Prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing. 
Mat, 7, 15. john 5, 39 1. Thes. 5, 21 1 john 4, 1. 1 Cor. 2, 15,  Search the scriptures: try all things: hold fast thaet which is good: Believe not every spirit, but try the spirits if they be of God. The spiritual man judgeth all things. By these Texts of holy writ, it is very clear, that we are not bound rashly to believe all preaching, and much less all unwritten popish Traditions. If we do, we shall unawares adore the devil in Hermannus, as is already proved. Neither did the Berhaeans search the scriptures, only for the confirmation of their faith; but for the Trial of the truth, as the Text avoucheth. And they searched the scriptures daily, if those things were so. Lo, they examined the Doctrine, if it were consonant to the scripture. But here it may be objected, that if every one be a judge, confusion will abound in the Church. To this Objection I have answered at large, in my Book Entitled the Golden Balance. To which place, I refer the Reader, which shall desire satisfaction in that behalf.  S. R. 
Bell faith, that in S. Cyprians days, 
Page, 40●.  neither tradition was a sufficient proof of Doctrine, nor the Pope's definitive sentence a rule of faith. These be both untruths. For he only thought, that human and mistaken tradition was no sufficient rule, as hath been showed before.  T. B. 
S. Cyprian was resolute, that all traditions must be exactly tried by the Holy scripture, as is proved at large in the Downfall, and partly in this reply already. It is needless here to iterate the same.  S. R. 
S. Hierom writing to Damasus, saith thus; 
Page, 403.  Decree I pray you, if it please you; I will not fear to say three Hypostases, if you bid. And he requested him to give authority, either to affirm or deny three Hypostases: and darest thou Bell, make no account of the Pope's sentence, when so great a Doctor so highly esteemed it?  T. B. 
I answer, first that if we believe Friar Austen de Aneona, the Pope in these days, 
In summa Page 152.  hath Universal jurisdiction over all Kingdoms and empires. Secondly, that as Antoninus saith, He hath power over all things, that have any being. 
Aquin. in sup. q. 25. art. 1.  Thirdly, that as Aquinas saith, He hath as much power as Christ himself had, and can give as large Pardons, as Christ himself gave. Fourthly, that as Silvester saith, 
silu. de indulg. 33.  One may have so large a Pardon from the Pope, 
Grat. dist. 22. can. omnes.  that if he chance to die the same hour he hath it, he shall go to heaven out of hand. Fiftly, that as Gratianus telleth us, He beareth the keys of eternal life, the right both of earthly & heavenly Empire. Sixtly, that as the Popish Gloss saith; He hath both swords, the spiritual and the Temporal, 
Lyr. in 16. cap. Mat.  and by that means, he can translate Empires. seventhly, that as Nicolaus de Lyra his own dear friar telleth him; He may be an Apostata, and forsake the faith, as many of his predecessors have done. Eightly, that as Friar Caranza saith, He may enter into the Popedom as a Fox, live in it as a Wolf, and die as a Dog. 
Carranz. in tom, 1. council, Dist 40. cap. si papa.  Ninthly, that as his own Decrees tell us, though he be so wicked that he carry many thousands to Hell with him, yet may no mortal man judge him. No marvel therefore, if our jesuit demand of one, how I dare control his dealing. Yet by his favour, I may tell him with humility, that Damasus was a Virtuous, Wise, and Learned Bishop, and of great Authority by reason of his place, and for that end did S. Hierome think it fit in the troublous state of the Church, (when the Arrians did every where molest the Christians) to have his counsel and assistance, in the chiefest point than in controversy. Like as in these our days, greater personages, and better learned, will not sometime disdain, to have the opinion and judgement of meaner men. I add, that Sa. Hierome knew right well, that it was a thing merely Adiaphoron, and therefore was therein resolved, to do as Damasus should give advise.  S. R. 
Bellarmine (saith Bell) telleth us, that the greater part of voices must bear the sway in Counsels. 
Page 409.  But Melchior Canus a learned Popish Bishop, doth roundly tell us another tale. It is not (saith he) with us as it is within humane assemblies, where more voices ever prevail. For these matters are not to be judged by number, but by weight. And the Counsels receive their weight from the gravity and authority of the Pope. Ergo (saith Bell.) There is no certainty in Counsels. A goodly reason surely, as if nothing in counsels were certain, because two Bishops cannot agree of the Pope's authority.  T. B. 
The reason is strong against you, for in these late days the Pope taketh so much upon him, that we see, the best learned Papists know not, what to think of the decree.  S. R. 
Bellarmine (saith Bell) in one place saith, 
Page 411.  that the Consistory of Bishops in lawful counsels, is the true assembly of judges, and that their decrees and Laws must be observed of necessity. Yet in another place he saith, it is all one, whether the Pope disannul the Council expressly, or the Council do against the Pope's mind. This is no Contradiction, for though he affirm bishops to be judges, and their judgement to be necessarily followed, yet must not that be, before it be confirmed by the Pope.  T. B. 
Let the Reader give his censure; The case is evident.  S. R. 
Bell citeth M●lchior Canus, 
Page 415.  affirming that the Pope cannot communicate his judicial power to his Legates, whom he sendeth to Counsels; 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 thither the Lord Chancellor to supply his place, will nevertheless approve nothing what the Peers do●, or decree, unless himself judgeth it convenient.  T. B. 
The Pope's dealing is shameful, and this manner of defending him more shameful. For first, humane things and divine are not alike, as your own Doctor Canus telleth us. Secondly, all Princes I think, come in their proper persons to all their parliaments. Thirdly, though Princes negatively cashier & disannul such things, as they deem not convenient for God's glory, and the good of their people; yet do they never affirmatively establish any Law, without the joint consent of the Lords Spiritual, Lords Temporal, and the Commons. Fourthly, there is great disparity in the Persons, for, the Prince may do much more in his Kingdom, than the Pope in general Counsels.  
First, because the Pope of right, neither can call counsels, nor yet confirm the same. This is proved in my Survey of Popery, and in my Golden balance of trial.  
Secondly, because every King is supreme head over all persons in his Kingdoms; not so the Pope over all Kings and people, in the Christian World. Neither doth the Pope in person, come to Councils at all of late days.  S. R. 
Bell citeth Bell●rmine, 
Page, 413.  for the emperors sitting in Councils above the Pope: Ergo, the East Church never acknowledged his primacy. Who seeth not the weakness of this reason?  T. B. 
Our jesuit falsifieth my words, and then descanteth at his pleasure upon them. 
Page 121.  These are my words, as it may appear in the Downfall. The pope was never present at the Councils in the East Churches, by himself, and in his own person. The conclusion is freely confessed by Bellarmine, who allegeth two reasons, for the Pope's absence. The one forsooth, because it was not convenient, that the head should follow the members. The other, because the Emperor would ever sit in the highest place. Out of these words I noted two points of importance; the one, that in the Ancient Church, the highest place in the Counsels, was ever reserved to the Emperor. The other, that the East Churches did never acknowledge the Pope's primacy, which he this day challengeth over all Kingdoms and Regalities most arrogantly. To which twain, this pleasant adjunct perforce must be annexed: (viz) that our humble Father the Pope (who hypocritically calleth himself Sernus servorum Dei,) would never come to the Counsels, because forsooth he could not endure to see the Emperor sitting in the highest place. Now the Reader hath the truth, let him him give his censure accordingly.  S. R. 
Bell inferreth divers things requisite to be answered. 
Page 416.   T. B. 
But ye both propound them as is best for your own advantage, and answer them either with silence, or nothing to the purpose. But let us be content with that we can get, and make our best commodity thereof. Say on good Friar, thou shalt be heard with all favour.  S. R. 
First, Bishops before they can be admitted in counsels (saith Bell) must swear, 
Page 416.  that the Pope can depose all Emperors, and Kings in the Christian world. Secondly, they swear to admit the Pope's decrees, whom they freely grant may be an Heretic. Thirdly, they swear obedience to him in matters of Faith, whom (as themselves confess) they can depose for heresy. Fourthly, that the pope is not supreme judge of controversies, seeing Bishops may examine and judge, whether what he commandeth be agreeable to God's word, & the Canons. Lastly, that they swear flat rebellion against their sovereigns, seeing they swear to defend the Pope's primacy, against all men whomsoever.  T. B. 
Let us examine this honest tale, made in the behalf of the Pope, and for the benefit of the Reader, let us both hear it, and answer it particularly.  S. R. 
As for the first point, it is untrue, as appeareth by the answer to the first article.  T. B. 
The first point is, that the Pope can depose Emperors and Kings. Our Friar denieth it, and sendeth the Reader to the first Article. I agree also, that the Reader peruse my reply with the Downfall, & then yield his censure accordingly, for that the Pope challengeth such power (though the jesuit for shame here denieth it) it is as clear as the Sun shining at noonday.  S. R. 
The second and third contain no inconvenience. 
The Pope's doctrine must be obei●d, though he be an Heretic.  For we must obey what he decreeth or defineth judicially, as sitting in S. Peter's chair; though in heart he were an Heretic: as our Saviour commanded the jews to follow what the Scribes taught out of Moses Chair, but to abstain from their private Leaven.  T. B. 
The second point was, that the Bishops swear to admit his Canons and decrees, whom they freely grant, may be an Heretic. The third point was, that the Bishops swear obedience to him in matters of Faith, whom they can depose for heresy. These points which our jesuit proposeth covertly (because he would not have the Reader to understand then) must never be forgotten. We must (saith our Friar) obey & believe what the Pope decreeth judicially, though in heart he be an Heretic. This is strange Doctrine to a Christian heart, though approved of all Papists. It is not amiss here to add, the Testimony of their grave Quodl betist. These are his words; As the prudent Greek appealed from Alexander furious, to Alexander sober; and Bishop Crostate from Pope Adrian private, to Pope Adrian public, and as Summus pontifex in Cathedra Petri, so may the Seculars appeal from the Pope as Clemens, unto his holiness as Peter. These words are expressly set down. Quodl. 6. art. 10. By this Doctrine so plainly delivered (which is a constant position in the Romish Church) the Secular Priests give us to understand, that execrable and never enough detested fallacy, wherewith the Pope & his popelings, have a long time seduced a great part of the Christian world, (viz) that the Pope may err as a private man, but not as a public person. Of which absurd Doctrine I have written at large in my Treatise, entitled The Hunting of the Romish Fox. I will therefore for the present only speak thereof, as these words give me fit occasion.  
First then; we see here, that if we mean to wring any truth out of the Pope's nose, we must have recourse to his holiness, at such time as he is sober; not when he is furious lest he become stark mad, & forget for ever the knowledge of the truth.  
Secondly, we must have his advise, when he is a public person, not a private man.  
Thirdly, we must go unto him, not as he is indeed, this or that Pope, but as he is S. Peter, that blessed Apostle of our Lord jesus. Thus much is deduced out of this popish Doctrine, by evident and necessary consecution. These points, if they be well marked, will utterly confound all popish Doctrine, and turn it upside down. For first, it is a constant Axiom in all popish Doctrine, that the Pope and none but the pope, must be the judge in all controversies of faith and Doctrine.  
This notwithstanding, we see by this popish doctrine (which is currant in the Romish Church) that if the Pope judge of any matter, as he is furious and not sober; as he is a private man, and not a public person; as he is Clemens, Sixtus, Adrianus, or some other like pope, and not Saint Peter himself; then may he err, and so both be deceived himself, and deceive all others. Whereupon it followeth of necessity, that every one must well examine the pope's Doctrine and judgement, before he believe it, otherwise doubtless, he may receive poison for medicine, falsehood for truth, and erroneous, for Orthedoxe Christian doctrine. Nay, otherwise he cannot possibly tell, when he shall appeal from the pope, as a false teacher and seducer of the people.  
Secondly, the time cannot be named, in which the Bishop of Rome, shall be the Bishop there, & not a public person at the self-same time, for even then when he is a sleep, he is a public person, or else no Bishop doubtless. For once a Bishop ever a Bishop, by Popish indelible Character. Yet I willingly grant, that a public person may do some act, which may be censured the act of a private man; but that cannot serve their turn.  
Thirdly, If the Papists will never appeal to the pope, nor have any intercourse with him, until he be Saint Peter, they shall never do it, till the world's end.  
Fourthly, if he be Peter by Office or calling, then is he always Peter; unless perhaps he be sometime Lucifer, which were a rare Metamorphosis.  
Fiftly, this Popish distinction, may fitly be termed a trick of fast and loose. For, if the Pope define a truth, they may then say, he defined as a public person. But if he define an error, than they say, he defined as a private man. So doubtless it may be said indeed, that he can never err, but some man in his robes, or some Devil under his pall. Briefly, on the one side (as we have heard already) the Pope commands upon pain of Sacrilege, not to dispute of his power, nor to examine his doings, and yet on the other side, we must know whether he speak and define as a public person, or as a private man, before we believe his decrees: which knowledge for all that can no way be had, but by due examination of the pope's doings. What remaineth but to exclaim and complain to our trusty friends (as the great learned Papist Gielerius did) that by this Popish Doctrine no man can go to heaven.  S. R. 
For we must obey and believe what he decreeth judicially, though in heart he be an Heretic.  T. B. 
Then sir, we must examine the doctrine which the pope delivereth, to know whither it proceedeth from the Pope as a public person, or as a private man. For otherwise we may as soon receive deadly poison, as wholly medicine; and as soon worship Harmannus the Heretics bones, as the relics of S. Peter, or S. Paul. But this examination the Pope forbids and yourself (Master Friar) tells us the same tale in your next words, which are these; Because Bishops must not examine the Doctrine, which the Pope delivereth judicially out of S. Peter's chair, as supreme pastor of God's Church, but only that, wherein he uttereth his own private Opinion. Thus writeth our jesuit, truly telling us the Popish faith. Which Doctrine, if any but a Papist had delivered it, few or none would have given credit thereunto. O sweet jesus! I wonder how any Papist hearing such Doctrine published in print, by our Jesuits, so dear & so near to the Pope himself, and duly pondering the vanity thereof, and the blasphemy therein contained, can still be a Papist, and not defy the Pope & his damnable doctrine. What shall we do with holy scripture? Is it the infallible rule of faith? Is it superior to the Pope's judicial sentence? No, no, if the Pope define against it, his sentence must be obeyed, neither may any Bishop, (much less every private man) examine the same, or else call it into Question, Apage, Apage, fire & faggot for such rotten Popery, God will vomit it out of his mouth.  S. R. 
As our Saviour commandeth the jews to follow, 
Page, 419 Mat, 23, 3  what the Scribes taught out of Moses' chair, but to abstain from their private leaven.  T. B. 
You pope sitteth in Cathedra pestilentiae, & not in Cathedra petri. I have proved it elsewhere at large; here I will add one point or two, 
In the Golden Balance of Trial.  for the Readers better satisfaction in this behalf. johannes Gerson a famous Papist and chancellor of Paris teacheth so plainly, that Popes may err not only as private men, but even as public persons in their public and judicial decrees of faith and manners, as none for very shame can deny the same, that shall either read or hear his words. 
Gers. in serm. de pace. page, 3  Thus therefore doth h●e write; Propter quod insuper apparet falsitas doctrinae papae johannis 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 falsehood of the Doctrine of Pope john, which was condemned by the sound of Trumpets, before king Philip by the Divines of Paris, & the king believed rather the divines then the court (of Rome.) Out of these words I note first, that the Doctrine of pope john 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 gave more credit to the Divines of Paris, then to the Court of Rome; that is, then to the pope and his Cardinals.  
Fiftly, that the great Learned Doctors of the most famous University of Paris, gave sentence against the pope's Opinion.  
Sixtly, that neither the king, nor the learned papists, did in those days grant such authority to the Pope, as now adays the Pope arrogantly challengeth to himself, whereupon it followeth consequently, that the Pope taught false Doctrine, even in a weighty matter of faith. To which is consectary, that his Doctrine was public, as which was publicly condemned at Paris, and that in the presence of the King. But now kings must not deal in such matters, where the Pope's holiness beareth any sway. Yet thus dealt the King of France with the Pope, almost 300. years ago. I think it not amiss here to insinuate to the Reader, how the kings of France have used the Pope's Messengers. Boniface the eight falling at variance with King Phillippe the fair, would needs excommunicate him, but there was never excommunication cost Pope so dear, as that did him, for his Nuncios were committed prisoners his B●l●es burnt, and Bonif●ce himself being taken by Naveret Chancellor of France, presently after died for very sorrow. Wherein king Phillippe did nothing, but by the Counsel & consent of the whole Clergy of France. So Bennet the 13. otherwise called peter de Luna, interdicted Charles the sixth and his Realm, but the king sitting in his Throne of justice in the Parliament or high Court of Paris, the 21. of May. 1408. gave sentence, that the Bull should be rend in pieces, and that Gonsalue and Conseloux the bearers thereof, should be set upon a pillory, and publicly notified and traduced in the pulpit Which decree was accordingly put in execution in the month of August, with the greatest scorn that could be devised, the two Nuntioes or Legates having this inscription upon their Mitres; These men ●re 〈◊〉 to the Church, and to the King. These words are put down by the French papists, in their book called the Jesuits Catechism, 
〈◊〉 3. cap. 17, fol, 182.  translated into English by the secular priests. But because our papists stand so much upon this ●ond and most foolish distinction of the pope's double person, and that he cannot err in his public sentence and decrees, I will have once a bout again, to beat it better into the Readers head, that the Pope both may err, and hath De facto erred, in his judicial sentence and public Decree. Mark well my discourse. Pope Adrian (saith Alphonsus, 
Alphons. ● Castro. lib. 3 advers. hoer. prope finem.  a very learned man and a zealous Papist) hath these express words; Now ss●●e fertur de Ioh●nne 〈◊〉. q●ò● publice docuit, 〈◊〉, & ab omnibus teneri mandavit, quò● 〈◊〉 purgatae a●te fiuale judicium non habent stolam, quae 〈…〉 facialis visio Dei; & vn●uersitatem Parisieasem ad 〈◊〉 duxisse dicitur, quod nemo in ea poterat gradum in Theologic adipisci, 〈◊〉 primitus hunc errorem iurass●tse de●ens●r●m, & porpetuo ei adhaesurum.  
Last of all, it is reported of Pope john the 22. that he publicly taught, declared, and commanded all men to hold, that the souls of the just before the day of judgement, have not the Stole which is the clear and facial vision of God. And he is reported to have induced the University of Paris to this; that none should take degree in Theology, but he that did first swear to defend this error, & to adhere to it for ever. Thus writeth Adrian, who himself was bishop of Rome. And Alphonsus a man of high esteem in the Church of Rome, after he had reckoned up five Heresies, setteth down this for the sixth; (That the souls of the just do not see God till the day of doom) ascribing the said Heresy to the armenians as to the Authors thereof, and to the greeks together with pope john, as to the patrons and Defenders of the same. here the Gentle Reader must observe seriously, lest he be sedused with the colourable gloss of the jesuit Bellarmine, who seeing the force of this Testimony, to overthrow, the highest point in popery, bestirreth himself mightily in defence of the popish faith. He telleth us forsooth, if we will believe him, (as none will that have either any wit or reason) that pope john erred in deed, as Adrian and Alphonsus witness, but he did that as a private man (saith our jesuit) not as pope of Rome. Which distinction doubtless, wanteth not only a good foundation whereupon it should be built, but also it flatly destroyeth the plain Text; the reason is evident, even to every child.  
First, because it is said, Docuit, he taught.  
Secondly, because it is said; Publice, publicly.  
Thirdly, because it is said; Mandavit, he commanded all to hold it.  
Fourthly, because none could be made Graduates in the Schools of Theology, which held not this Opinion.  
Fiftly, because every graduate was sworn to defend it, & to hold it for ever. So then, the pope may err, & the pope hath erred De facto, & that not only in his private opinion, as a private man, but even in his judicial and public sentence, as a public person and pope of Rome. This argument is insoluble; it will never be truly answered, while the world stands. This is enough, yet we will be content, in way of congratulation to our jesuit, to say a little more. 
Alphons. lib. 1. cap. 4. adu. haeres.  Pope Celestine the third of that name, erred as Pope and public person in his judicial sentence and public decree.  
This to be so, Alphonsus afore named, is a constant witness, in these express 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 ut illūerrasse dicamus, velut privatam personam, & n●n ut 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 faithful, whereof the one is fallen into Heresy, is a thing so manifest, as all men know the same. Neither was this error of pope Celestine such, that it cannot be imputed to sole negligence, so as we may think him to have erred as a private man, and not as pope, who ought in the Decree of every serious matter, to ask Counsel of learned men. 
This point st●keth dead  For that definition and Decree of Celestine was in the old Decretals, in the Chapter Laudabilem; which I myself have seen, and read. Out of these words of Alphonsus, (who was a man both very Learned, and a zealous papist) I observe many worthy lessons, for the good of the thankful Reader.  
First, that pope Celestine erred, and that, not as a private man, but even as pope and public person. Mark this, (Gentle Reader,) for it striketh dead, and clearly taketh a ●ay the frivolous distinction of the pope's double person. The words are very easy and plain; He erred, (sayeth the Text,) not as a private man, but even as he was pope and Bishop of Rome, no denial can be made.  
Secondly, that the Pope erred in a very serious matter, even in a matter of Popish faith; (viz) that Matrimony was so dissolved by reason of Heresy, that the faithful man or woman might marry again, the Heretical party living. Which thing, saith Alphonsus, was manifest to every man to be an Heresy, and the late Counsel of Trent, hath defined it to be so.  
Thirdly, that this Decree and definition of Pope Celes●●●e, was in those days enroled in the pope's Deorctals.  
Fourthly, that Alphonsus saw and read the same.  
Fiftly that the said Decree cannot this day be found, among the Pope's Decretal Epistles. Where I wish the Reader to note by the way, that the Decrees of our holy fathers the Popes, have been such and so much against late Popery, that they are ashamed to bring them now to light. 
Canus de loc● lib. 6, cap. ●. in fine. pagina. 189.  Yea, Melchior Canus, though otherwise he be a great learned Papist, telleth us plainly and roundly, that johannes Gerson, jacobus Almanus, and Thomas Waldensis, all three being famous Papists, and very learned writers, do constantly hold and defend, that the pope as pope & public person, may err judicially in a matter of faith. Now, where our jesuit objecteth Christ's words, commanding the jews to follow the Doctrine which the Scribes taught out of Moses' chair; 
Mat, 23, 3.  I answer, that our Saviour Christ seeing many things amiss in the Scribes and Pharisees, thought it m●ete and convenient to give the people warning thereof, and he wisely tempereth his admonition, lest they should reject the good together with the evil. For to teach the Law and the prophets, which was to sit in Moses' Chair, or to execute Moses' Authority, (which was all one in effect) was a thing very honest and lawful. Christ, therefore commanded the people to obey them, and to do whatsoever they bid them do; but this must be understood with this limitation; so long as they taught & commanded ex cathedra, that is; agreeable to God's Law, not otherwise. This to be the true sense and meaning of Christ's words, I have proved not only out of Saint Austen and Saint Hylary, but also out of Nicholaus de Lyra, and Dionysius Carthusianus, two learned Papists, and Religious Friars. The Reader may find their words at large, in my Golden balance of trial; with solutions to all other Objections, that can be made in this behalf. But I must needs put the Reader in mind of one thing, that even now cometh to my remembrance, (viz) of one of the Popes own decrees, in which I find these express words; 
Dist. 40. cap. multi sacerdotes.  Multisacerdotes, & pauci sacerdotes. Multi in nomine, & pauci in opere. Videte ergo fratres, quomodo sed●tis super cathedram. Quia non cathedra facit sacerdotem, sed sacerdos cathedram. Non locus sanctificat hominem, sed homo sanctificat locum. Non omnis sacerdos santcus, sed omnis sanctus est sacerdos. Qui bene sederit super cathedram, honorem accipit cathedrae. Qui male sederit, iniuriam facit cathedrae. Many Priests, and few Priests. Many in name, and few in work. Therefore my Brethren, beware how you sit upon the Chair. For, not the Chair makes a Priest, but the Priest makes the Chair. The place doth not sanctify the Man, but the man sanctifies the place. Every Priest is not an holy man, but every holy man is a Priest. He that shall sit well in the Chair, receives the honour of the Chair, but he that sits evil, doth injury to the Chair. Thus saith the Pope's own Decree; which would to GOD the Pope and his jesuited Popelings, did this day put in practice christianly. Let not the Popes henceforth, boast of sitting in Peter's Chair. Let them know that they be many in name, but few in work. They have not these hundred years, preached an hundred Sermons. What? say I, an hundred Sermons. For, so far as I can learn, not one at all. Therefore as the Popes own Cannons tell us, the Pope's dishonour Saint Peter's Chair.  S. R. 
Bell avoucheth an untruth upon the Rhemists, 
Page 418.  affirming them to say, that the determination of Counsels, is needless, because the Pope's judgement alone is infallible.  T. B. 
Bell chargeth both you and your Rhemists truly; and your religious Friar, 
Alphons. lib. 1. cap. 2. fol. 4. c.  Alphonsus de Castro, shall be the umpire in this mystery. These are his words; At papam, solum absque congregatione concilij, posse in iis 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 Council, may err in things pertaining to the Faith, many Divines of high esteem, do hold and affirm; yea, it is most certain, that some Popes have erred in the Faith. Again, if the Pope's authority alone, were as sure & sound, as the whole Council fully and lawfully assembled; then doubtless, in vain should such pains be taken, in calling a Council together. Thus writeth this learned Popish Friar, affirming stoutly and resolutely mine illation against the Rhemists. For this which I have often told the Papists, will in the end be found an undoubted and invincible truth, (viz) that I defend no point of Doctrine against the Papists, which the best learned Papists do not approve in their printed Books. And here by the way, I note out of this Popish Doctor, that many great learned Papists do constantly affrim, that the Pope may err in matters of faith; as also that sundry Popes have De facto, erred already. Now in God's name, let us proceed to the mighty Traedition, (viz) of the Bible itself.  S. R. 
Whence have we the Apostles Creed, but by Tradition, as testify Saint Hierome, 
Page 365.  Saint Austen, and Ruffinus? Whence the perpetual virginity of our blessed Lady? Whence the lawful transferring of the Sabbaoth day from Saturday to Sunday? Whence many other things, as testify S. Hierome, S. Cyprian, and others, but by Tradition? But especially, whence have we the Bible itself? Whence have we, that every Book, Chapter, and verse of it, is God's word; and no one sentence therein corrupted in all these 1600. years?  T. B. 
This is nothing else, but ridiculous and irksome tautology. It is answered again, and again. The Apostles Creed we have by Tradition in compendious manner, but it is contained in the written Word. As the Fathers admit many Traditions, so do I with the Church of England. For we reject no Tradition, unless it be either repugnant to holy Writ, or else obtruded as a necessary point of Salvation. Which if the Reader mark seriously, he shall find the jesuit at a Non plus. Concerning the Bible, that it hath not been corrupted for these 1600. years; I answer, that this blessing cometh not from the late Romish Church, but from the GOD of Heaven, who preserved the old Testament from corruption, when it was longer in the hands of the wicked jews. How we know it to be the word of GOD, I have showed at large in the Downfall, and think it needless here to iterate the same. Yet as our jesuit shall give occasion, some more shall be added by way of reply.  S. R. 
Bells first answer is, that there is great difference betwixt the primitive Church, 
Page. 365.  & the Church of late days. For the Apostles heard Christ's 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 Christ's Church of late days, avouching her neither to be replenished with the holy-ghost, contrary to our creed professing her to be holy and Christ's promise, 
joh. 14, 16. 1 l●. 3. 15.  that the holy-ghost should remain with her for ever. Nor to be a fit Witness of his truth, contrary to Saint Paul, calling her the Pillar of Truth.  T. B. 
The blasphemy proceedeth from yourselves, & from your pope, to whom you ascribe such a prerogative as is proper to God alone, when you tell us he cannot err. I therefore answer, that the true Church of God is holy, hath the assistance of the holy-ghost, and is a constant witness of Christ's truth. But these promises pertain not to the church of Rome, but to the whole congregation of the faithful. 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 eternal life. This proposition is proved at large, in my Survey of Popery. It is now enough, to admonish the Reader thereof. For I have proved it, both by the Testimony of the holy Fathers, and of the best approved Popish Writers. One or two shall now suffice. 
Alphon. adu. haer. lib. 1. c. 6  Alphonsus that famous Popish Friar, hath these words; Ecclesiamil●tans est fidelium omnium, congregatio, quae corpus unum est, cuius caput est Christus. The Church militant is the Congregation of all the faithful, which is one body, whereof Christ is the head. Thus writeth our religious Friar. Who would have thought, that a Popish Friar should or would, thus have defined the Church? The Jesuits will not thus define it. here is no mention of the pope, and yet of the Popish Church he is the head. He that opened the mouth of Balaams' Ass, opened now the mouth of our Friar Alphonsus. The truth must and will in time prevail. Panormitanus a Popish Abbot, 
Panor. de elect. cap. signif.  a Popish Archbishop, and a Popish Cardinal, hath these express words; Licet concilium generale representet totamecclesiam universalem, tamen in veritate i●i non est vera ecclesia un versalis, sed repr●sentatiuè quia vniuer salis ecclesia constituilur, excollectione omnium sidelium; unde omnes sideles orbis constitunt istam ecclesiam universalem, cuius cap●t & sponsus est Christus. Sequ tur, & ista est illa ecclesia, que errare non potest. Although a general Council represent the whole universal Church, yet in truth, there is not the true universal Church, but representatinely: for the Universal Church consisteth of the collection of all the faithful. Wherefore all the faithful in the world make this Universal Church, whose head and Spouse is Christ. And this Church is it, that cannot err: yea, the Popes own gloss upon his own Decrees, doth most lively describe that Church which cannot err, to be the congregation of the faithful. Thus is it there written in express words; Quaero, de qua ecclesia intelligas, 
Caus. 24. q. 1 cap. àrecta.  quod hic dicitur, quod non possit errare. Siipso papa, certum est quod papa errare potest. Respondeo, ipsa congregatio sidelium hic dicitur ecclesia, & talis ecclesia non potest nonesse. I ask thee (O pope Luci) of what Church thou understands that, which thou tellest us in this place? To wit, that the church cannot err. For if thou understandest it of the pope himself, it is very certain that the pope may err. I answer therefore, that the church is here taken for the congregation of the faithful, & such a church can never err (indeed.) Out of these words of these great Papists, I note: First, that the Church is the Vnïuersall Congregation of the faithful, throughout the whole World; whereof the head is not the Pope, but Christ jesus our Lord.  
Secondly, that this is that Church, which cannot err.  
Thirdly, that when the Pope saith, the Church cannot err, than his own dear and faithful interpreter telleth him, that that privilege is not granted to the Pope, but to the whole congregation of the faithful. And the said Gloss proveth the same, by many Canons of the pope's own Decrees.  
Fourthly, that the church in which the truth always abideth, is the congregation of the faithful: and therefore truly said Durandus; that the late popish church is not comparable to the primitive. Church, which heard Christ's Doctrine, saw his Miracles, and was replenished with the Holy-ghost.  S. R. 
But suppose, that the present Church could not be a fit witness, 
Page 36●.  as the primitive was. What is this to the Argument, that proveth necessity of Tradition, because without Testimony of the Church, we cannot discern true Scripture from false.  T. B. 
The visible external church, is only an external mean, Instrument, or outward help, whereby we are induced to give humane credit, to one Scripture rather than to another. But the formal cause why we believe any Scripture to be God's word, is God himself, and the inspiration of his holy spirit. Hereof occasion will be offered, to speak hereafter more at large.  S. R. 
Bells second answer is, that as Papists admit the jews Tradition of the old Testament for God's word, 
Page 367.  and withal refuse many other Traditions of theirs; so Protestants admit this Tradition of the Bible, and reject all other. We contend against Protestants, that Scripture is not sufficient to prove all points of Christian faith, but that Tradition is necessary for some: and Bell here confesseth it. Where is now the Downfall of Popery? Methinks, it is become the Downfall of protestantry. Where is now Bells first exposition? That Scripture containeth in it, every Doctrine necessary to man's Salvation? Where is now, that we must not add to God's word, if this Tradition must needs be added thereunto? Where is now, that this present church can be no fit witness, if by her testimony we come to know the truth? Where is now the curse, which S. Paul pronounceth against him, that preacheth any Doctrine not contained in the Scripture? Where is now, that Scripture is the sole and only rule of faith?  T. B. 
Here our jesuit in all bravery, triumphing before the victory, exclaimeth six several times, where is now this, and where is now that? And when all is done, his exclamation is not worth a dead Rat. Whosoever shall duly peruse the Downfall, will easily perceive therein, that all which our jesuit hath brought in all this his great glory, was sound confuted before it came to light. Nevertheless, for the better contentation of the Christian Reader, I thus reply upon our Lordly Friar.  
First, 
Alphons. adverse haer●s. lib. 1. ca 8  with their own dear Friar Alphonsus à Castro, in the words; Hocn. habemus ex ecclesia ut, sciamus quae sit scriptura divina: at cum Scripturam ●sse divinam nobis constiterit, iam ex seipsa habet, ut ei per omnia credere teneamur. It cometh from the Church, that we know which is holy Scripture: but after we know it to be the holy Scripture, henceforth it hath of itself, that we are bound to believe it in every 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) witness should be brought for the proof of an Instrument, in which Peter standeth bound to pay to john 100 crowns, the witnesses do not make Peter to be bound to john. For although Peter should deny it, and no Witnesses could prove it, Peter for all that should owe the debt. But the Witnesses effect so much, that he may be convicted to owe the debt. Much more to this effect hath Alphonsus, but I desire to be brief. This I infer out of his words, that though we grant the Scriptures to be known by the Testimony of the Church; yet after that notification, it deserveth credit of itself, for every jot contained in the same.  
Secondly, that seeing the Scripture acknowledged for God's word of all Christians, containeth by the Jesuits confession (as is already proved) all things necessary for christian belief unto Salvation; it followeth of necessity, that no unwritten Tradition is necessary to Salvation. For doubtless, if every Article, and all things necessary to salution be written; then can nothing at all be necessary, that remaineth unwritten.  
Thirdly, I constantly avouch and christianly affirm, (mark gentle Reader attentively) that the holy Scripture dow show itself to be God's word; even as the Sun and the Candle by their light, do show themselves what they are. I prove it: First, because the Prophet calls the Scripture a Lantern. 
Psal. 119, 105.  Thy word O Lord (saith holy David) is a Lantern to my feet, and a light unto my paths. And the Apostle confirmeth the same, 
2. Pet. 1. 19  when he saith; We have a right sure word of prophesy, whereunto if ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, ye do well, until the day dawn, and the daystar arise in your hearts.  
Secondly, because Christ himself telleth us, that his Sheep do hear his voice. 
john, 10. 27. john, 10, 14.  My Sheep (saith he) hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. Again thus; I am the good Shepherd, I know my Sheep, and they know me. But C●rtes, if it be true, (as it is most true, because the truth itself hath spoken it) that Christ's Sheep hear Christ, and know Christ's voice, then must it needs be true in like manner, that when they either read the scriptures, or hear them read, than they know Christ speaking in the same, and hear his voice. Toletus a jesuit & Cardinal of Rome, 
T●●●t. in I●han cap. 10.  hath these express words; 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. oves cognoscunt me, quia ego cogn●sco eas. God's elect and predestinate Children, do know Christ their Pastor infallibly; because albeit they err for a time, yet in the end they will know their true Shepherd: for of necessity they must know Christ. For therefore do my Sheep know me, because I know them. Thus writeth our jesuit, out of whose words I note first, that all God's children are not effectually called at one time, but err and wander as sheep without a shepherd; but ever in the end they acknowledge Christ their true Shepherd.  
●●condly, that Christ's Sheep know Christ, not because the Church showeth Christ to them, but because Christ knoweth them. This point must be well marked, that Christ's sheep therefore know Christ, because Christ first knoweth them; not because the church make Christ known unto them. Ergo they know the scripture to be God's word, because Christ, not the church, showeth it unto them.  
Thirdly, because the spiritual man (as the Apostle writeth) judgeth all things, 
1 Cor. 2, 15  and himself is judged of no man. Ergo he can judge the holy Bible to be God's word. For doubtless, he that can judge every thing, can especially judge that thing, which is most necessary for him. And consequently, He can judge truth from falsehood, God's word from the word of every creature. This reason is confirmed, by the constant Testimony of many famous papists. Dionysius Carthusianus hath these words; Spiritualis autem hom● in quo est spiritus dei, judicat, id est, 
Carthus. in 1. Cor. 2  ben● discernit omnia adsalutem pertinentia, de singulis talibus verum judicum proferendo, inter bonum & malum, verum & falsum veraciter distinguendo. The spiritual man which hath the spirit of God, judgeth and truly discerneth all things, which pertain to salvation, provouncing true judgement of every such thing, and truly distinguishing between good and evil, truth and falsehood. 
Lyran. in hunc loc●●.  Nicolaus de Lyra affordeth the same exposition to this Text of scripture. The famous popish writer Aquinas is of the same mind. 
Aquinas in 1. cor. 2.  These are his words: Apostolls hic dicit, quod spiritualis iud●●at omnia; quia (s●lt) homo habeus intellectum illustratii, & affectum ordinatum per spiritum sanctum, de singulis quae pertinent ad salutem rectum indicium habet? The Apostle here saith, that the spiritual man judgeth all things, because forsooth a man having his understanding enlightened, and his affection ordered by the Holy-ghost, hath a right judgement of all things which pertain to salvation. johannes Hosmeisterus hath these words; 
Hosmeist. in 1. cor. 2.  Spiritualis fide sua eo penetrate, ut omnia quae sunt spiritus Dei dijudicare possit, nec judicio su● fallatur, ut bonum dicat malum, vel stultum 〈◊〉 est sapientissimun. The spiritual man doth penetrate so far by his faith, that he is able to iudg all things that are of the spirit of God, neither can he be deceived in his judgement, that he either call Good, evil; or that foolish, which is most wise. Out of the words of these great popish Doctors, (who are ever the best witnesses against the papists, I observe these instructions for the Reader.  
First, that every regenerate person and child of God, (for all such are Spiritual) is able to judge of every thing, that concerns his salvation; and consequently, which is falsehood, which is God's word, which is not; because that especially pertains to his salvation.  
Secondly, that every child of God is able by his faith to wade so far, that he can judge of all needful truth, and whatsoever is convenient for his soul's health, & never be deceived in his judgement.  
Fourthly, 
1. joh. 2. 27.  because S. john tells us, that the unction which the faithful have received, doth teach them all things; Ergo to discern God's word from man's word. Melchior Canus a learned schoolman  and a famous Bishop, teacheth us the self-same Doctrine in plainer terms. These are his express words: Praestanti quod in se est, Deus fidem ad salutem necessariam non negat. 
Cam●● de lo. cis theol. lib. 2. cap. 8. fol. 29. b. et. fol. 30, ●.  Sequitur; non. n. unctio quemcunque simpliciter docet de omnibus, sed quemque de his quae sunt cipropria & necessaria. Sequitur; concedimus liberaliter doctrinam cuique in sua vita & statu necessariam, illi fore prospectan & cognitam, qui fecerit voluntatem Dei. Sicut n. gustus bene affectus, differentias saporum facilè descernit: sic animi optima affectio facit, ut homo doctrinam dei ad salutem necessariam discernat ab errore contrario qui ex deo non est. To the man that doth what in him lieth, God never denieth faith necessary to salvation. For the unction doth not simply teach every one every thing; but it teacheth every one so much, as is proper and necessary for him. And we grant freely, that doctrine necessary for every man's life and state, is sufficiently known to him, that doth the will of God. For like as the well affected taste, doth easily discern the differences of savours or tastes; so doth the good affection of the mind bring to pass, that a man may discern the Doctrine of God necessary to salvation, from contrary error which is not of God. Thus writeth the gravest Papist for learning, in the universal world; and consequently, it is and must be of great force against the Papists, whatsoever hath passed from his pen. And I protest unto the (Gentle Reader) that nothing hath more estranged me from Popery, and set me at defiance with it, than the clear & prospicuous Doctrine, of the best Learned and most renowned Papists, for whosoever will seriously peruse the Books which I have published to the view of the world, shall therein find by the Testimony of the best approved Papists, every point of settled Doctrine in the Church of England.  
Out of the words of this learned Popish Bishop, that when S. john saith, The unction teacheth us all things: He meaneth not the difficult Questions in Religion, but all, 
1. john 2. 27.  such points as are necessary for every man's salvation.  
Secondly, that no man wanteth this knowledge and judgement of Doctrine, but he that is willingly ignorant, and will not apply himself to live Christianly.  
Thirdly, that every private man, is able to discern true Doctrine from Falsehood and Error, so far forth as is requisite for his salvation; as well as a sound and good taste is able to discern differences of tastes. Ergo, every faithful Christian is able to discern God's word from man's word; because it is a thing necessary for his own soul's health. The case is so clear, as it can by no reason be denied.  
Fiftly, because the formal object of our faith, is Veritas prima or God himself, 
De divinis nomi●●b●ca. 7  as Dionysius Areopagita telleth us. Yea, Aquinas the Popish angelical Doctor teacheth the self-same Doctrine. Non. n. fides inquit, divina alicui assemitur, 
Aquinas 22. q. 1. art. 1  nisi quia est à deo revelatum. For Divine faith (saith Aquinas) will not yield assent to any thing, unless it be revealed of God. The truth of which doctrine, 
Aug. in Ep. Ioh: tract: 3. tom. 9  S. Austen confirmeth in these Golden words; jam hic videte etc. Now brethren behold here a great sacrament. The sound of our words pierceth your ears, but the Master that teacheth you is within. Think not, that man learneth any thing of man. We (Preachers) may admonish you by sound of words, but if he be not within that teacheth, in vain is our sound. The outward teachings, are some helps and admonitions, but he sitteth in his chair in heaven, that teacheth the heart. The master is within that teacheth. It is Christ that teacheth. It is his inspiration, that instructeth. Where his inspiration and unction is not, there the outward noise of words is in vain. Thus writeth this holy, ancient, and Learned father, with many more words to the like effect. By whose doctrine together with that of Dionysius and Aquinas, we may learn sufficiently, if nothing else were said, that howsoever Paul plant, or Apollo water, yet will no increase follow unless God give the same.  
I therefore conclude, that we do not believe this book or that Book to be Canonical, because this man or that man, or the church saith so, but because the Scripture is ' axiopistos; because it hath in itself that dignity, that verity, and that Majesty, which is worthy of credit in itself. The declaration of the church, doth make us know and believe the scripture; but is only an external help, to bring us thereunto. We indeed believe the Scripture, & this or that Book to be canonical, because God doth inwardly teach us, and persuade our hearts so to believe. For Certes, if we should believe this or that book to be canonical, because the Church saith so; then should the formal object of our faith, and the last resolution thereof, be man, and not God himself; as Areopagna, Aquinas, & the truth itself teacheth us.  
Sixtly, because we cannot be assured, that the Church telleth us the truth. For how can the Church persuade us, that she knoweth it to be God's word? If answer be made, that she knoweth it of another Church; then I demand again, how that other Church can perform it? And so, either contrary to all Divinity, Philosophy, and right reason, Dabitur processus in infinitum; Or else they must say, they received it by Tradition from the Apostles, and then are they where they began. For first, they cannot make us know that assuredly. Again, 
Page 387.  our jesuit confuteth that answer, when he liberally telleth us, that many parts of the Bible were long after the days of the Apostles doubted of, and consequently, their Apostolical so supposed Tradition, is of no effect. If answer be made, that the Church knoweth it by Revelation, than their famous Bishop Melchior Canus telleth them plainly, 
Canus de jocis, lib. 3. ca 4 Page 101.  and roundly, that it cannot be so. These are his express words; Nec ullas in fide novas revelationes ecclesia habet. For the Church hath no new Revelations, in matters of Faith. If answer be made, that the Scripture saith, the Church cannot err, and so her testification is an infallible rule thereof; we admit the answer, we hold the same, the controversy is at an end, the victory is our own Only we must add this, which is already proved, that that Church which cannot err, is not the late Romish church, but the congregation of the faithful.  
Lastly, the Scripture itself in many places telleth us expressly, that it is the word of God.  
First, we have in the four Evangelists these words expressly set down. The holy-ghost of jesus Christ according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and john.  
Secondly, Saint Luke affirmeth, in the beginning of the Acts of the Apostles, that he made a Book of all those things which jesus both did and taught; meaning that gospel which is the third in number.  
Thirdly, 
2. Peter. 1. 21.  we are taught by Saint Peter, that no prophesy of Scripture is made by any private motion, but that holy men of God spoke, as they were moved by the holy-ghost.  
Fourthly, 
1. Cor. 11. 23.  S. Paul telleth us, That he received that of our Lord God, which he delivered in the Scripture.  
Fiftly, the same Apostle affirmeth, that That Gospel of God 〈◊〉 written, which was promised by his Prophets in the holy Scriptures.  
Sixtly, 
Rom. 1. 12.  S. john received his Revelation from Christ, which he was commanded to write.  
Lastly, 
Apoc. ●. 10.  (and this striketh dead) When the rich Glutton tormented in Hell, desired of our holy Father Abraham, 
Luke 16. 29. Luke. 24. 44.  that one might be sent from the dead to his brethren then living; Abraham answered, that they had Moses and the Prophets, whom there ought to hear and believe. And Christ himself told his Apostles; that all things must needs be fulfilled which were written of him in the Law of Moses, in the Prophets, 
Luke. 16, 13, 15, 25, 27.  and in the Psalms. Yea, Christ told the two Disciples going toward Emmaus, that they ought to believe all things which the Prophets spoke: and therefore beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, he did interpret to them in all the Scriptures, the things which were written of himself. And consequently, the Scripture itself doth plainly tell us, that it is the word of God. For out of these words of the holy Scripture, we have these points of Doctrine most clearly delivered.  
First, that our Saviour Christ spoke them.  
Secondly, that all things must be believed, which are written in the Law in the Prophets, and in the Psalms.  
Thirdly, that all things foretold of Christ in the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, were fulfilled indeed.  
Fourthly, that Christ did interpret the chiefest parts of all the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms. I therefore conclude, that it is the word of God. As also, that the dignity, the excellency, and the Majesty thereof, doth insinuate no less unto us.  S. R. 
Neither is Bells comparison true. For we believe not the Old Testament to be God's word, 
Page 369.  for any Tradition which the jews have; but which the Catholic church hath from the Apostles and their successors. Who delivered to the church, and she to us, as well the Old as the New Testament for God's word.  T. B. 
You contradict yourself good Master Friar, 
Page 387. 2. Peter. john. 2. 3. jacob. Apocal Euseb. libr. 3. cap. 19  as who tells us right plainly in another place, that many parts of the Bible were doubted of, a long time after the Apostles. For, if you had received by Tradition from the Apostles, all the Scriptures, both of the Old and New Testament, ye could never so long after the Apostles, have been in doubt of many parts thereof. For by your supposed Tradition, you had the same assurance for the whole, as for the parts. And consequently, seeing you grant your uncertainty for many parts, you must perforce grant the same uncertainty for the whole. And so you confess unawares, and against your wills, so much in effect and true meaning, as I contend to prove, (viz) that your unwritten supposed Apostolical Traditions, are as uncertain as the wind, and not an infallible rule of faith.  S. R. 
Bells third solution is, 
Page 370.  that the New Testament is but an exposition of the Old, and therefore may be tried and discerned by the same. But Sir? Will you indeed try the New Testament? Will you take upon you to judge God's word? And if you will try God's word, 
A very fond saying.  by what will you try the Old Testament? Surely by Tradition, or by nothing.  T. B. 
I answer, that I admit both the Old Testament and the New, because I believe God speaking in the same. This is proved already. Again, seeing the Law, and the Prophets, and the Psalms, are approved by Christ's own Testimony, as we have heard already; and seeing withal, that the New Testament is but an exposition of the Old, as I have proved in the Downfall; it followeth of necessity, that the Old being received, the New cannot be rejected. Neither is he judge of God's word, that discerneth one Scripture by another's because he maketh not himself, 
Aug. de trinit. 3. cap. 26.  but God's word the judge thereof. No more than he, who conferring Scripture with Scripture, expoundeth one place by another. Which kind of exposition S. Austen preferreth before all other.  S. R. 
Bell saith, 
Page 371.  canonical Scripture may be discerned of itself, as light from dark. He proveth it, 
Psa 119 105.  because God's word is called a light and a Lantern which shineth to Men. 
1. Pet. 1, 19  Because spiritual men judge all things; because the unction teacheth Gods children all things; 
1. Cor. 2, 15.  And Christ's Sheep both hear and know his voice. 
1. joh. 2, 27.  But this is easily refelled. First, because though Samuel were a faithful and holy man, 
john. 10, 3. 4, 27.  and God spoke thrice to him, yet he took his word for man's word, until Hely the high Priest told him it was God's word. Gedeon was faithful, 
●. Reg. 3.  and yet knew not at first, that it was God that spoke unto him by an Angel, and therefore demanded a Miracle in confirmation of it. Likewise Saint Peter was faithful, and yet at first he knew not, that it was an Angel that spoke and delivered him. Secondly, 
judic. 6.  God's word consisteth in the sense and meaning, which the faithful oftentimes do not understand. 
Act. 12.  Thirdly, the distinction of Scriptures from not Scriptures, is not so evident, as the distinction of light from darkness is, for then no man could err therein.  T. B. 
This answer of our Friar is frivolous, and childish. That which he objecteth of Samuel, Gedeon, and Peter, is not to the purpose. For, as I have proved out of Melchior Canus and others; every one of the faithful knoweth not every thing, but only so much as is necessary for his salvation to know; neither is such their knowledge at every hour & moment, but then only and in such measure, when and in what degree it pleaseth God to give it. Some of God's children are effectually called at the first hour, 
Mat. 20  some at the third, 
Luke 23  some at the sixth, some at the last. For though all God's children, be elected and predestinate before all time, 
Rom. 9, 10.  yet are they all called both generally and effectually in time: some sooner, some later, 
Ephes. 1, 12.  according to the good pleasure of the caller, who calleth freely without respect of persons. 
Ephes. 2, 9  Now, where our Friar denieth the distinction of God's word from man's word, to be so evident as the distinction of light from darkness, 
Act. 10, 34  because than none (as he saith) could err therein. 
Rom. 2, 11  I answer, 
joh. 15, 5  that as he that is blind corporally, 
1, Cor. 3  cannot discern colours, nor behold the bright beams of the sin, 
1, Cor, 12  so neither can he that is blind spiritually, 
2, Cor. 3  discern God's word from man's word, nor behold the brightness of eternal truth. For as the Apostle teacheth us. If Christ's Gospel be hid, it is hid in them that perish: in whom the God of this world, 
2, Cor. 4, 4  hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, should shine unto them. And the same Apostle telleth us elsewhere, 
1, Cor. 2, 25  That the spiritual man judgeth all things, but the natural man perceiveth not the things, which are of God.  S. R. 
Saint john (saith Bell) affirmeth that the Unction teacheth us all things) which we deny not; 
Page. 375.  but no where (saith he) that it alone teacheth us without the testimony of the Church, which is it that we deny, and Bell should prove.  T. B. 
I have proved at large, even out of your own reverend Bishop Melchior Canus; that as the well affected taste, can easily discern the differences of savours; so can the good affection of the mind, discern the Doctrine of salvation. And therefore as the testimony of the church is not necessary to the one, no more is it to the other. Yea if that sense of our Friar, had been the truth of the text, all the grave expositors of S. john, would never have omitted the same. But our Friar could bring no expositor for himself, and therefore no reason, that we should admit this bare denial, against the plain words of the Text.  S. R. 
That of the Spiritual man is not to the purpose, 
Page. 375  both because all the faithful are not spiritual, but some carnal; and therefore may we better infer, 
1 Cor. 3, 1. 2, 3  that the Gospel is not evident to all the faithful, 
Gal. 6, 1.  as also because Saint Paul explicateth not, by what means the spiritual man judgeth all things; whether by the evidency of the things, as Bell would have him to judge scripture) or by some outward Testimony.  T. B. 
I answer; first, that all the faithful rightly so termed, are spiritual and not carnal, 
1. Co. 3, 1, 2, 3  neither do the places quoted by our jesuit, 
Gal. 6, 1.  prove any thing for his purpose. For if he will have none to be spiritual that are sinners, then must he deny the Apostles of our Lord to have been spiritual. For as S. james granteth freely, 
jam. 3, 2.  They all sinned in many things.  
Secondly, that if the Apostle had not explicated, by what means the Spiritual man judgeth all things, as he did indeed, yet would it not follow thereupon, that our jesuit may expound it to his best liking.  
Thirdly, that the Apostle saith plainly in the words afore going, 
1. Cor. 2, 10, 12.  That the spiritual man judgeth by the spirit of God that is in him.  
Fourthly, that our jesuit belieth Bell here, as he doth many times elsewhere. For Bell would not have the spiritual man to judge the scripture by the evidency of the things, but by the spirit of God, which is ever at hand, even within him to teach him all necessary truth.  S. R. 
Bell allegeth the Scripture, 
Page 375.  That Christ's Sheep hear and know his voice, 
joh. 10, 3, 4, 24.  which no man doubteth of. But the question is, whether they hear it of himself alone, or of his church.  T. B. 
This is but irksome Tautology, it is answered again and again.  
First, the late Romish Church, is not the church that cannot err: this is already proved.  
Secondly, I have proved, even out of their own Cardinal Tolet, That Christ's sheep know him, because he first knoweth them. Yea, the Text doth plainly yield that sense. I know my sheep (saith Christ) and they know me, As if he had said, My Sheep therefore know me, 
john. 10, 14.  because I first know them. Christ therefore, not the church, maketh his sheep to know and discern his voice.  
Thirdly, the church is an outward help, as is the preaching of the word. To beget a kind of moral certitude or human faith in the hearers, but neither of them either doth or can, beget faith Divine in any man. Paul may plant, and Apol'o may water, but only God can give the increase. 
1. Cor. 3, 6.  Experience may confirm this to be so. For no testification of the Romish church, can make the Turk or jew bebeleeve or acknowledge Christ's Gospel. If it were otherwise 10000 jews this day in Rome, would become christians I will say more, 
August▪ Vbi supra.  and it is S. Austin's Doctrine; Many come to the Church, and hear the word of God read and preached unto them, but believe it not, as their lives declare, 
Mat. 7, 17.  for every good tree bringeth forth good fruits, as our master christ telleth us. And what is the cause? Forsooth, saith S. Austen, because they only hear a sound in their outward ears, but not the heavenly Preacher sounding in their hearts.  S. R. 
Well said S. Austen, 
Page ●77  I would not believe the Gospel, unless the Authority of the Church did move me thereto. This place so stingeth Bell, as he windeth every way to avoid it.  T. B. 
Howsoever in your opinion it stingeth me, yet have I so sufficiently answered it in the Downfall, as there is no need here to add any thing in defence thereof. Nevertheless, some few Annotations I will add for explication sake.  
First, when S. Austen saith, I would not believe the Gospel, unless the Authority of the Church, did move me thereto, He meaneth of himself 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 would not believe this Gospel, (which I wish thee to embrace) unless the Church's Authority did move me to the same. For these are S. Austin's own words; 
Cap. 5. cont. Epist. Funda men. tom. 6. pag. 80  Si ergo invenirem aliquem, qui evangelio nondum crèdit, quid faceres dicenti tibi; non credo? Ego vero evangelio non crederem, nisi me Catholicae Ecclesiae comm●veret authoritas. If therefore I should find one, that yet believeth not the Gospel, what wouldst thou do to him, saying to thee, I believe it not? I doubtless would not believe the gospel, unless the authority of the Catholic church, did move me thereunto.  
Lo, he speaketh of him that believeth not the gospel, and of himself not being a christian, not of himself, or any other that professeth the gospel. Where I am to admonish the Reader, that here, as in many other places of my Books; 
I was almost 200, miles from london.  this period last recited, is unperfect in the Downfall. For myself being absent from the Press, as dwelling far off, many faults escape the Printer. That this is the true meaning of S. Austen, I prove it first, because in the very same Chapter he confesseth, that the Authority of the Gospel, is above the authority of the Church.  
Secondly, 
Cap. 4.  because in the Chapter aforegoing, after he hath discoursed of many notable things in the church Consent, Miracles, Antiquity, and Succession; he addeth that the truth of the Scriptures, must be preferred before them all.  
These points and reasons, 
Page 381.  I cited before out of Saint Austen; which because they confound our jesuit, he impudently denieth them; affirming that Saint Austen saith not so. These therefore are S. Austin's own words, in the first Chapter; Quòd si forte in evangelio aliquid apertissimum de Manichaei Apostolatu 〈◊〉 p●tueris, infirmabis mihi catholicorum anthoritatem, qui iubent, non credam. If happily thou canst find in the Gospel, any manifest thing of the Apostle-ship of Manichaeus, thou shalt discredit the authority of Catholics to me, who command me not to believe thee. Again, in the fourth Chapter he hath these words; Apud vos sola persona● veritatis pollicitatio, quae quidem si tam manifesta monstratur, ut in dubium venire non possit, praeponenda est omnibus illis rebus, quibus in Catholica teneor. With you only soundeth the promise of truth, which if it be proved so manifest, that it cannot be doubted of, it is to be preferred before all those things, that hold me in the catholic church. Lo, in the former place Saint Austen granteth freely, that the authority of the Scripture, is above the authority of the church; And in the latter, that the truth of the Scripture must be preferred before all other things whatsoever. Away therefore with our lying Friar, 
Vide Aug. ep. 165.  and give hearing to his fables no longer.  
Secondly, the faith that proceedeth from the Church for Testification, is but humane, and not divine. For none save God only, can beget faith divine in us. It pleaseth GOD to use external means and Ceremonies, for the confirmation of our Faith; but the grace, power, & virtue, is from himself alone. The Law was given by Moses, 
john. 1. 17.  but grace and truth came by jesus Christ. I prove it: First, because a supernatural effect, must needs be produced of a supernatural cause; and consequently, divine faith being a supernatural effect, cannot proceed from the Romish Church.  
Secondly, a corporal agent, cannot ascend and penetrate a spiritual object; as a material Sword cannot penetrate an immaterial Spirit; and consequently, neither produce an immaterial effect, as is faith divine.  
Thirdly, no immaterial and spiritual accident, can be received into any corporal subject; and consequently, no corporal subject is apt to produce a spiritual effect.  
Fourthly, 
Aug. tract. 72. in johan. Aquin. p. 1. q. 45. art. 5.  Saint Austen saith plainly, that it is a greater work to justify a man, then to create the World; but no power (saith the Popish Angelical Doctor Aquinas) which is upon earth, can concur to creation; Ergo, neither to justification; and consequently, neither to the producing of Faith divine.  
Thirdly, when saith is wrought and begotten in us, we may not divide the work; giving part to God, and part to the Church; but we must ascribe the whole to GOD, the true Author of the whole. Therefore, after S. Paul had told the Corinthians, that he had laboured more abundantly than all the Apostles; he forthwith added these words. 
1. Cor, 15. 10.  Yet not I, but the grace of God, which is with me. For though man be not in his actions as a brute beast or block, but free from all coaction and constraint; yet hath he no power but from above, neither hath he any part more or less, in producing Grace, Faith, or the supernatural effects. For though it be God's pleasure to use man's external acts and operations, for the exercise of his faith, when he meaneth to produce supernatural effects; yet doth he himself solely and wholly of himself, produce the same effects. And here I must tell the Reader of a great defect in the Latin Vulgata editio; which the late Council of Trent extolleth to the Heavens; and withal Papists are bound to use and believe. 
1. Cor. 15. 10  It saith thus: Yet not I, but the grace of God with me; as if forsooth, part were imputed to grace, and part to the act and work of Saint Paul. 
Vide Higher? lib. 2. advers. Pelag. fol. 129. D.  Whereas indeed, the Apostle ascribeth the whole to God, and utterly refuseth to take any part to himself. Which the Article (●) in the Greek left out, in the Latin Vulgata editio, maketh plain and evident. For after Saint Paul had said, That he had laboured more than all the Aopostles; he by and by addeth this correction; Yet not I, but the grace of God, which is with me. And here (because sensible things work most in sensile persons) let us take an example of the Napkins and Partlets, which were brought from Saint Paul's body unto the sick, for the Napkins by touching Saint Paul's body, 
Act, 19, 12, 11.  received no inherent virtue to work Miracles. The Text saith plainly, that God wrought the Miracles by the hand of Paul. The Napkins and Handkerchiefs were but outward tokens, to confirm the faith of those that were to be healed in the absence of the Apostle; that they might thereby know and perceive, that the gift of healing (which God for his own glory had bestowed on him) was not tied to the presence of his body. The like may be said, Of touching Christ's Garment, and of the Clay which Christ used in restoring the blind man to his sight. 
Mat. 9, 21. john, 9, 6. Luke. 8. 46.  For the virtue was not in the garments, but in Christ himself. Christ said not; Virtue is gone out of my Garments; but (as Saint Luke addeth) I perceive that virtue is gone out of me. And all men know, that Clay was rather an hindrance, than a furtherance, to effect that was wrought in the blind man. For, if we respect the nature and operation of Clay, we shall find 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 be no better trial of true faith, then when a godly mind being content with the simple word of God, doth promise that unto itself, which otherwise seemeth incredible. Much more might be said, but the Reader, (if he shall join this with the Downfall) shall find sufficient matter, for the full confutation of the Friar. And now I proceed in God's holy name, to bicker and grapple with the jesuit, concerning the last Article being the eight in number.   

The eight and last Article, of the impossibility of keeping Gods Commandments in Popish sense.  S. R. 
WE daily acknowledge our sins, as Bell confesseth, but so as we be free from deadly sin, 
Page 422.  which destroyeth charity the end of the Law, and keep the Commandments in all great, though not in small matters. As who stealeth but trifles keepeth the Prince's Laws, though not perfectly; but if he steal great matters, he is said no more to keep, but to break them.  T. B. 
I answer; First, that I have proved sufficiently, every sin of it own nature to be mortal, and flatly against God's Commandments.  
Secondly, that whosoever stealeth but those things, which with our jesuit are trifles, transgresseth both God's Laws, and the Laws of his Prince. God's Laws, 
Exod. 20, 15  because God absolutely without exception forbiddeth to steal: The Prince's Laws, because he that stealeth but our Jesuits trifles, must be stocked and whipped for his pains; & that is inflicted, by due execution of the Prince's Laws. But our Jesuits are so acquainted with notorious Treasons, that stealing with them is but a trifle, yet not only their Angelical Doctor Aquinas, but S. Austen also writing to Consentius, 
Aquin. 22. q 110. art. 3. Aug. ad Cōsent●ū, cap. 8. 9 10. tom. 4.  affirmeth most christianly; that an officious lie (which is the least lie that can be committed, and one of our friars trifles) may not be made to save the whole world. And our Master Christ telleth us in his holy Gospel, 
Mat. 12, 36  That we shall give account of every idle word. Well, howsoever our Friar flatter himself in stealing strifles, 
Unless he have a dispensation.  or in trifling stealing, yet whosoever (unless perhaps a jesuit) breaketh the Pope's Law by eating an Egg in Lent, committeth a deadly sin. Yea, that man, or that woman, that shall tell a hundred lies in one day, shall not be so hardly censured with the Papists, as one godly Christian eating an Egg in Lent, 
Page 423  with thanksgiving to God for the same. Note that our jesuit here emboldeneth to steal trifles, affirming it, not to be against the Prince's law.  S. R. 
First, therefore I prove it, because a young man told Christ, 
Mat. 19, 20  He had kept all the Commandments from his youth. Bell answereth, that S. Hierom saith, he lied, and S. Austen thinketh he spoke more proudly, then truly. Nevertheless more probable it is, that he spoke truly, because not only our Saviour did not rebuke him, 
Mark 10. 21  (as likely he would have done, if he had told him a lie) but as S. Mark testifieth, beheld him and loved him.  T. B. 
I answer first, that our jesuit is so troubled with the Downfall of Popery, that he begins to prove when of right he should answer, but in truth can perform neither of them both.  
Secondly, that where I have proved in the Downfall by the Testimony both of Saint Austen and S. Hierom, that that the young man lied, when he said he had kept the Commandments: our jesuit returneth this answer, that it is probable he spoke truly. Because forsooth, S. Mark saith, Christ beheld him and loved him. But this answer is not to the purpose, (to say nothing of our jesuits pride, who so roundly rejecteth both S. Austin's and S. Hieroms opinion) because S. Mark speaketh only of external show of love, and not of true love indeed. The like Phrase we have in S. Matthew, where Herod is said to be sorry, when he was glad indeed. And therefore doth S. Hierom censure him in these words. 
Exod. 1, 17, 20, 21 Christ as true God did this.  In face tristitiam, in cord habebat laetitiam. In his face sorrow, but gladness in his heart. Our Saviour Christ, as he prospered the Midwives, and made them houses, not for their lying, but because they feared him; even so, did he look cheerfully upon the young man, and in loving manner set before his eyes, what a vain conceit he had of himself; not for the lie which he boldly avouched, but because he had a desire to go to heaven. Our jesuit addeth, that S. Chrisostom saith, the young man was no dissembler; and that S. Hierom saith, Christ loved him, because he said he had done all. But our jesuit is addicted to lying, and falsely surchargeth the holy Fathers. Their assertions are truly cited, in the Downfall of Popery.  S. R. 
Secondly, S. Paul. saith, not the fearers of the Law are just with God, 
Page 424  but the doers of the Law shall be justified; Ergo, there are some doers of the Law: And it is possible to be done.  T. B. 
This objection I both propounded and answered in the Downfall, so as our jesuit may well struggle against it, but never truly confute it. He maketh a gallant show of many verses, cited out of the 119. Psalm, that the commandments may be kept, and were actually kept of the Prophet David. I have not (saith the Prophet) declined from thy Law. I have kept thy law. I have not declined from thy judgements. I have not erred from thy Commandments. 
Verse 51. 55 102, 110, 157.  I have not declined from thy testimonies. But to all these & the like I answer with all facility, that the self-same Prophet David confesseth freely, that neither himself nor any mortal man, is able perfectly to keep God's law. When the Prophet Nathan told him of his Adultery and murder, 
2. sam. cap: 11. & ca 12  he humbly confessed the same, and presently received remission at God's hands.  
Again, in many Psalms he confesseth his own sins, and withal, constantly affirmeth, that none living can be justified by his best works. Have mercy on me O God, wash me from my sins, and cleanse me from mine iniquity. 
Psalm 51  I know my sin, and mine iniquity is ever before me. I was borne in sin, & in sin hath my Mother conceived me, Again, in another place thus; If thou O Lord, straightly markest iniquities: O Lord, 
Psalm 130  who shall abide it? But with thee is mercy, that thou mayest be feared. Again in another place thus: Enter not into judgement with thy servant, 
Psalm 143.  for in thy sight shall none that liveth be justified. So then, as we have in one Psalm, that David did keep God's commandments, so have we in many other Texts of holy writ, both in the Psalms, and else where, that neither himself nor any living, can perfectly keep the same. What must we now do? One scripture is not contrary to another. The spirit of God speaking in David, saith in one place, That he kept God's Law; in another place he saith, That neither he nor any other can keep his Commandments. How stand these two together? This is the resolution and true sense of holy writ. David (as every child of God in like manner) is truly said to keep God's Commandments, when he hath an inward fervent desire to do the will of God, and cheerfully applieth his heart and all his affections to that end, 
How Gods children though sinners, keep his commandments.  so far forth as standeth with man's infirmity, and the state in which we live, although he be a greevons sinner indeed, and Transgress God's law many ways. This I prove to be so by many arguments: first, because the sins of the faithful, are not imputed to them for the merits of Christ jesus. Therefore (saith the Apostle) Being justified by faith, we are at peace with God, through our Lord jesus Christ. Again thus; 
Rom. 5, 1. Rome, 4, 7, 8.  Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man, to whom the Lord will not impute sin. By these places it is clear, that God's children are said to keep his Commandments, not because they keep them exactly and perfectly, but for that the want and defect is not imputed to them. This is it that S. Austen saith, in these golden words; Omnia ergo mandata facta deputantur, 
Aug. lib. 1 〈◊〉. cap. 19  quando quicquid non sit, ignoscitur. All the Commandments are then reputed as done, when whatsoever is not done (Is of mercy) forgiven. Again, the same S. Austen in another place hath these words; Beatus vir, cui non imputavit dominus peccatum. Hoc prestant viae domini, ac per hoc quoniam ex fide justus vivit, ab ista via domini illa alienat miquitas, 
Aug in Pso, 118. conc. 3. pag. 925.  quae est infidelit as. In hac antem via domini, id est, in fide pia quisquis ambulat, aut peccatum non operatur, aut si quid à deviante committitur, propter viam non imputatur, & tanquam non fuerit operatus accipitur. Blessed is the man, to whom the Lord hath not imputed sin. This the ways of our Lord perform, and by reason hereof, because the just man liveth by faith, that iniquity estraungeth from this way, which is infidelity. For in this way of the Lord, that is, in a godly faith, whosoever walketh, he either sinneth not, or if any thing be done amiss, 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 upon that very Psalm: out of which our jesuit hath borrowed certain Texts, which (as S. Austen showeth plainly) are altogether applied, contrary to the Prophet's meaning, and to the truth of the matter in hand. For therefore (as we see by S. Austin's Testimony) is not only the Prophet David, but also all the children of God, thought to keep God's commandments, because they aplying themselves cheerfully with heart, voice, and all their power to keep them, 
1 Cor, 1, 30. Phil. 3, 9 2 Cor, 5, 12 Rom. 5, 19  the defect and want is not imputed to them. Briefly, by God's grace, not of ourselves, we keep his Commandments, though not in such perfection as his justice requireth; yet, in such measure, as he of his mercy in Christ accepteth.  
Secondly, because the son of God, hath truly appeased the wrath of God, 
Mat. 26, 27 Mark 14, 14  by once offering upon the Altar of the Cross, a perfect, sufficient, and absolute satisfaction for the sins of all the faithful and elect people of God; 
Heb. 10, 14  and as a Creditor having received the just and full payment of that which was due unto him, though by the hands of another, yet in behalf of him who was the debtor, cannot with justice require the same at the Debtors hands; no more can GOD almighty, (who is not only just, but justice itself in the abstract) justly require satissaction of his elect for their sins, for whose transgressions he hath received a most perfect, absolute, 
Mat. 3. 17. Apoc. ca 7. 14  and consummate satisfaction, and atonement for ever, at the hands of his dear Son, In whom he is ever well pleased. This is it, that one of the Elders said to Saint john; These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their long Robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.  
Thirdly, to acknowledge our sins, and to confess ourselves to be grievous Sinners, and not to trust in our own righteousness (which is none at all indeed) but in the righteousness of jesus Christ, who (as the Apostle teacheth us) Is our Wisdom, our Righteousness, our Sanctification, 
1. Cor. 1. 30.  and our Redemption is in the scripture to be righteous, & to keep God's commandments. Therefore saith S. john, 
1. joh. 1, 8, 9 Philip. 3. 9 2. Cor. 5. 21. Rom. 10. 3.  That if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. But if we knowledge our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. Lo, to confess our sins, and to acknowledge ourselves to be Sinners, is to be righteous in God's sight, 
Hier. lib. 1. ad●. Pelag tom. 3. sol. 120. D.  and to keep his Commandments. This Saint Hierome confirmeth, in these Golden words; Tunc ergo justi sumus, quando nos peccatores fatemur; & justitia nostra non ex proprio merito, sed ex dei consistit misericordia. Then therefore are we just, when we confess ourselves Sinners, and our righteousness consisteth not in our own merit, but in God's mercy. Thus writeth this holy and learned Father, showing most evidently to all that have eyes to see it that we may both be breakers and Keepers, of God's Commandments at once; both Sinners and Righteous at one and the same time, though not in one & the same respect. Sinners, in respect of ourselves, and our corrupt Nature; 
Ezech. cap. 18, 21. Esa. 1, 18.  Righteous in the sight and judgement of God, who of his great mercy pardoneth all penitent Sinners, and for Christ's merits doth not impute their sins unto them.  S. R. 
I omit Moses, 
Page 426  Aaron, Samuel, David, joshua, Zacharie, Elizabeth, and the Apostles, who are said to have kept God's Law, and some of them in all their heart: only Saint Paul I cannot omit, because Bell granteth, that he was most free and innocent from Actual sin, therefore surely he kept God's Law perfectly.  T. B. 
I answer: First, 〈◊〉 all these holy men, were in their life time sinners, and Transgressor's of God's holy Laws, which I could easily prove by many Texes of holy Writ, if I deemed it needful so to do: this only shall suffice for the present, 
jam. 3, 2.  that the Apostle saith, The best Livers of all offend in many things. And that the Prophet David telleth us, 
Psa. 143, 2.  That none living can be justified in God's sight. Secondly, to Saint Paul I answer, as in the Downfall; That the raging unvoluntary motions of Concupiscence were sin in him, although he did not actually yield his consent unto them. And thereupon I inferred then, and now again; That that sin which Saint Paul lamented in himself, affirming himself to be sold under sin, 
Rom. 7. 14.  was truly and properly sin indeed, but not Actual, because he gave no consent unto it; Ergo, he must needs speak of Original. This point I delivered so plainly in the Downfall of Popery, as none, but eitherfooles, or malicious Readers, can be ignorant thereof. Of other Actual sins I spoke not.  S. R. 
Christ (saith Bell) being asked what good a man should 
Page 427.  do to attain eternal life, answered; If thou wilt have eternal life by doing good works, 
Mat 19, 17.  then must they keep God's commandments; but this is impossible (saith Bell.) Here is most shameful abuse of God's word, and this showeth Bell to have a scared conscience: For neither in the man's Question, nor in Christ's answer, is there any word how a man should come to Heaven by this way, or that way, (viz) by believing, or by working, or by both; but only what was the mean in general to come to Heaven: which the man supposing to be good, asked what good he should do to come thither. Which Question of his is common, either to Faith, or Works, or both; foral include doing good. And our Saviour answered him, If thou wilt enter (not this way, nor that way, but absolutely) Into life, Keep the Commandments.  T. B. 
What a one is this Friar? He chargeth me to have a seared conscience, which may more justly be imputed to himself. I willingly acknowledge myself to be a great Sinner, GOD forgive me; yet may I stand at defiance with this jesuit, and withal the Jesuits in the World, for any corrupt or false dealing, either in the Scripture, or in the Fathers, Counsels, Histories, Chronicles, or other Writers whosoever, they are alike to charge me withal. Nay, in this very point, wherein he desperately accuseth me, I am able to charge him too deeply, and justly retort that against himself, which he would most falsely and unjustly impose upon me. He avoucheth most impudently, that there is not any word, neither in the man's question, nor in Christ's answer, how a man should come to Heaven this way, or that way. Let us therefore ponder the man's words seriously, and then yield our censures according to the truth. 
Math. 19, 16.  S. Matthew hath these words; Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? 
Mark. 10, 17  Saint Mark hath these words; Good Master, what shall I do, that I may have eternal life? 
Luke, 18, 18.  Saint Luke hath these words; Good Master, by doing, what shall I possess eternal life? Now, I pray thee Gentle Reader (whosoever thou art) to be an indifferent judge between the jesuit and me. Thou seest evidently, that the man demanded of Christ, what he should do to possess and enjoy eternal life. For he said plainly; What shall I do, & by doing? What, shall I possess eternal life? Doth not he ask to go to Heaven this way, or that way, who asketh to go thither by doing good-works? Yes doubtless, it cannot be denied. For to go to Heaven by doing this or that, & to go to heaven this way, or that way, is all one in effect. So likewise, he that saith, shall I go to Heaven by doing this, or by doing that; and he that saith, shall I go to heaven this way or that way, saith one & the same thing in effect. Truly therefore did I answer to the Objection, by myself propounded cut of the Gospel (viz) that our Saviour Christ did not show in that place, how men may attain eternal life, but showed plainly unto the man, who trusted much unto his works and good life, that perfect observation of the Law is required of him, that thinketh to be justified by the works of the Law. The man did not say, how shall I go to Heaven? Or how shall I attain eternal life? But thus; by doing what, shall I have eternal life? Christ therefore answered directly to his manner of demanding; If thou trust so much to thy works and thine own doings, that thou thinks thou canst go to Heaven by doing, then do I tell thee, that thou must look well unto the matter, and see thou keep the Commandments. This answer is directly and clearly deduced, out of the very text itself.  S. R. 
Bell saith, 
Page 429.  that good-works are so necessary to attain eternal life, as the usual, ordinary, & undoubted means, by which God decreed from eternity, freely for his own name sake, to bring his elect to salvation: and that without them, none have been, are, or shall be saved, if time be granted to do them. How are they now become an impossible mean to come to Heaven? How did the man inquire of an impossible way to heaven, by good-works? What need this challenger any adversary, who thus overthroweth himself?  T. B. 
If our jesuit had either eyes to see, ears to hear, or wit to understand; he could not but both see & perceive, that he confoundeth himself in his own dispute. For, albeit the best liver upon earth, cannot for any merit of his best works, by any possible means attain eternal life, (for it is the gift of God, 
Ephes. 2, 8, 9 10.  not of works) yet hath GOD decreed to bring us to heaven by good works, which he of his great mercy freely worketh in us. For these are the Apostles express words, as the Rhemists have put them down. For by Grace you are saved by Faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God, not of works, that no man glory, for we are his work, created in Christ lesus in goodworks, which God hath prepared that we should walk in them. Thus writeth the Apostle, even as our Papists allege his words. Out of which holy discourse of the chosen vessel of our Lord jesus, I observe these golden lessons.  
First, that we are saved By grace.  
Secondly, that salvation followeth not only our first justification so called of the Papists, which they confess to be of Grace, but their second falsely supposed justification also, which they would have to come of Works. For (as we see here, our salvation, which is after all manner of justification (if there were as many as the Papists imagine) is only of grace, not of Works. You are saved saith Saint Paul, mark well the word (Saved.) He saith not, you are justified by grace, which goeth before salvation, but you are saved by grace, which followeth your justification.  
Thirdly, that the Apostle saith Negatively (We are not saved of Works,) and consequently, that he confoundeth our Papists, who say that their second justification and their salvation come of their works. But as their second falsely so named justification, was never known to any of the holy Fathers, nor to any ancient counsel; so will their salvation never be known to Gods elect, unless they repent and revoke this their damnable Doctrine.  
Fourthly, that God worketh our Good Works in us.  
Fiftly, that God hath ordained Good Works for this end, that we walk in them. This doctrine is confirmed by the same Apostle in another place, 
Tit. 3, 5  where he hath these words. Not by the Works of justice which we did, but according to his Mercy he hath saved us. Lo, the holy Apostle is still constant in his former position, (viz) that We are not saved by the Works of justice, but of mercy & grace. For this cause saith S. Austen, 
Aug. lib. 9 con. fession. cap. 13. Chrisost de compunct. cord. lib, 2. tom, 5. col. 592  Woe unto the best liver upon earth, if God examine his life, his mercy set apart. For this cause saith S. Chrisostome, & si millies moriamur etc. Though we die a thousand times, and though we accomplish all virtues of the mind, yet do we nothing worthy of those things, which we receive of God. For this cause saith S. Theophilact; Seruavit nos aeternum, non ex operibus, etc. He hath saved us eternally, 
Theophil. in 3. cap. Tit.  not of the works which we have done; that is, neither have we done the works of justice, neither are we saved by them, but his goodness and his clemency, hath wrought our salvation wholly. Yea, 
Berna. in cant. serm. 68 tom. 1 pagina 1006.  for this cause saith their highly renowned Abbot Bernardus; Sic non est &c. So there is no cause, that thou shouldst now ask, by what merits we hope for glory, especially since thou hearest the Prophet say; I will do it (saith the Lord,) not for your sake, but for mine own. It is sufficient to merit, to know that our merits are not sufficient. Thus write these holy fathers, with the famous popish Abbot, whose words are so plain for the truth which I defend, as every child may with facility discern the same. For I did not say, (as our jesuit would deceitfully persuade his Reader) that Good Works are an impossible mean to come to heaven; No, nor that the young man did inquire of an impossible way to heaven. For I know, and I have constantly affirmed the same in the Downfall; that good-works are a mean, and the way that leadeth to heaven. But withal, I said then, and now again; that neither can the best liver on earth, keep the Commandments so exactly as the law requireth; neither can any man for any works he doth, condignly merit eternal life. And this is the point indeed, which I defend against the Papists. Whosoever shall with a single eye peruse the Downfall, will find it to be so. For, it is one thing to say, that Good Works are a mean, or the way to heaven; another thing to say, that a man can fulfil the Law, and by his Works condignly merit heaven. The former I grant willingly, the latter I deny constantly; neither is any Papist able, to answer my reasons in that behalf. For example, the Pope (Boniface) sick at Rome, of his mere good will bequeathed by his Testament 7000. crowns of Gold, to Robert Parsons the jesuit, lame of hands and legs at Paris (his lameness not known to the Pope) to be given to the said Parsons, when he cometh to Rome in his own person to demand the same. Now, the said Parsons having intelligence of the said Legacy, provideth a good Gelding, a strong manlike fellow, and so taketh his journey towards Rome, where he no sooner demandeth the said 7000. Crowns, but he in friendly manner receiveth the same, according to the true meaning of the Popes will. In this case, the Gelding▪ the tall fellow, and the journey itself, were good & necessary means to receive and possess the said Crowns: Howbeit, neither did they merit the said Crowns, 
Rom. 6, 23  neither were they the cause of bequeathing them Even so in our case, 
Ephes. 2, 8  Eternal life (as the Apostle saith) is the free gift of God, 
Ephes. 2, 10  it is of grace, 
Mat. 7. 17  not of Works: 
Rom. 8, 30  nevertheless, good-works (as the same Apostle telleth us) are the way which God hath ordained for us to walk in; and the usual, ordinary, & undoubted means, by which God intendeth to bring his elect to heaven. This notwithstanding, this must ever be a constant and undoubted position, with all the children of God, (viz) that none (not the best liver upon earth) is able exactly to keep God's commandments, and by the merit of his works to enter into heaven.  S. R. 
Will not Christ say in his last sentence; 
Page 428.  Come ye blessed of my father possess the kingdom provided for you, 
Mat. 15. 34, 35  from the constitution of the world? I was hungry, and ye gave me meat. As well as he will say, Go you from me you cursed into everlasting fire? For I was hungry, and ye gave me not to eat.  T. B. 
I answer; first, that the word (For) is not here taken Causaliter, but Consecutive, to speak as the Schooledoctors do, that is to say; It doth not Connotate the cause but the event, as was said before of Mary Magdalen. So that the sense is not for giving meat to Christ, when he was hungry, or drink to him being thirsty, they did merit heaven, but that by doing such charitable works, (which are the effects of a true justifying faith, they showed themselves to be the children of God, and the heirs of his kingdom. And this sense is deduced, out of the very text itself. For seeing the kingdom of heaven, (as Christ here avoucheth) was prepared for them before the foundation. and consequently, before they were borne, and so before they could do any Good Works, it followeth of necessity, that their works could not merit heaven, but only signify to the world, that the inheritance of heaven was due unto them, as to the children of God the heirs of the same. For (as the Apostle saith) If we be sons, then are we also heirs; 
Rom. 8, 17  heirs of God, and joint-heires with Christ. Yea (as the same Apostle saith in another place. 
Ephes. 2. 4. ) As he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and immaculate in his sight through love, who hath predestivated us into the adoption of children by jesus Christ unto himself, according to the good pleasure of his will. To which I must needs add that, 
Rom. 8. 50.  which the same Apostle saith yet in another place; Whom he did predestinate, them also he called: and whom he called, them also he justified; and whom he justified them also he glorified. Out of this holy discourse of the Apostle of our Lord jesus, I observe these golden lessons. 
Psa. 59, 12   
First, that we are the sons of God, not by nature (for so we are his enemies, and the children of wrath) but by grace and adoption in jesus Christ.  
Secondly, that God chose us to be his Children before we were borne.  
Thirdly, that he chose us, not because we were holy, but that we might be holy and immaculate in his sight.  
Fourthly, that he predestinated us to be his Children by adoption, not for any good-works we either had done or could do, but for his own good pleasure to the glory of his grace. For, as to do any works at all before we are borne, is altogether impossible, so to do good-works when we are borne (seeing we are conceived in sin, born in sin, and by nature the Children of wrath) is impossible in like manner.  
Fiftly, that all our good-works, are the effects and fruits of our predestination. For, 
Psa. 51, 5.  if it be true, as it is most true, (else the Apostle should be a liar) that we were elected to be holy, 
Esa. 59, 2.  and to do good-works; it is also true, (it cannot be denied) that holy life and good-works, 
Ephe. 2, 3, 5.  are the effects and fruits of our election and predestination in in Christ jesus. For this cause (saith the Apostle) that predestination proceeds freely of God's eternal purpose; justification, of predestination; and glorification, of justification. For first, he chooseth us in Christ; then, 
Rom. 8, 30.  he justifieth us in Christ. Thirdly, and lastly, he glorifieth us for his own names sake. For this cause saith that famous Papist, Nicholaus de Lyra, in this manner; Dicendum, quod predestinatio divina est preparatio gratiae in presenti, & gloriae in future & ides cunsit aeterna, 
Lyra. in cap. 6. Mat.  sicut ab aeterno predestinavit al●quem ad beatitudinem, ita preordinaui● modum quem daret sibiillā beatitudinem. I answer (saith this Popish Doctor) that God's predestination is the preparation of grace in this world, and of glory in the World to come. And therefore, seeing it is eternal, as he hath predestinated any one from eternity to endless bliss or beatitude; so hath he also foreordained the mean, by which he would bring him to the same. For this cause saith the Popish Angelical Doctor Aquinas, that predestination includeth God's will of bestowing both Grace and Glory. 
Aquin. p. 1. q. 23. art. 3. ad 2.  And he 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 receive in this life, that is to say, of Grace. For this cause saith our jesuit Bellarmine, that good-works follow predestination, as effects follow their causes. These are his express words; Itaque sunt opera bona effectus praedestinationis. Therefore good-works are the effect of predestination. Again, 
Bellar. tom. 3. col. 627. & col. 628.  in another place thus; Itaque illa propositio, (deus ab aetet no praedestiaaut hominibus dare regnum per opera bona praevisa) potest & vera esse & falsa. Nam si illud (per opera praevisa) referaetur ad verbum (praedestinavit) falsa erit, significabit. n. Deum praedestinasse homines, operaillorum bona praeviderat; si referatur adverbum (dare,) vera erit, quia significabit executionem futuram esse per opera bona, sive quod est idem, glorificationem effectum esse iustificationis & operum bonorum; sicut ipsa justificatio effectus est vocationis, & vocatio praedestinationis. Again, in another place thus: Non ideo pendet praedestinatio ab operibus, sed opera à praedestinatione. Therefore predestination doth not depend of works, but works depend of predestination. Again, 
Bellar. tom. 3. col. 626. & col. 628.  in another place thus; Alia ratio est praedestinationis, alia executionis; constituit. n. in praedestinatione regnum caeloruum dare certis hominibus, quos absque ulla oper umpraevisione dilexit; tamen simul constituit, ut quo ad exequ●●tionem, via perueniends ad regnum essent opera bona. There is one reason of predestination, another of execution; for in predestination, God decreed to give the Kingdom of Heaven to certain men, whom he loved without any foresight of works; Howbeit he decreed withal, that in respect of the execution, Goodworks should be the way to come to the Kingdom. For this cause say our Rhemists, that our first justification is of God's Grace, and not of our deservings; because none of all our actions that were before our justification, could merit or justly procure the Grace of justification. Out of this discourse of the famous Popish Doctors, I observe these memorable Lessons for the great good of the Reader.  
First, that all the Grace, Faith, and good-works, which we have in this world, and the glory which we expect in the World to come, do wholly proceed from God's predestination without all deserts of man.  
Secondly, that as God prepared the kingdom of heaven for his elect, before they were borne, or had done any good-works; so did he also prepare the way and means, by which he intended to bring them thither.  
Thirdly, that no works either done, or foreseen to be done, did move God to predestinate any man to the joys of heaven.  
Fourthly, that good-works are not the cause, but the effect of predestination.  
Fiftly, that good-works are the way and means, which God ordained for the execution of predestination, and for the accomplishment of glorification.  
Sixtly, that not only predestination, but also justification, proceed of God's mere favour, grace, and good pleasure, without all deserts of man.  
Seventhly, that our vocation, our justification, and our glorification, are the effects of predestination. I therefore conclude, that Good works are not the cause, why Gods Children possess Heaven as their inheritance, seeing it is the effect of God's predestination; yet that they are the ordinary way and means, by which God decreed in his eternal purpose to bring his elect to Heaven. For as he ordained the end, that is to say, the kingdom of heaven or eternal life; so also ordained he the way and means to attain the same; that is to say, vocation, justification, faith, and good-works.  
Secondly, that there is great disparity between salvation and damnation, and therefore that good-works cannot merit Salvation, though evil works be enough for damnation. The reason is evident, both in Philosophy and Divinity, because as Saint Dionysius Areopagita saith (and the Popish Angelical Doctor Aquinas approveth the same) Bonum ex integra causa existit, 
A●●op, de diuin 〈◊〉, cap. 4 p 267.  malum ex quolibet defectu?) Good, is of an entire and whole cause, but evil, comes of every defect: yea, that more is required to good then to evil, 
Aquinas, 12. q. 18. art. 4.  daily experience teacheth us; for one may soon do that hurt to his neighbour, which cannot without great cost and long time be cured again. This S. Austen well observed, 
August. tract. 72. 〈◊〉 joh. tom. 9 Page. 262.  when he left in writing to be read of all posterity, that it is a greater thing to justify the wicked man, then to make heaven and earth.  S. R. 
I prove the conclusion, 
Page 429.  because Christ saith, My yoke is sweet, and my burden light. And Saint john saith, his commandments are not heavy: Ergo, they are possible. Bell answereth, that these words are not meant in respect of us, 
Aug. lib. 1. retr. c. 19 tom. 1  but of Christ, whose keeping the Commandments is imputed to us. Which Saint Austen (saith he) meant, when he writ thus; Then are all the Commandments reputed as done, 
1. john. 5. 3.  when whatsoever is done, is forgiven. But this is easily refuted, for Saint john spoke in respect of us assisted by God's Grace, when he said; This is the Law of God, that we keep his Commandments, and his Commandments are not heavy. He saith not (Christ) but (We) must keep God's Commandments.  T. B. 
I answer: First, that whosoever readeth and marketh the Downfall, will soon perceive, that our jesuit is at a Non plus; for there were these his silly Objections solved and refuted before they came to light.  
Secondly, that our jesuit belieth me, after his wont manner, when he saith; that I affirm the words to be meant in respect of Christ, and not of ourselves. For after I had proved by many arguments drawn out of holy Writ, that the yoke of Christ is sweet to the faithful, 
1 Cor. 1, 30  I added these words. 
Phil. 3, 9  This being so, we may truly say, that in Christ we fulfil the Law: 
Colos. 2, 14  Because he is our righteousness, our sanctification, 
1 john 5, 4  and our Redemption; because he hath overcome death; because he hath clothed us with his righteousness, 
Acts 15. 11  because he hath covered our nakedness with his garments; 
2 Cor. 5, 21  because in him we have gotten the victory, 
Rom. 5, 19  over hell, death and damnation. 
john 16, 33  Thus I answered in the Downfall. 
Psalm 32, 1   
Now I refer myself to the censure of the indifferent Reader, how sufficiently I have refuted the jesuit, and how unjustly he hath slandered me. For it is one thing to say, we fulfil the Commandments in Christ, another thing to say, the words are spoken in respect of Christ, not in respect of ourselves: The latter are his, the former are mine, viz: that in Christ we fulfil the law: and I learned them, of Christ's holy Apostle and chosen vessel S. Paul. Omnia possum in eo qui me confortat. I can do all things (saith he) in Christ, that strengtheneth me. 
Phil, 4, 13  Again in another place, the same Apostle telleth us, That as by the disobedience of Adam, 
Rom. 5, 19  many became sinners; so by the obedience of Christ many shall be made righteous. Again in another place thus; That I may be found in him not having mine own righteousness, 
Philip, 3, 9  which is of the Law, but that which is through the saith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God through faith. Again in another place thus; They being ignorant of God's righteousness, 
Rom. 10, 3  and seeking to establish their own, were not subject to the righteousness of God.  
Again thus; He made him sin for us, which knew no sin, that we might be the righteousness of God in him. Hereupon S. Austen that worthy pillar of Christ's church, 
2 Cor. 5, 21  giveth this gloss and true meaning of these words of Saint Paul. Christum pro nobis peccatum fecit Deus, 
Aug. in enchir. cap. 41. tom. 3 pagina 118  cuireconciliandi sumus; ho est, sacrificium pro peccatis, per quod reconciliari valeremus. Ipse ergo peccatum, ut nos justitia; 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, demonstravit. God made Christ sin for us, to whom we are to be reconciled; that is, a sacrifice for sins, by which we might be reconciled. He therefore was made sin, that we might be made justice; not our justice, but God's justice; neither in us, but in him; as he declared, sin not to be his, but ours; not placed in him, but in us, by the similitude of sinful flesh, in which he was crucified. Thus writeth this ancient, holy, and learned Father. Out of whose grave Testimony, together with the Texts of holy scripture produced already, I observe these memorable documents, for the comfort of the well affected Reader.  
First, that albeit we are not able of ourselves, nor in ourselves, to fulfil the Law of God, and to keep his commandments; yet are we able to keep them, and to fulfil the Law, in our Lord jesus Christ.  
Secondly, that as we were made sinners by the disobedience of one, even Adam; so are we made righteous, by the obedience of one, even Christ jesus.  
Thirdly, that our formal righteousness is not inherent in ourselves, but in God, for the obedience of jesus Christ his only son and our only saviour.  
Fourthly, that as the sin for which Christ suffered, was ours, not his; in us, not in him; even so that justice by which we are made righteous, is not ours, but Gods; not in us, but in him. I therefore conclude, that we fulfil the Law in Christ, not in ourselves. And I add with S. Austen, 
O lesuite confess thou art confounded.  (to the everlasting confusion of our jesuit and all jesuited Papists in the world) that that justice, by which and with which we are formally justified in God's sight, is not inherent in ourselves, but in God; not ours, but his; not in us, but in him; and yet ours by imputation, as our sins by imputation were his. So as all the faithful may joyfully say with the Prophet David; Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man, to whom the Lord will not impute sin. And with the Apostle Paul: 
Psalms, 32, 1, 2.  As many by the disobedience of Adam, were made sinners; 
Rom. 5, 19  so many by the obedience of Christ are made righteous. And here I wish the reader to mark well: that to be justified by imputation, is to be made just truly and indeed; though not by justice inherent in ourselves, but by the justice of Christ. 
2 Cor. 5, 21  For as our sins were truly and indeed imputed to him, so is his justice truly and indeed imputed to us. I also admonish the Reader, to remember well these words of S. Austen, 
Aug. in ench. cap. 41. tom. 3. pagina 118.  Ipse ergo peccatum, ut nos justitia, etc. He was made sin, that we might be made justice: not our justice, but God's justice; neither in us, but in him. To remember well (I say) these words, because they are words of great consequence. 
These words strike dead.  For they prove evidently, that our formal justice is not inherent in ourselves, but in God; which confoundeth the Papists, and striketh them dead. They convince man's inherent justice to be imperfect; and their supposed condign merit of Works, to be plain Hypocritical.  S. R. 
S. john giveth us a sign to try, 
Page 430 1 john 2, 3, 4.  if we know God (viz;) if we keep his commandments, and verse 3. affirmeth, That who keepeth not his Commandments, knoweth not God. Wherefore either Bell keepeth the Commandments, or he knoweth not God.  T. B. 
I answer; 
Luke 18, 13  first, that Bell humbly acknowledgeth himself a great sinner, and desireth pardon for his sins with the poor Publican. Howsoever our jesuit like the Pharisee, glory in his condign merits, and Works of Supererogation.  
Secondly, 
1 Cor, 13, 9  that as we know God unperfectly, so do we keep his commandments unperfectly. If our jesuit say, that he knoweth God perfectly: S. Paul condemneth him for an arrogant fellow: If he say, he keepeth Gods Commandments perfectly, 
Iames 3, 2  S. james reproveth him as a proud Pharisaical Friar.  S. R. 
As for S. Austen, 
Page 430.  he said our defectuous keeping is counted a full keeping, when the defect is pardoned; which is a far different thing from saying, that Christ's keeping is counted our keeping. And he meaneth, that our keeping is defectuous, because we keep not the commandments ad unum apicem (as he saith) to the last jot or title, but through Venial sins have need to say, Fogive us our Trespasses; which Venial Trespasses being pardoned, we are accounted to do all God's Commandments.  T. B. 
I answer; first, that it is a mere calumny to charge me with saying, that Christ's keeping is our keeping. I only said then, and now say again; that we fulfil the Law in Christ, which is such a truth, as you are never able to refute the same.  
Secondly, that I have proved already, that every sin is deadly of it own nature: and consequently, that it is too great arrogancy in our jesuit, to expound S. Austen after his own fancy, having neither authority, nor reason so to do.  
Thirdly, that when our jesuit confesseth that their Venial sins are pardoned, he unawares confesseth, that they cannot keep Gods Commandments. I prove 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 sins at all, for God is not well pleased with sin. 
Psalm 5, 4 This Dilemma is insoluble.  If he have forbidden them, then are they against his precept, and consequently, seeing the Papists grant that they cannot live without their Venials, they must also grant of necessity, that they cannot keep Gods holy Precepts. And therefore it is time for all Jesuits and jesuited Papists, to say with S. james, We all offend in many things. 
james 3, 2  And with the Prophet David, Enter not into judgement with thy servants, 
Psalm 143, 2  O Lord, for none living shall be justified in thy sight. 
Aug. lib. 1. retract. cap. 19  I therefore conclude with Saint Austen; that all the Commandments are then reputed as done, when whatsoever is not done, Is of mercy forgiven. And with S. Hierome; that the true wisdom of man is, 
Hier. lib. 1. adverse. Pelagioones fol. 121. Lib. 1, fol. 120 lib. 2. fol. 130  to know that he is unperfect.  S. R. 
Saint Hierome confesseth, that God hath given possible Commandments, lest he should be Author of Injustice. He saith likewise, that he is to be detested as a blasphemer, that saith, God hath commanded any impossible thing. S. Austen also saith, that God could not command any impossible thing, because he is just.  T. B. 
This Objection is as a Bulwark, for Popish supposed Condign Merit of works. I therefore both proposed it in the Downfall, and answered it in the same place. My answer is there to be seen at large, to which I refer the Reader. This is the sum and effect thereof, (viz) that God commanded nothing, which was either impossible in itself to be done, or to be done of man as man; The same ie there proved at large. Touching S. Hierome, I will add a little, because our jesuit 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, save only to prove against them out of the holy Scriptures, that none living doth keep God's Commandments, which he proveth no other way, but because all have sinned, and done evil in God's sight. Three things therefore are clear and certain with S. Hierome.  
First, that all have sinned, and cannot be justified, but by the mercy and favour of God. These are his words; In multis offendimus omnes. 
Lib. 2. advers. Pelag fol. 130.  Non pauca peccata, sed multa; non quorundam sed omnium posuit. Omnes n. quae sua sunt quaerunt, & non ea quae dei sunt. We all offend in many things. He put not a few sins, but many; not the sins of some, but of all. 
Vbi supra, lib. 1. sol. 123. D.  For all seek 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 volverit deus, hominem servare sine peccato, & immaculatum sua misericordia custodire. Hoc & ego dico, quod deo cunct● possibilia sunt; homint autem, non quicquid volverit possibile est, & maxim idesse, quod nullam, ●egeris habere creaturam. For man cannot be without sin, as thou thinkest; but God is able, if it please him, to preserve a man from sin, and to keep him immaculate by his mercy. This I also grant, that all things are possible to God; but it is not possible for man to do, whatsoever he would; especially to be that, which thou hast not read any Creature to have. Again thus; 
Vbi supra, lib. 2. fol. 129. D.  Hec cuncta percurro; ut 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 run over all these things, to show that none hath fulled the Law; and by the Law, all the Commandments contained in the Law: Ergo, we are preserved (Or saved) 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 sinful in themselves, 
Vbi supra, lib. 1. fol. 120. c d. tom 3. eccles. 7 22 3. reg. 8. 46  by transgressing God's law, yet are they just by the mercy of God in Christ jesus. 
Psal. 19 12.  The former p●rt, 
Psal. 43. 2.  Saint Hierome proveth thus; Non est homo justus, etc. There is none just upon the earth, none that doth good and sinneth not. Again, There is no man that sinneth not. Again, Who knoweth his sins, cleanse me from my secret faults. Again, Enter not into judgement w●th thy servant, for none living can be justified in thy sight. These and many like places (saith S. Hierom) are every where in the Scriptures, by which it is manifest, that none living can be without sin.  
The latter part, 
Vbi supra.  the same holy Father proveth thus; Audi eundem evangelistam; si confiteamur peccata nostra, sidelis & instus est, ut dimittat nobis peccata nostra, & mundet nos ab omni iniquitate. 
1. john. 1, 5.  Tunc ergo justi sumus, quando nos peccatores fatemur; & justitia nostra non ex proprio merito, sedex dei consistit misericordia: conclusit. n. ●●euso●ma sub peccato, ut omnibus misereatur. 
Rom. 11, 31  Et haec hominis summa est iusti●a. quicquid potuerit habere virtutis, non suum putare esse, sed Domini qui largitus est. Hear the same Evangelist; If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us all our sins, and to cleanse us from all iniquity. Then therefore are we just, when we confess ourselves; and our justice doth not consist of our own merit, but of God's mercy. For GOD hath shut up all under sin, 
Vbi supra fol. 121. ●.  that he may have mercy on all. Again, in another place thus; Haec est hominis vera sapientia, imperfectum esse se nosse; atque (utit a loquar) cunctorum in carne justorum imperfecta perfectio est. This is the true wisdom of man, to know that he is unperfect; and that the perfection of all the just in the flesh, is imperfect. Out of this discourse of this holy and learned Father, I observe these worthy documents.  
First, that all men, even the best livers upon earth, have committed not a few, but many sins.  
Secondly, that we never read of any man, who never 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 saved by his free will & holy life, but by the mercy of God.  
Fiftly, that no man fulfilleth the Law, nor keepeth the Commandments contained therein. 
Mark this point well.  This is a point of great consequence, it would be remembered.  
Sixtly, that though all men be Sinners in respect of themselves, yet are the faithful just in respect of God's mercy, who imputeth not their sins unto them.  
Seventhly, that man is then justified, when he acknowledgeth himself 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 just and perfect in God's sight. Mark well, gentle Reader. None (saith Saint Hierom) can fulfil the law; none can keep the Commandments; none can live without sin; and yet the greater Sinner, the more just man, if he with the lowly Publican do humbly confess his sins. For (as Saint Hierome telleth us) to acknowledge our imperfection, 
Luke. 18, 13.  is our perfection before GOD, and to confess ourselves sinners, is our justification before him in Christ jesus. Away then with all Popish inherent justification; away with all Popish falsely supposed satisfaction; away with all Popish Condign merits; away with all Popish supererogations.  S. R. 
Saint john saith, 
Page 429. 1. john. 53.  This is the love of GOD, that we keep his Commandments, and his Commandments are not heavy. He saith not (Christ) but (We) must keep God's Commandments, and to animate us thereto, he addeth; that they are not heavy, (Viz:) to us.  T. B. 
This is answered already, 
August. lib. 1. retract. cap. 19 tom. 1.  where I proved out of Saint Austen, 
Vbi supra, lib. 2. fol. 130. B. Ibidem. C.  that all the Commandments are then reputed done, when whatsoever is not done, is (Of mercy) forgiven. Nevertheless, it shall not be amiss, to add Saint Hieroms censure to the latter member, for explication sake. These are his words; 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; ut erubescas ad sententiam tuam, facilia esse dei mandata. Wilt thou hear, how easy God's Commandments are? 
Mat. 7, 14.  Hearken what is said; Strait and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few they are that find it. He said not, which go by it, for that is a very hard thing, but which find it; for few do find it, and far fewer enter in by it. These things I say, and will urge them again and again severally; that thou mayst be ashamed to say, that God's commandments are easy. Thus writeth this holy and most learned Father. Out of whose doctrine I note thus much.  
First, that the way to heaven (that is to say God's commandments) is very strait and narrow, not wide and long, or easy.  
Secondly, that it is so strait and so narrow, that few find it, and fewer enter in by it.  
Thirdly, that this way of God's commandments, is so very hard; that in S. Hieroms opinion and judgement, he may be ashamed, that saith it is easy. Our jesuit therefore may be ashamed of his Doctrine, 
Page 432  and twice ashamed to make S. Hierom a Patron of the same. 
Page 433   S. R. 
If Bell say, 
Page 432  that it is impossible to love God, as we ought to do: this is reproved, because he loveth God as he should do, 
Deut. 6, 5  who loveth him With all his heart, all his soul, and all his power. But joshua so loved God, of whom it is written, 
4 Reg. 23  that he returned in all his heart, in all his soul, and all his strength. 
Psalm 119  Likewise David sought God in all his heart, 
3 Reg, 14, 8.  and followed him in all his heart. And God hath some servants, 
2. par. 6, 14  that walk before him in all their heart, with whom he keepeth his covenant and mercy, 
Deut. 30, 6  and God promiseth to circumcise the jews hearts, that they might love him in all their hearts, and all their soul.  T. B. 
Bell saith so, and that truly, and is already proved in this discourse, 
4 Reg. 23, 25  and more at lage in the Downfall. Now to your particulars. King josias (whom our jesuit falsely nameth joshua) returned to God in all his heart, all his soul, and all his strength. Which is nothing else indeed, but that hereturned to God with a sincere heart, and unfeignedly, not Hypocritically. Not that he was pure and free from sin, & no part of his heart or soul defiled with corruption, which our jesuit might have perceived, to be implied in the word (Return.) For, from what did he return, save only from sin. If he had ever been with God in all his heart, all his soul, and all his strength; then doubtless could he not have returned to him. For he that is ever with one, cannot be truly said, to return to him. But the scripture decideth the Controversy, 
2. Par. 35, 21 22.  when it telleth us, that josias harkened not unto the words of Mecho, 
2, Par. 15, 17.  (king of Egypt,) 
de Asa. notetur  which were of the mouth of God, but came to fight in the valley of Megiddo, where he was slain for his pains. K. David likewise (saith our jesuit) sought God in all his heart, which must needs be understood, as I said of K. josias. For he was both an adulterer, & a murderer, 
2. Sam. 12.  though also the child of God. This is already proved, & plainly confirmeth the doctrine which I defend. 
Psalm, 51  The same may be said of king Ezechias, who was a great sinner, 
2. Par. 22, 25  and yet is said to have served God with all his heart, and to have kept his commandments. 
4 Reg. 18. 6. 7, 8.  The same answer serveth to the rest, that God hath those, that will serve him with their whole heart; 
De Asa vide  that is, unfeignedly and cheerfully. 
2 Par. 16, 7, 13 & cap. 15, 17 & uda.  For, as we have heard already out of the scriptures, None living is without sin. Again, The faithful are said to keep God's Commandments, and to serve him with all their heart; Because to such as serve God unfeignedly and cheerfully, whatsoever is left undone, is of mercy pardoned and forgiven. It is the flat doctrine both of S. Austen and of S. Hierom, as I have already proved. And here I may not forget, to put our jesuit in mind, that concerning the circumcising of the jewish hearts, it may please him to read the verses following, for there shall he find his silly objection fully answered, even in the text itself. These are the words: 
Deu. 30, 8, 10  Return thou therefore and obey the voice of the Lord, and do all his Commandments, which I command thee this day. Lo, the jews, whose hearts God promiseth to circumcise, have gone from him and disobeyed his voice, and therefore must have their hearts circumcised, that they may return to him again, & serve him with their whole heart, that is to say, cheerfully and unfeignedly. Whosoever can and will read S. Hierome (in the place quoted in the Margin) seriously and at large, 
Hier. lib. 2. adverse. Pelag. fol. 133. tom. 3  shall find this controversy so fully decided, as he can no longer stand in doubt thereof. For ever must this Apostolical Doctrine, 
james 3, 2.  be holden for a most constant position: 
3. Reg. 8. 46  In multis offendimus omnes. We all offend in many things. 
2. Par, 6, 36  And this likewise for a received Axiom, 
1. john 1, 8  in the School of all right Christians; Non est homo, qui non peccavit. 
2. Par. 15, 17 & cap. 16. ver 7. & 12.  There is no Man that sinneth not. If therefore our jesuit sin not, he is no man, if his pope sin not, he is not man, but either God or the Devil. GOD (I am sure) he is not, if the Devil, God bless us from him. In like manner, it is said of King Assa that his heart was perfect all his days, and yet is he reproved both for resting upon the king of Aram, and for not seeking God in his disease. The speech is synecdochical, because he was upright in many things.  S. R. 
Saint Hierome curseth this blasphemy of Bell; 
Page 443  God hath given us those commandments, 
Hier. epist. ● Damas. tom. 2 fol. 57  which we cannot possibly keep. Likewise Saint Austen saith, that God could not command any impossible thing, because he is just.  T. B. 
I answer; first, that the Symbol or Creed (from whence our jesuit will needs borrow a curse, 
A. Aug. serm. 61 de temp. 1.  and father it upon S. Hierom) is not his, as the censure upon the same doth declare. The like I may say of S. Aistens sermons de Tempore Secondly, Saint Hieroms meaning, & S. Austin's also, is nothing else indeed, but that God's commandments 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 Downfall of Popery. That this is Saint Hieroms opinion indeed, I have already proved at large touching S. Austen, these are his own express words; Certe justus Deus, negari non potest. Imputat autm Deus homini omne peccatum. Et hoc quoque confitendum puto, quìa neque peccatumest, quicquid non imputabitur in peccatum. Et si est aliquod peccatum quod vitari non potest, quomodo justus deus dicitur, si imputare cuiquam creditur quod vitari non possit? Respondemus, iam domini contra superbos esse clamatum; 
Psalm 32, 1.  beatus cui non imputavit dominus peccatum. Non. n. imputat his qui sideliter ei dicunt; dimit nobis debita nostra, 
Aug. de perfect justit. ratiocin, 15. pa. 968. tom. 7.  sicut & nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris. Et just non imputat, quia instum est, quod ait; in qua mensura mensi fueritis, in eadem remetietur vobis. Peccatum est autem, cum vel non est charitas quae esse debet, vel minor est quam debet, sive hoc voluntate vitari possit, sive non possit; quia si potest, presence voluntas hoc facit; si autem non potest, praeterita voluntas hoc fecit; & tamen vitari potest, non quando voluntas superbalaudatur, sed quando humilis adiuvatur God doubtless is just, it cannot be denied. He also imputeth every sin unto man. I also think that this must be granted, because it is no sin, whatsoever is not imputed for sin: and if there be any sin which cannot be avoided, how is God called just, if he impute to any man, that which cannot be avoided? We answer, that of old it was proclaimed against the proud; Happy is the man, to whom the Lord hath not imputed sin. For he imputeth not sin to them, which faithfully say to him, forgue us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And justly he doth it not, because it is just which he saith; In what measure yourselves shall measure, in the same shall it be measured to you again. And it is sin when either there is not that Charity, which ought to be, or when it is less than it ought to be; whether this can be avoided with will, or it cannot: for if it can be avoided, then present will hath done it; if it cannot be avoided, then will past did it.  
Again, the same Saint Austen hath these words; Ante omniainquit, interrogandus est, 
Vbi supra raciocin. 1. p. 965  qui negat hommem sine peccato esse posse, quid sit quodcunque peccatum; quod vitari potest, an quod vitari non potest. Si quod vitari potest; potest homo sine peccato esse, quod vitari potest. Nulla. n. ratio vel institia patitur saltem dici peccatum, quod vitari nullo modo potest. Respondemus, vitariposse peccatum, si natura vitiata sanetur gratia Dei per jesum 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 adversus spiritum, & spiritus adversus carnem, ut ea quae non vult homo, faciat. He (saith Celestine) that saith man cannot live without sin, must first of all be demanded, what he will have sin to be; whether that which can be avoided, or which cannot be avoided. If that which can be avoided; man may be without that sin, which can be avoided. For neither reason, nor justice suffereth that to be called sin, which no way can be avoided. We answer, that sin may be avoided, if corrupt Nature be healed by God's grace through jesus Christ our Lord. For infomuch it is not healed, by how much it either through blindness sees not, or through infirmity fulfils not, what ought to be done; 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 Christ's Church. Out of whose Doctrine, these excellent observations may be gathered.  
First, that that is no sin, which GOD imputeth not for sin: and consequently, that when GOD doth not impute our sins to us, then are we truly said to be without sin, (In God's acceptation ever understand) although sin be still inherent in us.  
Secondly, that they are to be condemned for proud & arrogant persons, who think themselves to be without sin.  
Thirdly, that our merciful God imputeth no sins to his faithful Children, who in the Lord's Prayer humbly desire pardon for the same. This is a point of great moment; it must be well remembered, and never forgotten. The Papists most desperately and damnably affirm, that some sins are Venial of their own Nature; whereas the truth is this indeed, (viz) that albeit all sins be mortal and deadly of their own Nature, (as I have proved in the Downfall) yet are all sins (as Saint Austen gravely and Christianly in this place unfoldeth) Venial to God's Children; who in true Faith invocate his holy Name, and humbly crave pardon for the same. So as it may truly be said; that some sins are Mortal, & some Venial, though not in Popish sense and meaning. For, though sins be mortal in their own Nature, and not at all Venial, yet are all sins Venial to the Faithful, by the great mercy of GOD, who imputeth no sins to his elect Children, 
1. Cor. 1, 30.  when he beholdeth their Robes washed & made white, in the blood of the immaculate Lamb. 
2. Cor 5. 21.  These (I say) must be well marked, 
Rome 10. 4.  and firmly imprinted in our remembrance, (viz) Non●n, 
Phillip 3. 9  imputat his qui fideliter ei dicunt, dimit nobis debita nostra. 
Ephe. 1. 4.  For he doth not impute their sins to them, 
Tit. 3. 7.  who faithfully desire pardon for their sins. 
Apoc. 7. 14.  sins therefore are Venial, but to whom? Not to Atheists denying God; not to Pharisees boasting of their Condign works; not to Infidels denying Christ's merits; not to impenitent persons, who either despair, or take delight in sin; but to the faithful, who ever have a fervent desire to do Gods holy will, and to keep his Commandments. And though of ignorance or frailty they often fall into sin, yet do they forthwith bewail their sins, humbly crave pardon for the same, and apply themselves wholly to worthy fruits of repentance.  
Fourthly, that when we either want charity, or have it not in that degree and perfection, which the Law requireth; we forthwith commit sin, and become guilty in that behalf.  
Fiftly, that we sin even in doing that, which we can no way avoid. Hereof Saint Austen yieldeth this reason, (viz) that if we can avoid it, than our present will is culpable & in default, if we cannot avoid it, them will past was the cause thereof. For (as the same holy father saith elsewhere & is to be seen in the Downfall,) every such sin of ours is voluntary, eytheir in the work itself, or else in the Original; that is to say, in the Protoplast Adam; whose will in Gods just judgement is reputed ours, 
Heb. 7. 10.  because we were in his loins as in the beginning, 
Lib. 3. ethicor. cap. 5.  and root of all mankind. 
§. 27.  To which I add; that though the Devil cannot avoid sin, yet cannot our Papists deny, but he both sinneth heinously, and voluntarily: yea, the Phylopher telleth us, That the drunken man deserveth double punishment. For we must ever have in mind, that our necessity of sinning, is punishment justly inflicted upon us, as proceeding from our voluntary sin in Adam. I likewise add for a complement and consummation of the doctrine which I now deliver and defend; that Celestine (against whose errors Saint Austen wrote this Book, Deperfectionciustitiae) defended Mordicus as a resolved & undoubted doctrine; That whatsoever Man could not avoid, but do of necessity, could not truly be called sin, nor for sin be justly imputed to him. To whom Saint Austen answered; that albeit we cannot in this corruption of Nature live wholly without sin, but so far only as our nature is healed; yet might we have avoided sin perfectly and wholly before Adam's fall, which is enough to make us truly and formally sinners in God's sight. Let his words be well marked and remembered, and this controversy will soon be at an end. For it is all one, as if S. Austen had said; Though we cannot now live without sin, but sin of necessity; yet are our sins justly and truly imputed to us, because we sinned voluntarily in Adam, and by that means most justly brought this necessity upon us. This Doctrine the Papists, Volentes, Nolentes, must admit; or else accuse God of Injustice, for condemning Infants eternally, for that sin which they cannot possibly avoid. For infants dying without Baptism, they affirm to perish everlastingly.  S. R. 
As for Bells dilernma, it is easily answered, and might have been better left out (as himself writeth in the margin.) For though Infants after they have sinned, and eaten the Apple in Adam, cannot avoid the guilt of Original sin, but must needs contract it by origine from Adam: Yet becautses as Infants sinned in Adam, so they might have not sinned in him, but have avoided the guilt of sin; falsely doth Bell say, they could not possibly avoid it. And I wonder, why Bell having taught before, that Concupiscence (the effect of Original Sin) is voluntary, he will now say, that Infants could not possibly avoid Original sin. But it is his custom to gainsay himself.  T. B. 
I answer; First, 
Page 436.  that in the Downfall of Popery, these words are written indeed in the Margin; (Omittatur haec clausula meo indicio.) But I protest, that neither did I write them, neither did they please me, when I espied them. Many like faults are in many of my Books, which I cannot deal withal. If I had Money at my will, (as our jesuit hath) to defray my charges, while my Books were at the Press, I could then so handle the matter, as such faults should not offend his worship. How this Marginal note crept into the place, I may conjecture and be deceived. This I am assured of, that our Jesuits can do greater matters. This every child may know, that I wrote it not, but our lesuite will needs have it so. For, if I would have had it left out, it was in my power to have effected the same; this supposed (which I deny) that it was mine own act.  
Secondly, that our jesuit killeth himself with his own sword. For, I contend against him, that all sins are voluntary in Adam, and the Law possible to have been kept in him, which the jesuit unawares, doth here confess against himself. This is the main point in Controversy, (viz) whether that which we cannot avoid, may be sin in us or no. I hold the Affirmative, out jesuit the Negative. I reply, that infants are guilty of that sin, which they could not avoid; and consequently, that that may be sin in us, which we cannot avoid. But withal I constantly affirm, that infants sinned voluntarily in Adam, because they were in his loins; as also, that we might have kept the commandments in innocent Adam, 
Heb. 7, 10  though after corrupt Adam, we cannot possibly perform the same. This notwithstanding, I deny that infants could any way have avoided Original sin. For I cannot conceive, how a child can avoid that sin, 
Qui potest capere, capiat.  which was committed before he was borne. For though it was once in Adam's power, to have avoided all sin, and so to have freed all his posterity from all sin, yet was it never in any Infant's power, to have caused Adam to keep Gods holy precept; which seeing no Infant was able to perform, neither could any Infant possibly have avoided sin. Our jesuit therefore must learn to know, that it is one thing to say, that it was in Adam's power not to have transgressed God's Law, another thing to say, that it was in our power before we were borne, to have kept Adam from that transgression. Which seeing it was never in our power, neither were we ever able to have avoided the same; and consequently, neither to have avoided sin.  
Thirdly, where our jesuit saith, it is Bells custom to gainsay himself; if it may please his reverence to put jesuit for Bell, the truth than will be on his side.  S. R. 
God's Children as long as his seed abideth in them, 
Page 44●  sin not, 
1 john 3, 9 james 2, 10  nor offend deadly in any one point, but abide both in the whole Law, and in every point thereof. Saint james speaketh of deadly sin, and of offending deadly. But there he Venial sins (which Bell denieth not) in the which just men may offend, 
Page 438.  and not break God's Law deadly.  T. B. 
I answer first, that every sin is mortal of it own nature (which I have already proved. Secondly, that all sins are Venial and pardonable (which is all one,) to God's children and faithful servants; not of their own nature, but of God's great mercy and favour towards them; who for Christ's merits and satisfaction (in whom he is ever well pleased) pardoneth all their offences, & imputeth no sin unto them. 
Mat. 3, 17  This is the constant doctrine of S. Austen, whose words are these; Omnia ergo mandata facta deputantur, quando quicquid non fit, ignoscitur. All the Commandments are then reputed as done, when what soever is not done, 
Aug. lib. 1. retract. cap. 19  is (Of Mercy) forgiven. The famous Popish Abbot Bernardus, is consonant to S. Austen. These are his words; Omne quod natum est ex deo, non peccat: sed hoc dictum est de praedestinatis ad vitam; non quod omnino non peccent, sed quod peccatum ipsis non imputetur. All that is born of God, 
Bernard, de gra & lib. arbitr. pag. 1189  sinneth not. But this is spoken of the predestinate to life; not because they sin not at all, but for that sin is not imputed to them.  
Again, in another place he saith thus: Vtique quod factum est, non potest, non fieri: ipso tamen non imputante, erit quasi non fuerit. 
Bernard. serm, 3, in annunc.  Quod Propheta quoque considerans, ait beatus vir cui non imputabit Dominus peccatum. The sin doubtless that is done, cannot be undone, yet because God doth not impute sin unto us, we shall be as if we had not sinned. Which the Prophet considering saith; Blessed is the man to whom God shall not impute sin. Out of these words, this Corollary is clearly deduced (viz) that the regenerate are said not to sin, not because they do no sin indeed, or have no sin in themselves (for that were against the flat Doctrine of S. james, 
james 3, 2 ) but because God of his mere mercy for the merits of Christ jesus doth not impute their sins unto them.  S. R. 
It is an unjust law which is impossible; and to punish the breakers were against right and equity. As Bell himself would grant, if upon pain of death he were bid to fly to heaven, and executed if he did not.  T. B. 
I answer; First, that the Commandments of God are not simply and absolutely impossible, but accidentally Per accidens. They are not impossible in themselves, because Christ himself kept them, neither impossible to man, as man, because Adam might have kept them: Only they are impossible to cortupt man: which impossibility, cometh Per accidens, 
Deut. 30  and not Ex natura rei. Man had free will to have done Gods will, 
Eccles. 15.  to have kept his Commandments, and to have lived without sin perpetually; 
Ephes. 4, 24.  through whose disobedience we are sold under sin, 
Rom. 5, 18  and brought to that necessity, 
Rom. 7, 14  that we cannot possibly avoid sin. 
Heb. 7, 5.   
Nevertheless, we are justly punished for our sins, because the necessity and impossibility, which was befallen us, was brought upon us through our own default, when that we were in the Loins of Adam.  
Secondly, that our Jesuits argument of my flying to Heaven, is both unchristian and very childish: unchristian, because it doth equalize man's precepts with Gods: childish, because it was never in my power to sly to heaven, as it was once in man's power to keep God's commandments. Our jesuit accuseth God of injustice, in condemning infants for Original sin.  S. R. 
After the fathers, he bringeth two reasons. The one out of the Lords prayer, where we are taught to ask forgiveness. But (saith he) Where pardon must be demanded, there the Law is not exactly observed. The other is out of our daily confessions, where we acknowledge our faults, and most great faults. I Answer, as the petition of forgiving our sins, doth evidently convince, that we do not so exactly keep the Law, as that we never serve from it; so the other petition of doing Gods will here on Earth as it is in Heaven, evidently convinceth, that we can do it without deadly breaking it. As for our confessions, we do not confess that our daily offences are most great faults, but daily confess our most great faults, whether done then or before.  T. B. 
I answer: first, that our jesuit granteth as much as I desire, as every child may perceive. For his words are plain, that they do not keep the law so exactly, as they never serve from it. Hold thyself here good Friar, and we shall soon agree. For if you serve from the Law, then doubtless, ye doth not keep it. This is all, that I require at your hands, (viz) that ye will confess, that ye serve from the Law and keep it not.  
Secondly, that the other petition proveth not, that you Papists can keep God's commandments, and live without sin, as the Saints do in heaven. For every mean Logician can tell you, that the word (As) doth Connotate a similitude, but not an Identity (viz.) that as the Angels & Saints do Gods will in heaven, and live altogether without sin, according to the condition of the perfect state; so we may do his will in some measure and proportion, according to the imperfect state in which we live. And thus much the word (as) doth import unto us, so often as as say the Lords Prayer.  
Thirdly, that your answer is so Enigmatical, as my slender capacity is not able to penetrate the depth thereof. You freely grant, that you daily confess your most great faults, but not that your daily offences are most great faults, O the depth of jesuitical wit! Qui potest capere, capiat. The great God Apollo must come down from Heaven, to unfold this high mystery. Well, seeing it will be no better, let us make the best of it we can. Let us hold fast that, which is freely granted us, (viz) that our Jesuits commit most great faults sometimes, though not every day Let us likewise hold this fast; (viz) that our Jesuits confess those most great faults every day, which they commit sometimes, but not every day. This done; let us out of these two assertions plainly and freely confessed, infer these two most Golden and memorable Corollaries.  
First, that seeing our jesuits freely grant, that they commit sometimes most great faults, though not daily; it followeth of necessity, that sometimes they break gods holy commandments, though not daily; and consequently, that sometimes they sin damnably, though not every day; as also, that they are so far from loving Condign Merits of Glory, as they worthily demerit eternal torment in hell fire.  
Secondly, that their Sacrament of Penance doth not confer Grace Ex opere operato: neither are their most great faults therein forgiven; seeing after their auricular confession and absolution received of their ghostly Fathers, they still stand in such fear of remission of their most great faults, that they must needs confess the same daily in time of Popish Mass. To which two Corollaries, I cannot but add this delicate Post-past for his holiness, viz: That the supposed certainty of the operation of Popish sacraments, is as uncertain as the wind. For though all Papists of all sorts be bound to believe, that Popish absolution ministered by a Popish priest, after Popish auricular confession, doth undoubtedly purge them from all their sins, (though never so many, & never so great;) yet after such confession, and such absolution received from the priests mouth, they are bound by Popish law and Doctrine, immediately to confess their most grievous ●aults in time of Popish Mass. Whereupon followeth of necessity, that Popish late startup Religion, is able to bring all Papists headlong into desperation.  S. R. 
If you love me (saith Christ) keep my Commandments, 
Page 421.  but how can we keep them, if they damnably, 
1 john 14, 1ST  & deadly break them? Can true keeping (thinks Bell) and true breaking stand together?  T. B. 
True keeping and true breaking in divers respects, both may and do well stand together. For as the faithful in respect of their sins inherent in them, do break God's Commandments and are in state of damnation; so, in respect of Christ's merits imputed to them of mercy, they are just and keep God's commandments perfectly. For as the disobedience of Adam, made all men sinners; so the obedience of Christ, 
Phil. 3. 9  made all the faithful holy and just. This is it that S. john saith: He that is borne of God sinneth not, 
1 Cor. 1, 3  which is not meant, 
2 Cor. 5, 21  that he sin not indeed, but (as we liave heard out of S. Austen, 
Rom. 5. 19  and Abbot Bernard) That his sins be pardoned, 
1 john. 3, 9  and not imputed to him. Hitherto, we have seen and viewed our Jesuits Divinity: now a word or two of his great charity, and there an end.  S. R. 
What sir? 
Page 345.  are these speeches S. Chrisostoms' cited by your self? What need a Sermon? What need a Preacher? Surely then your preaching is needless, and consequently the fifty pound pension given to you for it, may be well spared.  T. B. 
Behold here our Jesuits charity. He took in hand to answer the Downfall of Popery, but having broken his back with the fall thereof, & taking to heart that he was put at a Nonplus, as not able to defend the Pope & Popery: he devised with himself how he might be avenged of me, and so took occasion to quarrel at my pension. A rare Metamorphosis doubtless: a digression of mere foolery, to what end, it were wisdom to divine. The question in hand, was of the Popes sooner aignety: Of Religion: Of Faith: Of Salvation. All which things (though of great consequence being set apart: our jesuit, (as one forgetful of the text, beginneth suddenly to preach against my pension, telling his Reader with all gravity, that it may be well spared. It may seem, our jesuit would have a begging Friar, and so to spend my time in seeking my dinner. 
Bells pension grieveth the lesuite.  But as it pleased most Noble Queen Elizabeth of famous memory, of her Royal bounty, to bestow the fifty pound pension on me; and as it hath hitherto well pleased his most excellent Majesty, to continue the same for mine honest maintenance; so I hope, that notwithstanding all the Jesuits prattling, (I would say preaching,) I shall still enjoy the same. Soli Deo uni & trino, honour & Glorìa.  
FINIS.   

GEntle Reader by reason of the Author's absence and misunderstanding 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, etc.