COncerning this Article, I thinke two thinges onely needefull.

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

Secondly, that he repeateth Pope Martius dispensati­on with the Brother and his owne naturall sister, as his brother or rather himselfe (for Robert Parsons, is the Au­thor [Page 75] of both) had done before in the fore-runner of Bels Downfall. But that which he should haue done, & which he would vndoubtedly haue done, if he had beene able to haue performed it, that hath he not done, viz: he hath not replyed to my answere, neither said one word to my large confutation of the saide forerunner. I there proued by the expresse verdicts of three famous Popish writers; (viz:) Siluester Prieras, Bartholomaeus Fumus, and Ange­lus de Clauisio: that the Popish famous Archbyshop and canonized SaintSee the Popes fu­nerall. Austoninus affirmed resolutely, that pope Martin dispensed with one to marry his owne naturall and full sister, of the same father and mother. I prooued likewise out of Cardinall Caìetan, that the Pope can dis­spence in al the degrees of Consanguinity, saue only with the father and his daughter, and with the mother and her sonne. It is therefore no straunge thing to charge the Pope to graunt licence for marriage, euen betweene the brother and sister. For larger discourse heereof, I referre the reader to my book, intituled the Popes Funeral, where this point is so handled, as neither this Iesuite nor any of his fellowes, is euer able to answere the same: and there­fore it is an vndoubted truth, that the Pope taketh vpon him, to licence a brother to marry his owne sister.

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

I cannot omit to tell you and the Reader, that he may take heed of you heereafter, that you are a lyar more im­pudent then impudency it selfe. For Augustinus de Anco­na, the Author himselfe saith plainly, in the very title and dedication of the Booke, that it is Dedicated to Pope Iohn the twelft of that name. Now, whether the Authour of the booke, or Robert Parsons that Trayterous and shamelesse Iesuite (as the secular Priestes tearmed him) [Page 76] knew better to whom the Booke was dedicated, let the Reader iudge. Would not this fellow trow yee, gladly find a hole in my coat? If we had a good matter in hand, he would not vse such miserable shifts.

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

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

Sinne (as the holy Apostle defineth it) is Anomia, that is to say, iniquity or transgression of Gods law.1. Iohn, 3, 4. Aug. de cos, e­vang. cap. 4. Tom. 4. Here we see what sinne is. Let vs proceed. The eternall law (saith Saint Austen) is the reason or will of God, commaunding the naturall order to be kept, and forbidding the same to bee perturbed. Thus doth S. Austen describe Gods law. So then, whatsoeuer is against Gods Lawe is sinne, and whatsoeuer is against Gods will, is against the law; Ergo whatsoeuer is against Gods will is sinne. Let this founda­on thus laid, bee remembred, for by it, all Obiections will soone be answered. I therefore deny the proposition of the Iesuites Argument, when he saith, nothing doone against our will is sinne, and they are enforced to con­fesse the same against their willes, in Children not rege­nerate. For (as the Popes law teacheth vs) Children dy­ing [Page 77] without Baptisme, are damned, and therfore they are not buried in any Church-yard with the Papistes. Now must they tell me, eyther what sinne they did with theyr will, or else confesse with mee, that some thing doone a­gainst mans will is sinne. And the reason is yeelded alrea­dy (which I wish the Reader euer to remember) (viz:) that whatsoeuer is against the will or law of God is sin, whether it be voluntary, or not voluntary. For Saint Iohn placed not voluntary, in the definition of sinne.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I aunswere, that Saint Austen and other Fathers doe comparatiuely, as it were extenuate and excuse innate concupiscence, but not simply make it no sinne. When they seeme to make it no sinne, then they so speake, ey­ther for that it is not imputed to the regenerate, who manfully fight against it; or else, because it is an ingrafted prauity of Nature, and not a voluntary transgression of Gods law. Breefely, the Fathers call it sinne, yet not sim­ply, but comparatiuely in respect of actuall sinnes. Saint Austen in the place which our Iesuite citeth, disputeth a­gainst the fond opinion of some persons, who to auoyde those sinnes, to which they thought their original raging concupiscence would drawe them, resolued to commit one sinne for all, in murthering themselues, and so be de­liuered from many sinnes, to which they feared their con­cupiscence [Page 80] would allure them. Saint Austen therfore dis­swading from such heynous crimes, encourageth such ti­morous consciences by way of extenuation, telling them that concupiscence is without fault, in those that striue a­gainst it, & do not consent vnto it. Not for that it is no sin in it selfe, but because it is not imputed to the godly. For, (as we haue heard already, and as I haue proued at large in the Downfall of Popery) whatsoeuer deflecteth, or swar­ueth from the will of God, the same is most properly sin. The reason is euident, because not to bee correspondent and agreeable to Gods will, is the very intrinsecall rea­son, essence, and nature of sinne. Yet so it is, that the Ataxia, disorder, and concupiscence in the regenerate, is repugnant and disagreable to the will of God; and con­sequently, it must be sinne indeed. And as for the opini­on of Saint Austen, See the Downefall of Popery. I haue proued at large in the Downfall, out of fiue seuerall places of his workes, that it is both the punnishment of sinne, the cause of sinne, and sinne it selfe.

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

I answere; that I know not whether I should pitty the ignorance of our Iesuite, or exclaime against his mallice. For first, Saint Austen cannot bee expounded, as Maister Fryer saith, though Bellarmine his Brother hath lent him his solution. For if Saint Austen had meant materially, & not formally, he would neuer haue called it sin the thirde time, after hee named it twice sinne matterially before, (viz:) when he called it the cause of sinne, and the pun­nishment of sinne. Yet after both these, he addeth, that it [Page 81] is sinne formally. For else he had saide no new thing.

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

I prooue it first, because that concupiscence actuall, [Page 82] wherewith wee couet that that is another mans, and not our own, is forbidden, by all the sixt, seuenth, and eight precepts of the second Table. This doeth our maister Christ teach vs, when hee saith; That whosoeuer shall see a woman to lust after her, Mat, 5, 29 hath already committed adultery with hi [...] in his hart. The same doctrine teacheth S. Iohn, when hee sheweth the hatred of our brother to be agaiust this pre­cept; Thou shall not kill. I. Iohn, 3, 5, 15.

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

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

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

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

Now, no scripture can bee produced, which de­nyeth that Originall concupisence with the involunta­ry motions thereof,Romans, 7. is properly sin: Nay, the Apostle a­boue [Page 83] twelue times in one Chapter, plainely and sim­ply calleth it sin, neither will it helpe to say, that the scrip­ture freeth Gods children from sinne.August, vbi supra. For as saint Austen sayth, they are not deliuered from sinne so, that it is not in them, but that it is not imputed to them. And the Pro­phet teacheth the same doctrine, when he pronounceth The man blessed not who hath no sin, but to whom the Lorde imputeth no sinne. Psalme, 32, 2. And the Papists must either recall their doctrine in this point, or else cry fire and faggot for their chiefe maister Petrus Lombardus, sur-named the Maister of sentences (whose Booke to this day is publikely Read in the schoole of Diuinity,Lombard. lib. 3 sent. dist. 19. c. for thus doth he write:) Se­cundum animas vero iam redempti sumus &c. But touching our soules, wee are redeemed in part, not wholly; from the sinne, not from the paine; neyther wholly from the sinne or fault: For we are not so redeemed from it, that it be not (in vs) but that it rule not (ouer vs.) Lo, Maister Lombard that famous Writer, graunteth first, that we are redeemed in part, but not in the whole.

Secondly, that wee are not wholly redeemed from sinne.

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

Sixtly, Saint Austen affirmeth plainely, that Origi­nall Concupiscence is prohibited by this Precept (Thou shalt not Lust;) and not onely the habituall concupi­scence it selfe, but also all the actuall involuntary moti­ons thereof;Bellar [...]. tom. 3. col 400. vi­de Aug. de spir. & liter. cap, vlt. tom. 3. Thus doeth hee write, as the Iesuire Bellar­mine alleadgeth him; These thinges (saith Bellarmine) are spoken after Saint Austens mind, who by this pre­cept (Thou shalt not Lust) vnderstandeth all the motions of concupiscence, euen the involuntary, to bee prohi­bited in some sort; and that the consent to these motions [Page 84] forbidden by that other precept; follow not thy concupi­scence. Thus writeth our Iesuiticall Cardinall; by whose doctrin it is euident that S. Austen affirmeth the first mo­tions of concupiscence, which peruert reason, and cannot be auoided, to be condemned by S. Paul, as sinfull and a­gainst the law of God. Which doctrine of S. Austen, doth so sting and confound all Papists, that Bellarmine know­eth not in the world what hee shall answere to the same. And therefore he addeth deceitfully in his exposition of S. Austens words, this word. (Quodam modo, after a sort,) which word for all that, is neither in S. Austen, nor yet agreeable to his meaning. For S. Austen saith plainely, simply, and absolutely, without all ands, or ifs, or other qualifications, that such motions are forbidden by this commaundement (non concupisces.) If I (gentle Reader) should thus deale in reciting or expounding my authors, what exclamations, what outcries wold be made against me? all the cursed brood of Iesuites and Iesuited Papists would pursue me with hue and cry, as if I were a rancke Traytor. But S. Austens words are so plaine, as no denyall or Legierdemaine can haue place: for he sayth, that Origi­nall concupiscence with the involuntary motions there­of are forbidden by the last precept of the Decalogue, and the consent to the same, by that other precept, Go not af­ter thy concupiscence. Let this bee wel marked Heere S. Austen vttereth his owne meaning, cōcerning this great controuersie. For he plain­ly and flatly distinguisheth, betweene originall concupi­scence it selfe, and the consent that is giuen to the same. Hee telleth vs simply and resolutely, that the concupi­scence is prohibited by one precept, and the consent to it, by another. Which the Iesuiticall Cardinall seeing to bee an inuincible Bulwarke against him, and against the very essence of all Popish doctrine; hee thought it stood him in hand to inuent some (thogh neuer so mise­rable) Legier demain to dazel the eyes of the reader withal. and for this end, he added to Saint Austen text, this [Page 85] word (Quodam modo, in a sort.) Which (In a sort) though it bee graunted him, yet will it not serue his turne. For, if it bee prohibited in a sorte, and in a sort bee against Gods commaundement, then must it needs followe, that at least in a sort, it is sinne; and so the victory is mine owne.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

S. Austen worthily demanded, how concupiscence can be sinne in the Childe, if it bee none in the baptized Pa­rent. For how can any man impart that to another, which he hath not himselfe? and thereupon Saint Austen [Page 87] concluded, that originall sin still remaineth formally in the baptized Parent, though not imputed for sinne. This reason is vnanswerable.

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

If you Maister Fryer Iesuite, or Iesuited Fryer, may ex­pound Saint Austen at your pleasure, and without ey­ther Scripture, Father, Text, Circumstance, or Reason, say this is his meaning; it must bee as you say, I shall in vain dispute against you. But I hope the indifferent Rea­der will not afforde you that freedome. The Question which Saint Austen mooueth,Marke, for the lesuite is striken dead. is this: Why originall con­cupiscence is sin in the Childe, and no sin in the Baptized Parent. And Saint Austen himselfe, aunswereth himselfe, because it is not imputed for sin in the Parent. Thus stan­deth the case; this is the question; this is the aunswere: The difficulty is this; How the Childe can contract and receiue of the Parent, that which is not in the Parent; be­cause no man can bestow and impart that, which he him­selfe hath not. The answer to the difficulty is this; that o­riginall concupiscence is still in the Parent after baptisme receiued, as truely and formally sin in it owne Nature, as it is truely and formally sin in the vnbaptized Child: and so the Child contracteth nothing of the Parent, but that very same which was in him. This notwithstanding, there is this difference betweene the sin formally in the Parent, and the sinne formally in the Childe, (viz:) that though it bee formally, really, and truely in them both; yet is it is in the one after one manner, in the other after [Page 88] another manner. It is formall sin in the Parent, but not so imputed, yet in the child before Baptisme, it is both for­mall sin, and so imputed. So that the difference is not in the thing, but in the manner and modification of the thing. And this is the true meaning of S. Austen, when hee saith; Non imputatur in peccatum, It is not imputed for sinne. As if he had said, it is still sin aswell in the Pa­rent as in the Childe, (or els the Child could not receiue and contract it of his Father) in the nature of the thing it selfe: Neuerthelesse, it is as if it were not in him, because of mercy it is not imputed to him for sin. Breefely, it is sinne in the Parent, but not so imputed; In the Childe it both is sin, and for sin imputed.

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

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

First, it is most false, & great blasphemy against the son of God, to say that God cannot otherwise not impute sin but by taking it away. If this fond assertion were true, none could euer bee loued of God in this life, seeing all men are full of sinne, which God euer hateth as a thing [Page 89] most odious in his sight. Who but Iesuites will euer say, that they are not Gods enemies in truth, if God respect them after theyr deserts? Who but Iesuites will refuse to say with the Prophet;Psal, 143, 2. Enter not into iudgmēt, with thy seruant (O Lord) for none liuing shall bee iustifyed in thy sight. There­fore wisely, and most christianly sayth Saint Austen; Aug. conf. libr. 9. cap. 13. Woe euen to the best liuer on earth, if thou O Lord examine his life, (thy mercy set apart.) What? Must GOD needs impute sinne, vvhere hee findes it? Then a sharpe Vae vobis will fall vppon our Iesuite, vnlesse hee bee holyer then ey­ther Saint Peter or Saint Paule. Mat▪ 18, 24. But Sir; Heard you ne­uer of a King, whose Seruant ought him tenne thousand Talentes, which hee vvas not able to pay? Knovv yee not, that the King his Lord imputed not the debt vnto him? But yee vvill say, the King forgaue it him. True it is, but how did he forgiue it him? Forsooth by not im­puting it to him. For neyther did hee pay, neyther was hee able to pay the debt. So then, as that King (the King of Heauen if yee vvill,) did impute the tenne thou­sand Tallentes as payde, though they remained vnpaid indeede, and esteemed him as no Debtour, who had his debt still vnpaide: euen so, our mercifull God, both can deale, and doth deale with vs, in not imputing our sin to vs, though they still remaine in vs.

Secondly, Gods iudgement is euer according to truth, euen when hee imputeth not our sinnes to vs, as vvell as vvhen he imputeth them to vs. For, as the King knew right vvell that the debt vvas vnpayde, iudging rightly that it vvas vnpayde, and vvithall accepted of it as if it hadde beene payde, not imputing the debt to the deb­tour; euen so, our mercyfull GOD and louing Father, knovveth right vvell, Originall Concupiscence remay­neth really and formally in vs, rightly iudging that sin to bee in vs, and vvithall accepting vs as if vvee were no Sinners, not imputing our debts vnto vs. And this hee dooth of his owne free mercy, for the merits of his [Page 90] deare Sonne CHRIST IESVS,1, Cor, 1, 30▪ in whom hee is well pleased.Tit, 3, 5.

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

The second thing which Bell inferreth,Page 193▪ and biddeth vs marke it vvell, is, that the tenth Commaundement for­biddeth Originall lust vvithout consent, and habituall Concupiscence. Did euery man reade more markeable folly? First, he maketh Originall lust to bee committed, which is to make Originall Actuall, because what is com­mitted is actuall, as commission is action. Secondly, that habituall and Originall, inclination to euill, is forbidden by the tenth Commaundement, and calleth the contrary most absurd.

Doubles, Bell will confesse plainely, that hee hath not often read more markeable folly indeed, then our mark­able Fryer vttereth in this place, who will neuer gaine a­ny thing at T. B. his hands, vnlesse it be with his marke­able folly, and deceitfull dealing. He first leaueth out my words, in the beginning of the sentence; then addeth he his own, as if they were mine, in the end of the sentence; that done, he discourseth of them & me, at his own good pleasure: But I answer. First, that not only actual, but also habituall inclination to euill, is forbidden in the tenth precept. Bellarmine shall be witnesse against Robert Par­sons, whose words are these;Bellarm. tom. 3. col. 400. Aug. de spir. & liter. cap. vlt. tom. 3. Haec dicta sunt ad mentem, S. Augustini, qui precepto, non concupisces, intelligit prohiberi ali­qua modo matus omnes concupiscentiae, etiam, involuntarios. These thinges are spoken after the minde of Saint Au­sten, who vnderstandeth all the motions, euen those which bee involuntary, to bee forbidden in some sort by this Commaundement, (Thou shalt not Lust.) VVhere wee see, that not onely Bellarmine theyr Cardinall, but Saint Austen that woorthy Piller of the Church, affir­meth both Originall concupiscence, and the involuntary Motions thereof, to be forbidden in this precept. Where I may not forget to tell the Reader, that though Bel­larmine to make his matter good, (if it would) addeth to Saint Austens wordes (In some sort,) yet dooth Saint Austen write very simply, and sayth flatly, that they are prohibited, and addeth not (Quodam modo, In some sort.) That is Bellarmines addition, it is not in Saint Austen.

Secondly, that habituall Originall Lust is not idle, but woorketh ill desires in vs continually agaynst our vvill.

So sayth S. Austen, Aug. de nup. et concup. lib. 1. co, 2. 27. in these words; Agit. n. Aliquid concu­piscentia carnis, &c. For concupiscence of the flesh worketh somthing, euen when there is not giuen vnto it, either the [Page 92] consent of the heart, where it may raigne; or the mem­bers as VVeapons, which may accomplish what it ap­pointeth. And what doth it, but the very wicked and fil­thy desires? For if they were good and lawfull, the Apo­stle would not forbid to obey them.

Marke these wordes, gentle Reader, for they are of great consequence, and giue a deadly blowe to the Papistes. Two thinges are cleered by this Testimony of Saint Austen; the one, that Concupiscence to which consent is not giuen, bringeth foorth ill desires; the o­ther, that the sayde desires are vnlawfull, and prohibi­ted by the Law of GOD. And so wee haue euident­ly prooued, that habituall Concupiscence, to which the regenerate yeelde no consent, but stoutly resist the same, is so farre from beeing meritorious, as the Papists would haue it, that it is sinne formally, and properly so called. And wee haue further, that habituall concupiscence wor­keth ill desires in vs against our will, and therefore that those desires are truely called originall, because vvee doe them not, but rather suffer them to bee doone in vs.

Thirdly, that though the Law in saying, Thou shalt not lust, seemeth by the force of the word which signify­eth action, to prohibite onely the voluntary act of con­cupiscence; yet dooth it forbidde the very Originall Concupiscence it selfe, withall the braunches, effects, and involuntary motions thereof, as is already prooued at large: Yea, Saint Austen doth vnderstand it, as Bellar­mine himselfe doth grant.

Heere for the help of the Reader, I note, that a three­fold Concupiscence is forbidden by the tenth Comman­dement. The first, is meerely called Originall. This is that vvhich vve all contracted of Adam, and which is the Fountaine of all concupiscences and sins, and there­fore truely called of the Apostle sin.Rom, 7, The second, is part­ly Originall, and partly Actuall. Originall, because [Page 93] it yssueth naturally from the Originall prauity of our na­ture. Actuall, for that we couet in act, albeit against our wil, and because it is against our wil, it is more properly & truly called Originall, then actuall. The third, is meere­ly actuall, because it is voluntary.

I must note Bels important vntruths. First,Page. 202. that Pope Vrban and Pope Innocent confirmed Saint Thomas his do­ctrine for authenticall. Secondly, that Pope Vrban gaue it the first place after cannonicall scripture.

This Fryer seemeth to bee framed of lying, and as hee hath vsually spent his whole dispute, so in the end of the article he closeth it vp with leasing. Whosoeuer shal per­vse The Downfall of Popery, wil soon espy, how this Fryer loadeth my back with slaunderous speeches and false re­ports. I will heere in regard of breuity, onely set downe the Testimony of a famous Papist Augustinus Hunnaeus, by name, in that Epistle which he sent to Pope Pius the fift. These are his words; Vrbanus &c. Vrbanus that wor­thy Prelate of the Apostolique sea, admiring the excel­lent doctrine of this man, (he speaketh of Aquinas) & be­holding it as fallen from heauen to driue away the natu­rall mist of ignorance from mens minds, doth grauely ex­hort to the study thereof, and commaundeth the vniuer­sity of Tholouse to follow it as the cheefe, in all their dis­putations and aunsweres concerning faith and manners. Innocentius the fift of that name, esteemed the same mans Doctrine so greatly, that hee doubted not to giue it the first place after the Cannonicall scripture. Thus writeth Hunnaeus. By whose words it may appeare, in what reue­rence the Doctrine of Aquinas is with the Papists; as al­so that our Iesuite cannot answere me, but by lying. And thus I will end this article,Page, 161▪ with these words of our Iesu­ite; Habituall cōcupiscence includeth not only pronesse to euill, but also difficulty to do good: and want of habi­bituall [Page 94] order in the inferior powers, and therefore is both positiue and priuatiue euill. Thus writeth our Iesuite; who after he hath long wearied himselfe in struggling a­gainst the truth, doth at the length vnawares confesse the same. For doubtlesse, when he graunteth, that habituall Concupiscence in the regenerate, includeth want of habi­tuall order in the inferior powers, and therefore is both positiue and priuatiue euill; he graunteth in substance & in the truth of the matter, as much as I desire. He deny­eth in wordes, that Originall concupiscence, is formally sinne, but in effect and substance, hee graunteth the very same. Whosoeuer shal seriously ponder both my dis­course heere and in the Downefall, especially concerning the Nature, definition, and essence of sinne; he will per­ceiue with all facility, that the Iesuite woulde say as I write, if hee were not affrayde to displease the Pope.

BEls first position containeth two partes; the first is, that good workes,Page, 212 neither do nor can goe before Iu­stification. Behold Bell euen where he would proue him­selfe a friend to good workes, sheweth himselfe to be an enemy, and excluding them from any going before, or a­ny way concurring to iustification; to which they so con­curred in Saint Mary Magdalen, as our Sauiour saide, Many sinnes are forginen her, because shee loued much, making her loue a kind of cause,Luke 7, 47 (viz:) disponent of her Iustification.

Our Iesuite wold gladly perswade his reader, that I am an enemy to good workes. The best mean he hath to de­fend himselfe and Popery withall, is cogging, lying, and false dealing. I must needs be an enimy to Good workes, be­cause, [Page 95] I will not admit euill workes for good. I say with S. Austen; Sequuntur, iustificatum, non precedent iustificandum. Aug. de fide & oper. cap. 14, tom 4. Good. Workes follow him that is iustified, but they go not before him that is to be iustified. Behold here, gentle Rea­der, that S. Austen is the same enemy to Good workes that I am. He affirmeth them to follow iustification, and so doe I. Hee denyeth them to goe before iustification, and so doe I. What a thing is this? Our Iesuite dareth not call Saint Austen an enemy to Good Workes; and yet doth he call mee so, who defend and holde the same doctrine that Saint Austen doth. Nay, how is it possible to haue Good Workes, before wee haue fayth? Seeing (as the Apo­stle teacheth vs) Without faith it is vnpossible to please GOD. Heb, 11, 6 Who so listeth to pervse my Suruey of Popery, shall there find euery thing soundly aunswered, whatsoeuer can bee sayde for Popery in this kinde of subiect. But our Fryer will proue Good workes to go before iustification, because Christ sayde to Mary Magdalen; Luke, 7. 47 Many Sinnes are for­giuen her, because shee loued much. I answere, that Christs Argument is not drawne from the cause, but from the ef­fect. As if Christ had sayd; wee may know by her great loue, that great gifts are bestowed on her, that many sins are forgiuen her. For, that no remission of her sinnes pro­ceeded from her loue, but her loue of the forgiuenesse of her sinnes, appeareth by the similitude of the debters. For Christ tolde Peter of two debters, whereof the one ought fiue hundered pence, the other fifty, and that when they had not wherewith to pay, the Creditour forgaue them both. Hee therefore demaunded of Peter, whether of the Debters loued the Creditour more? Peter aunsvve­red, that he to vvhom more vvas forgiuen. Christ appro­ued Peters ansvver, and concluded therevpon, that seeing Mary Magdalen loued more, he might know that she had more forgiuen her, because saith Christ, To whome little is forgiuen, the same loueth little. Neyther is it possible, to draw any other meaning out of christs words. The reason [Page 96] is euident, because christ saith plainly, that the debts were freely forgiuen the debters, who were not able to pay the debts. For otherwise, Maries forgiuenesse shoulde haue no coherence with the similitude of the debters.

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

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

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

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

Thirdly, he triumpheth before the victory, boasting that hee hath confuted my position, when indeede hee hath onely confuted himselfe, and fought the combate [Page 97] with his owne folly. For I do not say, that Good Workes do euer and continually without all interruption, follow persons freely iustified. Let the Reader duely and truely pervse my wordes, and then tell me, if our Fryer Iesuite be not a notorious lyar. I say Good Workes do euer folow but not simply, absolutely, & at all seasons; but as fruites follow trees. Now, I pray you gentle Reader, how doe fruits follow trees? Our Fryer telleth vs. Some trees ne­uer haue any fruit (sayth he) some want a long time, and none beare fruit euer. Alas, alas, what a fond fryer-Iesuit is this Robert Parsons? Where were their wits, that made him the Prouinciall of England? If good workes follow persons iustified no otherwise, but as fruits follow trees, which is my position; then doubtlesse are they not to be expected euery hour, but when the due circumstances of time, place, and persons do require. For good trees do not euer bring forth their fruits, but in due times and seasons.

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

Our Iesuite shall aunswere and confute himselfe,Page 230 for these are his owne words a little after. Because (sayth our Iesuite) as workes are rewarded euen aboue their virtu­al & proportionate equality, as Diuines say▪ vltra condignū; no maruell, if S. Paul called eternall life rather Grace, or Gift, then Stipend, seeing it hath much more of Grace, then it hath of Iustice; yet he no where calleth it meere grace. Beside that, as Saint Austen writeth, he might haue called it a Stipend, as hec calleth Death in respect of Sinne, but forbore, least wee should thinke it were so iustly deser­ued [Page 98] by Good Workes, as death is by euill. Thus discourseth our Fryer. Where we haue first by his owne free graunt, that Workes are rewarded aboue their desert. Albeit be­fore hee called them condigne, and of condigne merite. These are his wordes: Good workes (saith he) done in Gods grace, are condignely meritorius of eternall life. Secondly,Page 221 that Saint Paule calleth eternall life rather Grace then Stipend, because it hath much more of Grace, then it hath of Iu­stice, where vnawares he confuteth himselfe doubtlesse; because where there is more of Grace then of Iustice, it is vnpossible to establish condigne merite. For as the A­postle teacheth vs; To him that worketh, the reward is not rec­koned of Grace, Rom, 4, 4. but of debt or duety. And the same Apostle declareth it more plainely in another place. For by Grace (saith he) you are saued throgh faith (& that not of your selues, Ephes, 2, 8: for it is the gift of God) not of workes, least any man shoulde boast himselfe. Tit. 3, 5. And again in another place thus; Not by the works of righteousnesse which we did, but according to his mercy he sa­ued vs.

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

Bell citeth Theophilact, Page, 236. because he sayth, Saint Paule called eternall life Grace, and not a Reward, as though he [Page 99] had sayd, It is not the reward of our labors. But this is no­thing against vs, who willingly confesse erernall life to be grace, and not to proceede of our owne labours done by our selues, but done and wrought also by the grace of Christ.

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

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

It is well, that ye wil once seeme to graunt a truth. The truth is this; that both Iosephus Angles, and your Cardi­nall Bellarmine, do freely grant being ouercome with the force of trueth, that Good workes can merite nothing, but by reason of GODS promise freely made vnto men. I haue prooued the Controuersie so euidently, that our Iesuite doth nothing else but weary both himselfe and his Reader, in writing most friuolously against the same. I re­ferre the Reader to The Downfall it selfe; where hee shall find euery Argument and peece of reason soundly answe­red, before our Iesuite had published the same. And therefore for mee to vse any further reply therein, were but Actum agere. For doubtlesse, whosoeuer shall duly (all partiality set aside,) peruse The Downfall as it came from my penne, and lay downe this Iesuites aunswere to it [Page 100] in euery place, and compare them together; he will (I am fully perswaded) freely confesse, that no further re­ply is necessary in that behalfe.

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

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

Christ (saith Bell) telleth vs,Vbi supra. that we must giue account for euery ydle word; and S. Iohn saith, that euery sinne is Anomia, that is, Transgression of the law. Saint Ambrose also defineth sin in generall, to be transgression of Gods law, and S. Austen describeth it, to be euery word, deed, or desire against Gods law. Yea, Bellarmine arffimeth eue­ry sin to be against Gods law. The Rhemists also confesse, that euery sin is a swaruing from the Law. Likewise Iose­phus Angles and Durandus, teach venial sins to be against the law. To this argument Catholicks answer differētly, some by denial of the proposition, others by denial of the assumption. Some say, that euery sin which is against the [Page 101] Law is not mortall, but onely that which is perfectly a­gainst it. Others say, that veniall sinnes are not against the Law, but besides the Law.

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

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

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

Our Iesuite being in perplexity, (like as Buridanus his Asse) what to answere to my argument, resolueth to take the best way as he supposeth: for, he thinketh as felons & Traytors standing at the barre in their arraigment, that it is the best to plead (not guilty.) But I must tell him two things: The one, that to be beside the Law and against 1 the Law, is al one in effect. For as our master Christ saith, Hee that is not with him, is against him, and consequently,Mat, 12, 30. if he do besides Christs commaundement, hee doth against the same.

The other, that Durandus, and many Popish Schoole-Doctors 2 [Page 102] confesse resolutely, that euery sinne is against Gods law. And Iosephus Angles affirmeth constantly, that Dwrands opinion is now adaies the Doctrine of theyr Schooles. Where I wish the Reader to note by the way, the mutability of late start vp Romish Religion. Read the Downefall, where this point is set downe at large.

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

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

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

Mark for Christs sake, and behold our Iesuite at a great Non plus. I haue prooued both by the Scripture out of Saint Iohn, and by the testimony of the holy Fathers, and famous Popish Writers; that the very Essence, Nature, and formality of sin, is the transgression of Gods Lawe. That Gods law is nothing else, but his eternall reason or will decreeing what ought to be done, or not to be done, [Page 103] and consequently, that euery sin is mortall, as beeing a­gainst Gods reason, Will, and Law. Now, our Fryer being indeede at his wits end, knoweth not what aunswere to make; but saith at Randon, that the Fathers onely define mortall sin. He neither hath Rime nor Reason thus to say; but we must (if ye will) admit his bare word, for he is an honest man, I warrant you; his word is as good, as no Obligation. The Fathers define sin generally, they make no exception at all, yet our Iesuite will needs haue them, to define onely mortall. What a thing is this? Who e­uer hath heard the like? The Question is, whether euery sin be mortall, or no. I affirme euery sin to bee mortall; and I prooue it, because the holy Scripture, the Aun­cient Fathers, and the Doctors doe define sin to bee so; yet our Iesuite thinketh it enough barely to aunswere, that they all speak of mortall sin, not of veniall. O sweet Iesus? Our Iesuite is either too too foolish, or els too, too malicious. His fond answer is tearmed in Schooles, Peti­tio principij, the begging of the Question. He will needes haue the Fathers to except veniall sins, and to acknow­ledge such sins, although they take no notice of such sins, neither once name such sins; but contrariwise affirme, all sinnes without exception to bee mortall. These Fathers (saith our fatherly Iesuite) define mortall sin, not veniall. Euen so sorsooth, for why should they define that, which is not? The Fathers were wise; they knew that euery sin in it owne nature deserued death and therefore defined sin accordingly. They knew,Rom, 6, 23, that Saint Paule saith; The reward of sinne is death. They knew, what God saith by his Prophet Ezechiell; The Soule that sinneth, Eze, 18, 20, shall dye the death. They knew what God saith by his Prophet Dauid; Psal, 5, 4, Thou art not a GOD that loueth wickednesse, neither shall euill dwell with thee. They knew what Christ will say, at the day of dome; Depart from me ye cursed, into euerlasting fire. But our Iesuite saith,Math, 25, 41 that veniall sinnes breake not friendshippe with God. Well,Page 271. let him stand in iudgment against God [Page 104] for his venials;Psal, 143, 2▪ I will say with the humble Prophet: Enter not into iudgement with thy Seruant (O Lord) for no flesh can be iustified in thy sight.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fiftly, to say that Adultery done by a foole or madde [Page 106] man,Ignorantia iu­ris diuini vel naturalis, non excusat. cans. 17. q. 4. cap. siqui [...]. is no more sinne then it is in beastes, seemeth to me a beastly affirmation. Our Iesuite barely sayth it, hee prooueth it not. I know his supposed ground; because forsooth, it is not voluntary. But I would haue him to tell mee, how it is not as well sinne in Fooles and mad men, as Adams fault is sinne in Infants against their will. Because (saith he) they cannot auoyde it. The same say I, of Infantes. I adde, that Beastes neuer hadde it in their power, to auoyde sinne, and sinnefull actes; but Fooles, madde men, and Infantes, were all at once enabled to haue kept the Lawe, when they were in Lumbis Adae; which is enough for their iust condemnation. And it is confirmed, because they may as well bee freed from O­riginall sin, as from murther and Adultery. It is a com­mon saying, that if a drunken man, kill a man,Aristotle, libr. 3. ethic. cap. 5. §. 72. when hee is drunke; hee must bee hanged, when hee is sober: Yea, the Ethnicke Philosopher can tell vs, that a murthe­rer in his drunkennesse, is worthy of double punishment. First, for his drunkennesse, then for the sinne that follow­eth vppon the same. For though the sinne consequent, be not voluntary in the act and deed done, yet is it volun­tary in the cause.

Bell noteth the Romish Religion of mutability,Page 280. 281. confessing that the olde Romaine Religion was Catholique, sound, & pure, with which he will not contend. But seeing you haue granted the old Roman Religion to be pure and Ca­tholique, and slander the late, I bring an action of slaun­der against you, and charge you to bring good witnesse, when, wherein, and by whom, the late Romaine Religion corrupted the purity of the old.

This is the point indeede, that seduceth the silly igno­rant sort throughout the Christiā world. For the Pope & his flattering Parasites beare them in hand, that the late start vp Romish doctrin, is the old Roman religion, which S. [Page 107] Peter and Saint Paule, preached to the Romanies in their life time: But my life and saluation I gage for the triall, it is not so. No, no, It is a New Religion, crept by little and little into the Church of Rome. To which doctrine if the vulgar people would once hearken, all partiality and sinister affection set apart; they would vndoubtedly vt­terly forsake the Pope, and detest from their hearts all Popish faction. Here our Fryer Iesuite threatneth me, to bring an action of the case against mee; for that (as hee saith) I slander their Religion. He would haue me to tell him and his Pope, when, wherein, and by whom, the late Romish Religion corrupted the purity of the old. I answer, first, that I desire to know our Iesuites name, because we may perhaps agree without suite in Law. Secondly, that I haue in a printed Booke published many yeares ago, to the view and iudgment of all the Christian world, shew­ed in plaine and expresse tearmes, at what times, in what points, & by what persons, the old Roman Religion taught by Saint Paule, (as holy Writ telleth vs) and by Saint Pe­ter, (as Histories Ecclesiasticall doe relate,) was succes­siuely corrupted, errours embraced, superstition nouri­rished, ignorance countenanced, and false Doctrine de­creed for the truth. This Booke is intituled the Suruey of Popery, published about tenne yeares agoe, in the yeare of our Lord God, 1596. I haue challenged all Iesuites and Iesuited Papists, ioyntly and seuerally, to answere it, and all my other Bookes. They haue oftentimes in ma­ny of theyr slaundrous Libels, made mention both of the Suruey, and of my other Bookes, and promised aunswers to the same, but while the Grasse growes, the Horse dyes. This is the first answer, that euer I receiued to this day. Which how silly it is, let others iudge. For their late forerunner did but snatch here and there, and aunswered directly nothing at all. Our Iesuite heere insinuateth something, which hee cannot well tell how to shuffle vp. I also alleadged out of Iosephus Angles, a famous Popish [Page 188] Schoole-Doctor and Byshop,Ios. Ang. [...]. [...]2. s. Page 175. that the Popish Doctrine daily altereth in their Schooles. S. Thomas (sayth he) and his followers hold; That a Ven [...]all sin is not so much against the Law, as besides the Law. But Durand, and many others impugne this opinion, and auouch Veniall sinnes to bee a­gainst the Commaundements. And this opinion (sayth hee) seemeth now adaies to be more common in the schooles. Here I wished the Reader to note by the way, out of the word (Modo, Now adayes) the mutability of the Romish Religion.

Angles insinuateth Schoole opinions to be mutable.Page 280. Bell applyeth it to the Romaine Religion, as if it consisted of Schoole opinions, which may be held Pro & contra with vnity of Faith.

If Schoole opinions be mutable, then Popish Religion is mutable of necessity. For how dare the Schoole-Doc­tours teach publiquely, contrary to the Popes minde? VVas not your famous Doctour Michael at Louain, threatned to frame his opinion to the Popes liking, or else yee w [...]e what would haue followed? Did not the Pope send Toledo the Iesuite, to conferre with him, and tell him what the Pope thought, and therefore he must, and so forth? You know it was so. Be not grieued I pray you,Rhenan. in an­not. ad libr. Tertul. to heare Beatus Rhenanus, one of your deare friends, speake a truth of your Schooles and Schoole-Doctou [...]s. These are his wordes? Thomas Aquinas & Scotus, &c. Thomas Aquinas and Scotus, men too much delighted with subtilties, haue brought confession this day to such a p [...]sse, that Ioannes Geilerius, a Graue and reuerend Di­ui [...]e, and a Preacher a long time at Argentoraium, sayd many a time to his friendes, that it was impossible for a man to make his confessiō, according to their Traditions. Thus writeth Rhenanus. Out of whose words I note. First, that the vain, curious destinctions of the Schole-doctors, [Page 109] haue brought much mischeefe into the Church of GOD. Which thing if a Papist had not spoken it, would seeme incredible to the world.

Secondly, that it is impossible for a Papist to make his confession, acording to the Popish law; and consequent­ly, that all Papists by Popish doctrine, must perish euer­lastingly. Marke well my words (Gentle Reader) the Pa­pists teach vs to hold for an article of our beleefe, that we are bound to make our confessions as the Popish law pre­scribeth; that is, as Aquinas and Scotus haue set downe the same. And for all that Gielerius a Papist himselfe & a great diuine,Loe, Papistes dare not say al they thinke. complained often to his frends, that no man could possibly performe the same. Now then, since on the one side, Popish confession must be made vnder pain of dam­nation; and since on the other side, none possibly can make the same as it is required; it followeth of necessity by Popish Doctrine, that all Papistes must be damned e­ternally. O miserabie Popery, coufounded by thy selfe! O late start-vp Religion, patched like a Beggers cloke! Thine own Doctors, O Popery, (such force hath the truth) haue bewrayed thy treachery to the world. Thirdly, that many likewise among the Papists, do externally obey the Popish Law; who for all that, in their hearts, detest the late hatched Romish Religion. This is euident by the se­cret complaint of the learned man Gielerius, who tolde that to his trusty frends, which he durst not tell the pope.

Their canonized Martyr Byshop Fisher (sayth he) and their Popish Byshop Gerson wrote,Page, 281. that Veniall sinnes were such onely by the mercy of God. Behold the O [...]iginall of Venial Sinnes. Heere Bell for one truth, vt­tereth two vntruths. True it is, that Byshop Fisher & Ger­son were in that errour; but that was both before it was condemned in the church, as it was since by Pius the v. & Gregorius, 13. Neyther did they account involuntary mo­tions of Concupiscence for Veniall sinnes, as Bell doth; but [Page 110] such as Catholickes account Veniall. But vntrue it is, that eyther Byshop Fisher, is cannonized, or Gerson was a By­shop.

Heere our Iesuite graunteth freely, that both the fa­mous learned Byshop Fisher, and that excellent Doctour Gerson of high esteem in the Counsell of Constance, helde for a constant position and sound Doctrine, that euery sin is mortall of it owne nature, our Doctrine therefore is the same, which great learned Papists do defend. And I must needs heere put the Reader in minde, of the newnesse of late Romish religion. (viz:) that Venial Sinnes were neuer known to the Church, vntil the late dayes of Pius the fift, and Gregory the 13. that is to say; about forty yeares ago.An: Dom: 1566. O Popery! thou art but a childe, thou must neuer from this day,Veniall sinnes were hatched. be called the old Religion, for heere our Iesuite confesseth thine Nonage, and proclaimeth thee to bee the Nevv religion. I must likewise insinuate to the Reader, another point of great importāce (viz:) that the popes act is reputed the decree of the Church, and that no part of Romish religion is a matter of faith, vntill it please the Pope so to apoint it. Now, for Fisher and Gerson, the one is a cannonized Popish Saint, the other a Popish Byshop. But these are not matters to stand vpon, though they help our Iesuite to passe ouer the time, and to dazle the eyes of the Reader.

He concludeth this Article with this goodly reason.Page, 281 One stealeth iust so many Egges, as are necessary to make a Mortall sinne; another stealeth one lesse. But there can be no reason, why God may iustly condemne the one to hell, and not the other. Therefore they both sinne Mor­tally alike. To this I aunswere, by demaunding a reason, why the Iudge may condemne him to death that stealeth thirteene pence halfe peny, and not him that stealeth one peny lesse. If he answer, because the law condemneth one and not the other; I aske againe, what reason was there, [Page 111] that the Law was made against the one, and no [...] against the other? And if Bell can find a reason in this, he wil find one in his owne Question. The reason of both is, because such a quantity, is a notable iniury to our neighbour, and consequently, it is against charity, and so breaketh the Law; and a lesse quantity is not.

The destinction betweene Mortall and Veniall Sinnes lately inuented by the Pope, doth so trouble our Iesuite after his consultation with his best learned friendes, that hee can shape mee no aunswere, touching a few Egges. Gladly he would seeme to say something; yet after hee hath wearied himselfe with strugling against the truth, he is where he first began. Not knowing how to answere, he demaundeth two Questions; and that done, hee telleth me, I must answere my selfe. This notwithstanding, after better aduisement and consideration had of the matter, he pretends to shew a reason of both his owne questions. But howsoeuer that be (which is indeed a meere mocke­ry) he leaueth my argument vntouched. Let vs suppose for explication sake, that Egges worth thirteene pence halfe peny makes a Mortal sinne, and that God may iustly con­demne him that stole them; as also a Mortall Iudge, amōg Mortall men. Let vs likewise suppose for example sake, that neyther the Ciuill Iudge, nor God himselfe can iustly condemne him, that hath stollen but so many Egges as are woorth twelue pence halfe penny. Nowe, this is my Question; Nay, this is mine assertion; that there can no good reason be yeelded, why God may iustly con­demne the one to Hell, and not the other. To answere as the Iesuite doeth, after hee hath deepely pondered the matter, that one is a notable iniury to our neighbor, not so the other, is too teo childish and friuolous. For, if thirteene pence halfe peny be a notable iniurie, so is al­so twelue pence: One penny doubtlesse, cannot make Mortall and Veniall difference: neyther is it to the pur­pose, [Page 112] to say as our Iesuite doth; viz. that the ciuil Iudge cannot condemne the theefe, that stealeth one peny lesse. The reason is euident, because the ciuil Iudge is vnder the law and subiect to it, but God Omnipotent is aboue his Law, and may dispense with it at his good pleasure. So did Christ aunswere the Pharisees, on the behalfe of his disciple. The sabboath sayth Christ,Marke, 2, 27. was made for man, and not man for the sabboth. Therefore is the sonne of Man, Lorde of the sabboth also. The Iesuites reason thus reiect­ed as friuolous, and nothing to the purpose, let vs exa­mine the matter to the bottome, for it is a point of great consequence. First then, this is an vndoubted truth, that the supreme ciuill Magistrate, may as lawfully appoint death for stealing of twelue pence, as for 13. pence halfe peny, for the penalty of death, is wholly arbitrary to the iudge. He must frame his laws, as serue best for the peace­able gouernment of his people. Whereupon it commeth, that in diuers countryes, diuers punishments are designed for the same faults, and all agreeable to Gods law. This is likewise an vndoubted truth in Popery, (viz:) that some Sinnes are Veniall of their owne nature, other some mor­tall. Against this false ground of Popery, doe I now con­tend. We haue seene already, that a theefe may as wel be condemned to dye for twelue pence, as for more, euen so then, God à fortiori, may as iustly condemne one for a Popish Veniall sinne, as for a Mortall, for euery sinne de­serueth death of it owne nature, bee it more, be it lesse. Yea, if any sinne should of it owne nature, be Veniall, thē should Originall sinne in an infant, be Veniall most of all, because the Infant neyther can auoyd it, neyther hath a­ny will to do it. I therefore conclude, that it is against all sence and reason, to say, that God may iustly condeme a man, for stealing so many Egges as in Popery make a Mortall Si [...]n [...], (let them name what number they will,) and that he cannot likewise condemne him, that stealeth but one Egge lesse. And it is absurd to say or thinke, that [Page 113] the least sinne that can be named, doth not breake off a­mity and friendship with God,Psal, 5. 4 if wee respect the sin in it owne Nature.Psal, 6. 8 I proue it, because the least sinne that can be named, doth auert and turne the doer from the face of God; Ergo, from the amity and fauour of God. I proue the Antecedent, for the consequence is good, and cannot bee denyed. No sinne whatsoeuer, more or lesse, can be refer­red vnto God, who detesteth all sinne; Ergo, euery sinne, bee it neuer so small, turneth vs away from the fauour of God. Truely therefore wrote Byshop Fisher and Maister Gerson, that euery sin is mortall of it owne nature. And so is that proued, which I defend.

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

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

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

For surely,Page. 285. the Prophets and Euangelists, writing their Doctrin for our remembrance, would omit no one point, which was necessary to be actually known of euery one; especially, seeing they haue written many thinges, which [Page 114] are not so necessary. [...]. in Ioan. tract. 49. to. 9. And this thing teacheth S. Austen, when he sayth; those thinges are written, which seemed sufficient for the saluation of the faithfull.

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

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

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

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

This also is sound Doctrine, and the very same which [Page 115] I defend in the Downfal. And consequently, the very wea­pons which our Iesuite hath put into our hands, are suf­ficient to defend vs and our cause against him. For if the Reader shal remember these grounds, and these positions freely of him granted, and withall haue recourse vnto the Downfall; he shall be able with all facility, to answere to all that the Iesuite obiecteth in this Article.

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

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

Secondly, that albeit I defend (as our Iesuite also hath granted) all things necessary to be beleeued vnto salua­tion to be contained in the holy scriptures; yet do I not deny, but willingly graunt, and reuerently admit many things, receiued by the perpetuall consent of the church, and not repugnant to the written word,Aug ad Iam [...] ­ar. ep. 118 as true, whole­some, and godly. For I am perswaded with S. Austen, that whatsoeuer is neyther against Fayth, nor against good manners; may indifferently be obserued for their society amongst whom we do conuerse. Againe, it is one thing to say, that all necessary [Page 116] points of fayth and Doctrine, are contained in the holy scriptures; another thing to say, that nothing not con­tained in the scripture, hath bin receyued by tradition, & may be admitted for a truth. It cannot be convinced out of the scriptures (and therefore no matter of fayth) that Saint Peter and S, Paule dyed together at Rome; yet do I admit it for a truth, as receiued by Tradition from the Pri­matiue Church, and testified by vniforme consent of al ap­proued antiquity. To the third, I haue already said inough both in my Booke of Suruey, and also in the Regiment of the Church. For in things indifferent, the Church may de­termine what is most expedient, for the due circumstan­ces of times, places, and persons.

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

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

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

This is good. But secondly hee addeth, that to adde Gods word though vnwritten, is a lawfull thing: but this [Page 117] is a silly begging of the question, as the Schooles tearme it. For I deny that vnwritten Word to bee Gods Word, which our Iesuite should prooue, but cannot. And our Iesuite hath already confessed, that all necessary pointes of faith,Page, 284, 285. are contained in the Scriptures & written Word. And consequently, it is to late to tell vs now, of adding or admitting the vnwritten Word. I admit his former as­sertion, as consonant to the Scriptures; this latter I re­iect, as childish, vaine, and friuolous. I proue it, because euery word of God is to be admitted as a matter of faith; and yet all matters of Faith are written, as is already pro­ued and granted. This therefore not being written, must be hissed out of the Schoole of Christians.

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

I answere, that our Iesuite maketh no conscience how hee interpret the Scripture, so he may any way make it seeme to serue his turne. For hee desperately heere affir­meth without all reason and authority, that by Testimony, is vnderstood the vnwritten Word. Whereas indeede it is the written Lawe, added onely for explication sake: as if he had sayde; Ye must not seeke helpe at the dead, which is the illusion of Sathan, but yee must seeke remedie in the word of God, where his will is reuealed: ye must in all doubtes and difficulties haue recourse to the Law of God, which is the testification of Gods will towards man. In it ye shall find, whatsoeuer is necessary for you to know. Breefely, as if he had sayde; Ye must euer haue recourse to the Law, as to the [Page 118] Testimony of Gods holy will. Saint Hierom yeeldeth the same exposition of this place,Hier. iu hune locum. in these words; Si vultis noscere quae dubia sunt, magis vos legi & Testimoniis tradite Scriptura­rum. If ye will know the thinges that are doubtfull, yee must haue recourse to the Law, and to the Testimony of the Scriptures. Loe, hee ioyneth the Testimony with the Law, not as a thing distinct from it, but as an explication of the same. This reason is confirmed, by the coronation of King Ioas; 2. Par. 23. 11. who receiued at his coronation these three things; Vnction, the Testimony, or the Law; and the Dia­deme, or Crowne. Where the Latin Vulgata editio (to which the Pope hath tyed all Papists) expoundeth the Testimo­ny to be the Law. Which glosse striketh our Iesuites expo­sition dead. So then, by the Popes own approbation, the Testimony is taken for the written word of Gods Law, and his Iesuite hath here proued himselfe, to be a very Daw. And where our Iesuite weeneth to find some helpe in the word (Rather;) It seemeth to mee, that it doth him hin­der: For, if his sence bee admitted, it will bee lawfull in some cases and times, to haue recourse vnto Witches. But I will leaue him to himselfe, as a carelesse and fond Disputer.

Esay indeede bids vs go to Gods written word,Page 301, which we refuse not to do in all doubts, wherein it resolueth vs, but forbids vs not to go to any other, which is as he saith, agreeable to this word. Wherfore either must Bell proue, that the Churches Traditions are not agreeable to Gods written Word; or he must know, that God not onely not forbids vs, but rather commands vs to seeke after them.

Heere our Iesuite seemes to correct himselfe, and to grant, that the Prophet speakes of the Written Word. But he addes of his owne head, that the Scripture will not re­solue them in all thinges; and that therefore they must haue recourse, to their Vnwritten Traditions withall. Yet [Page 119] like a good Fellowe, hee makes one exception, which is this; Vnlesse I prooue their traditions not to be agreeable to Gods word. Which thing God bee thanked,This is done in the Down­fall of Pope­ry. is already done in the Downefall it selfe. Touching the time, when Saint Iohn the Apostle dyed; seauen famous Chronologers will con­test with me, that he liued an hundred years after Christs sacred incarnation (though the Printer negligently put downe Ascension amisse, as many other things;) (viz:) Eusebius Caesariensis, Iohannes Nauclerus, Rhegino Prumiensis, Marianus Scotus, Martinus Polonus, Pontacus Burdegalen­sis, and Hermannus Contractus; that Saint Iohn the Apostle was liuing almost 32. yeares after that our Iesuite saith hee was dead. Now, whether our Fryer bee skilfull in Chronology, or no; that will not I define, let the Reader iudge. Hee himselfe boasteth of his skill; what hee hath perfourmed, we see: But whatsoeuer his skill be, his ly­ing is in the highest degree.

But omitting these errours, as Testimonies of Bels, Page 304. ignorance in Histories, which I regard not, to his Argu­ment I answere.

They are not mine errors, but your owne lies. You are full of boasting and bragging, but truth haue ye none, & all good conscience from you is quite gone. Let vs heare your graue answer.

I answer, that those words (These are written) are meant onely of Miracles done by Christ, and written by Saint Iohn, to moue vs to beleeue that Christ was God.

It troubleth our Iesuite more then a little,Aquinas vn­derstandeth these words, both of Christes say­ings and do­ings, that I affirme Saint Iohn to haue written his Gospell, about 100. yeares after Christs ascension into Heauen. And for that end (as we haue heard) he hath addicted himselfe wholy to cog­ging, falshood, and lying; in so much as he would needs haue Saint Iohn dead, while hee was liuing: and where­fore [Page 120] is al this huge Masse of lying? forsooth,P 3. q. 42. art. 4. ad pri­mum. because these wordes of Saint Iohn (These a [...]e written) are thereby pro­ued to bee meant of the whole corps of the holy Bible. For Saint Iohn writing after all, when the Cannon of the scripture was compleate, perfect, & fully accomplished, must needes meane of all; and that for two respects. First because all the rest of the Scriptures tend to one and the same end, which Saint Iohn aymeth at, (viz:) that wee may beleeue, That Iesus is the Sonne of GOD. Secondly, because Miracles alone without Doctrine, are not able to worke the effect, whereof Saint Iohn speaketh. For Fayth is not grounded in Miracles, but in the promises and word of God. M [...]racles cannot beget Faith, Mar, 16, 20, they onely are helpes and meanes to confir me it in vs. Therefore saith Saint Luke, The Apostles went forth, and preached the word of God, and the Lord wrought with their preaching, and confirmed it with Miracles following. And so do Saint Austen and Saint Cyrill, vnder­stand these words of Saint Iohn, affirming all thinges ne­cessary for saluation, to be conteyned in the holy scrip­tures. Theyr words are set downe, in The Downefall of Po­pery.

We confesse scripture to be an infallible rule,Page 308, but not the totall rule, but as Bellarmine saith, the partiall rule.

What is this, but to confesse Christ an vnperfect work­man? But to confesse Christ, to haue set downe an vn­perfect rule of Faith? But to confesse, that the Scripture containeth not all things necessary for saluation? Which for all that,Page, 284. you haue confessed again, and againe. As be­fore like a Pelagian, you said, Eternall life was not meer grace, Page 285, nor the meere guift of God, Page, 286. but dependeth partly to mans merit; So now you say heere,Page 230. That the Scripture is not a totall rule of Fayth, but must haue some helpe from mens Traditions. But I will confound you with your owne wordes, which before came from your owne Pen. Thus doe you write; For surely, Page 285. the Prophets and Euangelistes writing their doctrine [Page 121] for our better remembrance, would omit no one point, which was necessarie to bee actually knowne of euery one; especially, seeing they haue written some thinges which are not so necessary. A­gaine,Page 284. in another place you haue these expresse wordes; All such points of Christian Faith, as are necessary to be actual­ly beleeued, of euery one that hath vse of reason, are actually con­tained in the Scripture. Now, out of these wordes I note: First, that the Scriptures were written for our remem­brance and good.

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

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

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

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

I haue prooued in the Downefall, that though our Pa­pists of late daies do impudently affirme, that their Pope cannot erre, when hee defineth iudicially; yet this not­withwithstanding, [Page 122] Saint Cyprian teacheth and telleth vs plain­ly and roundly, that in his time the Byshop of Rome had no such authority, as this day he proudly, & Antichristi­anly taketh vpon him. For he roundly withstood the de­cree of Pope Stephanus, who was then the Bishop of Rome, and both sharpely reprooued him, and stoutly contem­ned his falsely pretended authority. And for all that, Saint Cyprian was euer reputed a very holy Byshoppe in his life time, and a glorious Martyr beeing dead. But, if the Byshop of Rome had beene Christs Vicar, and so pri­uiledged, as our Papists beare the World in hand hee is; then doublesse Saint Cyprian must needes haue beene an Heretique, and so reputed and esteemed in the Church of GOD, For, if any Christian shall this day do or affirme, as Saint Cyprian did in his time, or publiquely deny the Popes falsely pretended prymacy in any place, Country, Territories, or Dominions, where Popery beareth the sway; then without all peraduenture, he must bee burnt at a stake, with fire and Fagot for his paines. Now, what doth our Iesuite answere to this discourse? Forsooth, that whatsoeuer is no true Tradition, the same must be tryed by the Scripture. Alasse, alasse, Who seeth not, that our Ie­suite, (and consequently all Papistes, seeing hee hath the aduise of all the learned among them,) is at a Non plus? I contend, that Traditions ought to bee tryed by the Scripture, whether they bee true and sound, or no: Our Fryer answereth, that false Traditions, and such as bee not true, must be so tryed. What a iest is this? The Scripture is the Touch-stone, by which wee must try false and true Traditions; and so we cannot know them to be true Tra­ditions, before we try them by the Scripture. How fondly therefore aunswereth our Fryer, that if they bee not true, they must be tryed by the Scripture? We deny these, and these Traditions to bee true, and therefore appeale to the Scripture for the tryall thereof. No, no, saith our Iesuite, these may not bee tryed by the Scripture, because they [Page 123] are true Traditions. Marry Sir, this is indeed an aunswere answerlesse. For ye take all the tryall to your selfe, and leaue none at all to the Scripture. You will first set down in your iudgements, which be true Traditions, and which be false; and that done, we must goe try those to be false by the Scripture, which you hold for false; but with the other, we must not deale at all. By this kind of dealing, I must needes say, the Scripture is but a partiall rule of Faith indeed. And what shalbe the total rule of our saith? Our Iesuite here tels vs, that it is the Popes iudiciall sen­tence, whose faith cannot faile. For false Faith (saith he) can haue no accesse to Saint Peters chaire: as though for­sooth Saint Cyprian did thinke, that the Byshop of Romes Faith could not faile, where hee meaneth nothing lesse, then to ascribe such a priuiledge to the Church of Rome. For, if he had beene of that minde, he would neuer haue vrged Pope Stephanus, to be tryed by the Scriptures. No, no, Saint Cyprian speaketh not of errour in Faith or Doc­trine, but of neglect of discipline and false dealing of Schismatiques, to whose false tales and reportes, the Ro­maines would neuer yeelde their consent. As if he hadde said; The Schismatickes which wee haue driuen out of Affrica, seeke intertainement at Rome, but the Romans (whose Faith the Apostle praised,) will neuer hearken vnto them, or giue credite to their reportes. He speaketh of one Felicissimus, and other bad fellowes his Companions, whose naughty dealing Saint Cyprian thought Cornelius and the godly Romaines would neuer fauour. But such beggerly shifts as these be, are good enough for Popish falsly pretended prymacy. Of which subiect I haue written at large, in the Hunting of the Romish Foxe.

Bell citeth Saint Ambrose, Page 319. who biddeth vs not be­leeue Argument and disputations, but to aske the Scrip­tures, Apostles, Prophets, and Christ. But it maketh for vs, because it alloweth enquiring of others besides the [Page 124] Scriptures: namely, of Apostles, from whom the chur­ches Traditions came.

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

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

Here I might tell our Iesuite, that Saint Chrysostome hath but fiue Homelies in all, to the second of the Thessalonians, though he name it the 42. Our Fryer would exclaime, if he could [...]ind such a fault in my writings. True it is, that Saint Chrysostome and other of the Fathers, and my selfe with them, doe willingly admit, and greatly reuerence, many vnwritten Trad [...]tions beeing consonant to the Holy Scriptures; but neither as matters of Faith, nor as partes of necessary doctrine, but as thinges tending to order & comelinesse in the worship of God, and administration [Page 125] of his sacraments. In this kind of Traditions, I willingly a­gree with Saint Chrisostome, Saint Basil, S. Ambrose, and other fathers. Neither would I wish any to bee too curi­ous, in this kind of Traditions. It is enough to heare of thē, to whom the chiefe care of the church is committed, that it is a Tradition of the Elders: and so haue I answered e­nough to all friuolous obiections of our Iesuite; especial­ly, if The Downefall be well marked. The rest which I let passe, is sufficiently confuted there. Saint Chrisostoms mea­ning, is plainely (as I haue said.) Hence it may apeare, be­cause, in the former part of this Obiection, he will admit, nothing without the scripture; (In thinges concerning faith, and Doctrine, euer vnder stande;) in the latter part of the Obiection, he admitteth vnwritten Traditions, and wil not haue vs too curious in receiuing them; (In thinge which are indifferent, euer vnderstand.)

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

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

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

Secondly, that the Latine Church and Church of Rome [Page 126] did not beleeue the sayd Purgatory, for many hundered of yeares after S. Peters death, whose successor for al that, the Pope boasteth himselfe to be.

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

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

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

Sixtly, that Purgatory was a loug time vnknowne.

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

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

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

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

This is the summe of that worthy Doctrine, which By­shop Fisher hath published to the world; euen at that time when he defended the Pope and Popery, after the best manner he could. He that shall read his words in my Mo­tiues at large, cannot but detest the Pope and all popish faction. Hence it is most apparant, why the Byshop sayd that they must vse other helpes then the holy Scripture, for the maintenance of their Religion, for the Scripture [Page 127] is but a partiall rule of popish faith, as wee haue heard alreadie.

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

I answere; First, that Popery is this day a most misera­ble Religion, and woe vnto them that do beleeue and o­bey the same. This is, or may bee euident to euery one, throughout this whole discourse. Secondly, that Aquinas auoucheth very plainely (as I sayde in the Downefall) that all things necessary to our saluation, are contained in the Scriptures. For in Christs deeds are contained his myra­cles, his life, his conuersation; in his sayinges Sem­blably, are contained, his preaching, his teaching, his doctrine, and consequently, whatsoeuer is necessary for vs to know. If then this be true, as it is most true, (for the papists may not deny the doctrine of Aquinas) that what­soeuer Christ would haue vs to know, of his myracles, of his life, of his conuersation, of his preaching, of his tea­ching, of his doctrine, the same is written in the Scrip­tures; then doubtlesse, none but such as will Cum ratione in sanires, can deny all thinges necessary for our saluation, to be contained in the holy scriptures. Yea, if our Iesuite will stand to his owne doctrine, plainly auouched in this present Pamphlet, this Controuersie is at an end, for we agree therein. These are his expresse words: For surely, Page 278 the Prophets and Euangelists writing their Doctrine for our better [Page 128] remembrance, would omit no one point, which was necessary to bee actually knowne of euery one; especially, seeing they haue written many things, which are not so necessary. And this teacheth S. Austen when he sayth, that those things are written which seemed sufficient for the saluation of the faithfull.

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

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

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

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

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

Secondly, that we must beleeue Traditions, which Christ [Page 129] would not haue vs to read, and consequently, that Christ would not haue vs to read our beliefe. Lord haue mercy vp­on vs, and keepe vs from this doctrine.

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

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

If our Iesuite were not at a Non plus, he would neuer be so friuolously occupied. I name the wise man, of whome I spake; euen Esdras, as our Iesuite graunteth. If our Fryer, denie all men to bee wise (Salomon only excepted;) then doubtles, not onely himselfe is a foole, as it well seemeth [Page 130] by his Writing; but his Pope also (for he is not Salomon) and so all Papists must bee ruled by a Foole, and beleeue that a foole, cannot erre. And in the end, they sha [...]l haue a fooles Bable, and a Foxe taile for their paines.

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

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

Lo [...] heere, Gentle Reader, Popish Traditions be ney­ther virtually nor actually, contained in the Scripture. Ergo say I, they are no points of Christian fayth. And I prooue it, by our Iesuites owne expresse words:Page 290 All points (sayth our Fryer) of Christian faith, are virtually contained in scripture. Thus I nowe frame an Argument,A sillogisme vnanswerable. against Po­pish vnwritten Traditions, to which when our Iesuite shall aunswere soundly, I will thinke him woorthy to bee Pope of Rome. All pointes of Christian fayth, are vir­tually contained in the Scripture; but Popish vnwrit­ten Traditions are not contained virtually in the Scripture, Ergo Popish vnwritten Traditions, are no pointes of Chri­stian fayth. The consequence is good, and cannot bee [Page 131] denyed. It is in the second figure, and moode, called Baro­co. The assumption is the Iesuites owne,2. Figura. Baroco, in the Page quo­ted in the Margent; (viz:) 329.Page 329 The proposition also is the Iesuites, in another place; (viz:) Page 290.Page, 290▪ and so I inferre this Golden and ineuitable Corollary; (viz:) that Popis [...] vnwritten Traditions, are no pointes of Christian fayth. Well therefore may they bee partes of Turcisme, of Iudaisme, of Atheisme, but partes of Christianity they cannot be. Apage, Apage, they smell of Infidelity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fiftly, that to establish Workes of condigne merite, is to depart from the Scripture. And so in the rest, as I haue both heere and else where prooued at large. For the Reading of Holy Scripture, and the facilitie thereof touching thinges necessary for saluation, our [Page 132] Iesuite bestirreth himselfe more then a little; but the bare pervse of the Downefall, will bee a sufficient reply to the same. Once let vs heare him in this point.

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

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

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

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

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

Secondly, you say, it may also be Translated, so it be [Page 133] doone vppon iust and vrgent causes. You should haue doone well, to haue named those iust and vrgent causes. But Sir, seeing the thing may bee doone, and seeing also there may bee iust and vrgent causes, why it should bee doone; how commeth it to passe, that none may doe it, vnlesse the Pope licence him thereunto? How happeneth it, that none may read it when it is translated, vnlesse hee haue the Popes licence so to doe? How chanceth it, that it was neuer done, since the Bishop of Rome aspired to his vsurped prymacy? This would I learne.

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

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

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

It is not against Bell, for Bell admitteth (as we haue seen [Page 134] already) such vnwritten Traditions, as are repugnant to the holy Scripture, and haue euer beene approued of the whole Church. But such neither are Articles of the Chri­an faith, neither necessary to Saluation.

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

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

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

Two thinges our Fryer vrgeth, neither of which vvill do him any seruice, (viz:) my meaning, and the proofe [Page 135] of my conclusion. My meaning is cleerely vttered,See the place▪ Page 129. when in the Downefall I affirmed Saint Policarpus, Saint Policra­tes, and other holy Fathers, to bee so farre from acknow­ledging the Byshop of Rome to bee the supreme head of the Church, and that he could not erre; that they all re­puted themselues his equals, touching gouernment Ec­clesiasticall; that they all reprooued him very sharpely; that they all with vniforme assent, affirmed him to de­fend a grosse errour, & to hold a false opinion; and there­fore they with might and maine withstand his procee­dings. Whereas this day, if any Bishops, Magestrates, or other Potentates in the World (where Popery beareth the sway) should doe the like; they might all roundly be ex­communicated, and not onely deposed from their iuris­diction, but also to be burnt with fire and Fagot for their pains. Thus I then wrote, so as our Fryer could not doubt of my meaning, but that malice carryeth him away to ly­ing. Well, but how is my conclusion proued? Thus for­sooth; I alleaged this great contention among the holy Fathers, to proue the vncertainty of obtruded vnwritten Traditions in these our dayes. My Argument was, A ma­iori ad minus, as the Scooles tearm it, (viz:) that if the Fa­thers of the most ancient Church, when she was in good estate, and stained with very few or no corruptions at all, could finde no certaintie in vnwritten Traditions; much lesse can wee trust to vnwritten Traditions in these dayes, when the Pope and his Iesuited Popelinges, employ all their care, study, & industry, to bury the truth of Christs Gospell vnder the ground. And so haue I both prooued my conclusion, and also our Fryer to be either full of ma­lice, or a very foole.

Bell denyeth the keeping of Lent to be Apostolicall, Page 389. be­cause Saint Crysostome writeth, That Christ did not bid vs i­mitate his fast, but be humble; and to bee certaine, because Eusebius out of Ieremy writeth; That in his time some thought [Page 136] wee ought to fast one day, some two daies, others more, and some fortie. Here Bell sheweth his lacke of iudgment, in citing a place clearely against himselfe. For here Saint Ireney & Eusebius affirme cleerely, that at the beginning there was one manner of fasting Lent appointed, though some af­terward, either of ignorance or negligence, did breake it. Which prooueth not the said Tradition to be vncertain in the whole Church, vnlesse Bell will impute the fault of some few to the whole. And by this is aunswered, vvhat he bringeth out of Socrates touching the diuersity of time and meate vsed in the fast of Lent. Albeit what Socrates sayth of the Romane Church, fasting but three weekes be­fore Easter,Dist. 8. cap. si consue [...]udine. and not on Saterday, is an vntruth. See the eight distinction of the Popes decrees, and note it well.

I prooued in the Downefall out of Eusebius Caesariensis, the vncertainty of Popish vnwritten Traditions, by the great diuersity about the keeping of Lent. Because some thought they ought only to fast one day, some two daies, others more daies, and some forty. I prooued semblably out of Socrates, that the people did differ no lesse in theyr manner of eating, then they did in their daies of abstay­ning. For some (saith he) would eate no liuing thing; o­thersome of liuing things, eat onely Fish; some together with fish, did ate also Birdes; but some ate onely Bread, and others at night eate all kind of meats without diffe­rence: yea, hee telleth vs in the same place, that the Ro­mans fast three weekes before Easter, besides the Sabbaoth and the Lords day. And that the Illirians and Alexandri­ans doe fast sixe weekes, and yet doe they all tearm their fast, Lent. Here I inferred in the Downefall, the vncertain­ty of Popish vnwritten Traditions. Now our Fryer thinketh to answere all this (though a Bulwarke inuincible) with his onely bare Word; (viz:) in telling his Reader, that Bell sheweth his want of iudgement, in bringing a place cleerely against himselfe. Mary Sir, this is a ready answere [Page 137] indeede. If such answeres will serue, in vaine is all dispu­tation. But our Fryer would seeme, to yeelde a reason of this his answere. And what is that? Forsooth, that in the beginning all obserued one manner of Fast, though some afterward, either of ignorance or negligence (he cannot tell whether) did breake it. To my Testimony out of So­crates, he saith it is an vntruth, because the Romains fasted the Saterdaies. But I answere thus; First, that the vncer­tainety of Traditions is heereby so apparant, as it is great impudency to deny the same. For how can there bee any certainty, where not onely the time of fasting, but also the meats that must be eaten, is vncertaine? Both which happen is this case.

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

Popish Traditions (saith Bell) tell vs,Page 393. that all the Bishops of Rome, one after another, haue taught successiuely the same Doctrine with Saint Peter: howbeit theyr owne deere Fryer and learned Doctor, Nicholaus de Lyra, auou­cheth plainely, roundly, and boldly, to the whole Chri­stian world; that many Byshoppes of Rome haue falne a­way from the faith, and become fit Apostataes. But well [Page 138] may one bee an Apostata, and yet teach the Doctrine of his Predecessor. As S. Peter denyed his Maister, and yet taught no contrary Doctrine. Saint Marcellin offered sa­crifice to Idols, and yet taught no Idolatry.Ioh. 11. 51. Caiphas mur­dered Christ, and yet prophesied.

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

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

I wrote in the Downfall, that by Popish Tradition the Em­peror Constantine was baptized at Rome, in a Font remai­ning there to this day; & that my selfe haue seen the Fons in which (as they say) hee was baptized. Howbeit, Hye­ronymus, Eusebius, Socrates, Theodoretus, Sozomenus, Cassio­dorus, and Pompontus, doe all affirme very constantly, that he was baptized at Nichomedia. But our Iesuite thinkes it enough to say, that it concerns no matter of faith, & that [Page 139] my selfe confesse vnawares, that I haue seene the Font, in which they say Constantine was Baptized. I aunswere to the former, that if a man shall go to Rome, and there re­prooue any Tradition which the Pope holdeth, or prac­tiseth, he shalbe burnt as an Heretique. To the latter, that I onely report what I haue seene; I neyther say, Constan­tine was christned in it, nor deny the same. This I cōstant­ly affirme; that since so many learned menne deny it, it must needes argue great vncertainty, in Popish vnwritten Traditions.

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

Platina writeth as other Historiographers do, that which he hath learned by credible report. And he addeth, that he verily deemed that Hermannus to bee one è fraticellis, whose sect at that time abounded. But their Bishop Mar­tinus Polonus, or whosoeuer was the Authour of the ap­pendix ioyned to his Chronicle, telleth vs plainely; that the Maisters of the Inquisition sought out the truth of the matter, and caused Harmannus his body to be digged out of the Graue, and to bee burnt as an Heretique, and his sumptuous shrine to bee pulled downe. O holy Worship­pers of Deuils! But this was but the errour of the common people and no Tradition from the Pope. Alasse, alasse, could such a publique concourse of people bee in such a [Page 140] famous place as Ferrara, and flock together to adore and worshippe an Idoll in the Church, and the Gouernors of the Church be ignorant thereof? Nay, would the people haue yeelded any such worship and adoration, if theyr Pastors, or the Popes Catch-poles had not induced them so to do? It is vnpossible, they receiued it by Tradition. And whosoeuer shall enquire such matters of them, shall find that their ready answer, (viz:) that their ancestors haue beene taught to do so.

The Scriptures (saith Bell) are called Canonical, Page 398. Reade the Downefall. because they are the rule of Faith, therefore all things are to bee examined by them: And for this cause (saith he) Esay sent vs to the Law, and to the Testimony to try the truth, &c. Aun­swere. The Bible alone is called Canonicall Scripture, because it alone of all Scriptures the Church followeth, as an infallible rule in beleeuing or defyning any thing. But it neither is, nor is called the onely Cannon of Faith.

First our Iesuite granteth, that the Scripture is the onely rule & Cannon which we must follow in beleeuing & de­fining any thing. That done, he by & by telleth vs, that it neither is, nor is cald the onely Cannon of Faith. This is a wonderment doubtles. The Scripture is an infallible rule to be folowed, in beleeuing or defining any thing. This is true, hold thee here good Fryer. But what followeth? The Fryer will haue one foot further, though it cost him dear. But it neither is, nor is called the onely Cannon of Faith. Loe, first hee graunteth the Scripture to bee an infallible rule of Faith, and then he denieth it to be the onely rule of Faith. Is not that worthy to be the onely rule of Faith, which is the infallible rule thereof? Shall we forsake the infallible rule, & betake our selues to a fallible rule? Ther is no remedy, the Pope will haue it so. The Scripture therefore by Popish grant (GOD reward them for their kindnes) is the infallible rule of our faith, but not the only [Page 141] rule of the same, for vnwritten Traditions, must bee a ioynt-rule of Faith with it.

The scripture is an infallible rule, yet not the totall but partiall rule of the Christian faith [...] Well, let vs holde fast that which our Iesuite hath graunted afore, (viz:) that all things necessary for our saluation, are contained in the Scripture. And let vs thereupon conclude,Page 284. Page, 285. Page 286. that Popish faith is as vnconstant as the wind, and let vs adde withal, that it is execrable blasphemy against the sonne of God, to make mans Traditions a partiall rule of our faith. For, as Christ teacheth vs, they worshippe him in vaine, that for doctrines, deliuer the Precepts of men. Read the Downfal. Mat. 15, 9 2 Tim, 3, 15. Saint Paule telleth vs; That the Scriptures are able to make vs vvise vnto saluation. Which being so, we stand in need of no more, it is enough. Let vs reply vppon the written truth, and let the Papistes keepe their vnwritten vanities to themselues. Nay, let vs remember what our Iesuit hath told vs already, euen in these expresse wordes; For surely the Prophets & Euangelists writing their Doctrine for our better remembrance, Page 285. would omit no one point, which was necessary to be actually knowne of euery one; especially, seeing they haue written many thinges not so necessary. These are the Iesuites owne words, in the Page quoted in the Margent. And yet they containe fully as much as I desire, and the whole trueth now in Controuersie, whereby the Reader may perswade himselfe, that it is the truth that I defend, and which the Papistes oppugne maliciously, confessing the same vna­wares.

Bell saith, Saint Iohn bids vs Try the spirites; Page 400, 1, Iohn, 4. but he speaks not of Apostolicall spirits, nor of Traditious. Besides, hee bids vs not try them onely by scripture, and therefore hee maketh nothing for Bels purpose.

What an aunswere is this? Saint Iohn saith our Iesuite, speakes not of Apostolicall spirits, nor of Traditions. Saint [Page 142] Iohn speaketh of doubtfull spirits, and consequently of al spirits & all Doctrines, not grounded & contained in the holy scriptures. Againe, our Iesuite sayth, Hee bids not trie them by the scripture. Saint Iohn indefinitely bids try the spi­rits, and seeing he nameth not the way, (though after he giueth some generall markes thereof) we haue to follow the infalliable rule of Iudging aad defining euery thing, which Rule or Canon (as our Iesuite hath freely granted) is the scripture.

Bell saith, the Berhaeans examined the truth of S.Page 399. Pauls Doctrine. I aske of him whether they were faithful whilst they examined it, or faithlesse? If faithlesse? why propo­seth hee them to vs, an example to imitate? If faithfull, How coulde they examine whether that were true or no,Acts 17, 11. which they assuredly beleeued to be Diuine truth? Wher­fore they examined not the truth of S. Pauls Doctrine, but searched the scriptures for confirmation and encrease of their faith. And this kinde of examining, which disallow not.

I answere, that the faithfull though they beleeue the Articles of the Christian faith, yet may they without doubting or staggering, examine vnwritten Traditions and what Doctrine els soeuer, not expressed in the Holy scripture. Take heed of false Prophets, which come to you in sheeps clothing. Mat, 7, 15. Iohn 5, 39. 1. Thes. 5, 21 1 Iohn 4, 1. 1 Cor. 2, 15, Search the scriptures: try al things: hold fast thaet which is good: Beleeue not euery spirit, but try the spirits if they bee of God. The spirituall man Iudgeth all things. By these Textes of holy writ, it is very cleere, that we are not bound rashly to beleeue all preaching, and much lesse all vnwritten po­pish Traditions. If wee do, we shall vnawares adore the deuill in Hermannus, as is already proued. Neither did the Berhaeans search the scriptures, onely for the confirmati­on of their faith; but for the Tryall of the trueth, as the Texte auoucheth. And they searched the scriptures daily, if those things were so. Loe, they examined the Doctrine, if it were consonant to the scripture. But heere it may bee [Page 143] obiected, that if euery one be a Iudge, confusion will a­bound in the Church. To this Obiection I haue answered at large, in my Booke Intituled the Golden Ballance. To which place, I referre the Reader, which shall desire sa­tisfaction in that behalfe.

Bell faith, that in S. Cyprians dayes,Page, 40 [...]. neyther tradition was a sufficient proofe of Doctrine, nor the Popes defini­tiue sentence a rule of fayth. These be both vntruths. For he onely thought, that humane and mistaken tradition was no sufficient rule, as hath bin shewed before.

S. Cyprian was resolute, that all traditions must be exact­ly tryed by the Holy scripture, as is proued at large in the Downfall, and partly in this reply already. It is needlesse heere to iterate the same.

S. Hierom writing to Damasus, saith thus;Page, 403. Decree I pray you, if it please you; I will not feare to say three Hyposta­ses, if you bid. And hee requested him to giue authority, either to affirme or deny three Hypostases: and darest thou Bell, make no account of the Popes sentence, when so great a Doctor so highly esteemed it?

I answer, first that if we beleeue Fryer Austen de Aneona, the Pope in these dayes,In summa Page 152. hath Vniuersal iurisdiction ouer all Kingdomes and Empyres. Secondly, that as Anto­ninus saith, He hath power ouer all things, that haue any being. Aquin. in sup. q. 25. art. 1. Thirdly, that as Aquinas saith, Hee hath as much power as Christ himselfe had, and can giue as large Pardons, as Christ himselfe gaue. Fourthly, that as Siluester saith,Silv. de indulg. 33. One may haue so large a Pardon from the Pope, Grat. dist. 22. can. omnes. that if he chance to die the same houre he hath it, he shall go to heauen out of hand. Fiftly, that as Gratianus telleth vs, Hee beareth the keyes of eternall life, the right both of earthly & heauenly Empire. Sixtly, that as the [Page 144] Popish Glosse saith; Hee hath both swords, the spirituall and the Temporall, Lyr. in 16. cap. Mat. and by that meanes, hee can translate Empires. Seauenthly, that as Nicolaus de Lyra his owne deare fry­er telleth him; He may be an Apostata, and forsake the faith, as many of his predecessors haue done. Eightly, that as Fryer Caranza saith, He may enter into the Popedome as a Fox, liue in it as a Wolfe, and dye as a Dogge. Carranz. in tom, 1. concil, Dist 40. cap. si papa. Ninthly, that as his owne Decrees tel vs, though he be so wicked that he carry many thou­sands to Hell with him, yet may no mortall man Iudge him. No maruell therefore, if our Iesuite demaund of one, how I dare controule his dealing. Yet by his fauour, I may tell him with humility, that Damasus was a Vertuous, Wise, and Learned Byshop, and of great Authority by reason of his place, and for that end did S. Hierome thinke it fitte in the troublous state of the Church, (when the Arrians did euery where molest the Christians) to haue his coun­sell and assistaunce, in the cheefest point then in contro­uersie. Like as in these our dayes, greater personages, and better learned, will not sometime disdaine, to haue the opinion and Iudgement of meaner men. I adde, that Sa. Hierome knewe right well, that it was a thinge meerely Adiaphoron, and therefore was therein resolued, to do as Damasus should giue aduise.

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

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

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

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

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

The Popes dealing is shamefull, and this manner of de­fending him more shamefull. For first, humaine thinges and diuine are not alike, as your owne Doctor Canus tel­leth vs. Secondly, all Princes I thinke, come in their pro­per persons to all their Parliamentes. Thirdly, though Princes negatiuely casheire & disanul such things, as they deeme not conuenient for Gods glory, and the good of [Page 146] their people; yet do they neuer affirmatiuely establish a­ny Law, without the ioynt consent of the Lordes Spiri­tuall, Lordes Temporall, and the Commons. Fourthly, there is great disparity in the Persons, for, the Prince may doe much more in his Kingdome, then the Pope in generall Councels.

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

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

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

Our Iesuite falsifieth my words, and then descanteth at his pleasure vppon them.Page 121. These are my wordes, as it may appeare in the Downefall. The pope was neuer present at the Councelles in the East Churches, by himselfe, and in his owne person. The conclusion is freely confessed by Bel­larmine, who alleadgeth two reasons, for the Popes ab­sence. The one forsooth, because it was not conuenient, that the head should follow the members. The other, be­cause the Emperour would euer sit in the highest place. Out of these wordes I noted two pointes of importance; the one, that in the Auncient Church, the highest place in the Councels, was euer reserued to the Emperour. The other, that the East Churches did neuer acknowledge the Popes prymacie, which hee this day challengeth ouer all Kingdomes and Regalities most arrogantly. To vvhich twaine, this pleasant adiunct perforce must be annexed: [Page 147] (viz:) that our humble Father the Pope (who hypocri­tically calleth himselfe Sernus seruorum Dei,) would ne­uer come to the Councels, because forsooth he could not endure to see the Emperour sitting in the highest place. Now the Reader hath the truth, let him him giue his cen­sure accordingly.

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

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

First, Bishops before they can be admitted in councels (saith Bell) must sweare,Page 416. that the Pope can depose all Em­perors, and Kings in the Christian world. Secondly, they sweare to admit the Popes decrees, whō they freely grant may bee an Heretick. Thirdly, they sweare obedience to him in matters of Faith, whom (as themselues confesse) they can depose for heresie. Fourthly, that the pope is not supreme Iudge of controuersies, seeing Bishops may exa­mine and iudge, whether what he commandeth be agree­able to Gods word, & the Canons. Lastly, that they swear flat rebellion against their soueraigns, seeing they sweare to defend the Popes primacy, against all men whomsoe­uer.

Let vs examine this honest tale, made in the behalfe of the Pope, and for the benefite of the Reader, let vs both heare it, and answer it particularly.

As for the first point, it is vntrue, as appeareth by the answer to the first article.

The first point is, that the Pope can depose Emperours [Page 148] and Kings. Our Fryer denyeth it, and sendeth the Reader to the first Article. I agree also, that the Reader peruse my reply with the Downefall, & then yeeld his censure accor­dingly, for that the Pope challengeth such power (though the Iesuite for shame here denieth it) it is as cleere as the Sunne shining at noone-day.

The second and third containe no inconuenience.The Popes doctrine must be obei [...]d, though he be an He­reticke. For we must obey what he decreeth or defineth iudicially, as sitting in S. Peters chaire; though in hart he were an He­reticke: as our Sauiour commaunded the Iewes to follow what the Scribes taught out of Moses Chaire, but to ab­staine from their priuate Leauen.

The second point was, that the Bishops sweare to ad­mit his Canons and decrees, whom they freely grant, may bee an Heretique. The third point was, that the Bishops sweare obedience to him in matters of Faith, whom they can depose for heresie. These pointes which our Iesuite proposeth couertly (because he would not haue the Rea­der to vnderstand thē) must neuer be forgotten. We must (saith our Fryer) obey & beleeue what the Pope decreeth iudicially, though in hart he be an Heretick. This is strange Doctrine to a Christian hart, though approued of all Pa­pists. It is not amisse here to adde, the Testimony of their graue Quodl betist. These are his words; As the prudent Greeke appealed from Alexander furious, to Alexander sober; and Bishoppe Crostate from Pope Adrian priuate, to Pope Adrian publique, and as Summus pontifex in Ca­thedra Petri, so may the Seculars appeale from the Pope as Clemens, vnto his holinesse as Peter. These words are expressely set downe. Quodl. 6. art. 10. By this Doctrine so plainely deliuered (which is a constant position in the Romish Church) the Secular Priests giue vs to vnderstand, that execrable and neuer enough detested fallacy, where­with the Pope & his popelings, haue a long time seduced [Page 149] a great part of the Christian world, (viz:) that the Pope may erre as a priuate man, but not as a publicke person. Of which absurd Doctrine I haue written at large in my Treatise, intituled The Hunting of the Romish Foxe. I will therefore for the present onely speake thereof, as these words giue me fit occasion.

First then; we see heere, that if we meane to wring any truth out of the Popes nose, we must haue recourse to his holines, at such time as he is sober; not when he is furious least he become starke mad, & forget for euer the know­ledge of the truth.

Secondly, we must haue his aduise, when he is a publike person, not a priuate man.

Thirdly, we must go vnto him, not as he is indeed, this or that Pope, but as he is S. Peter, that blessed Apostle of our Lord Iesus. Thus much is deduced out of this popish Doctrine, by euident and necessary consecution. These points, if they be well marked, will vtterly confound all popish Doctrine, and turne it vpside downe. For first, it is a constant Axiome in all popish Doctrine, that the Pope and none but the pope, must be the Iudge in all contro­uersies of faith and Doctrine.

This notwithstanding, wee see by this popish doctrine (which is currant in the Romish Church) that if the Pope Iudge of any matter, as he is furious and not sober; as he is a priuate man, and not a publike person; as hee is Cle­mens, Sixtus, Adrianus, or some other like pope, and not Saint Peter himselfe; then may hee erre, and so both bee deceiued himselfe, and deceiue all others. Whereupon it followeth of necessity, that euery one must well examine the popes Doctrine and Iudgement, before he beleeue it, otherwise doubtles, he may receiue poyson for medicine, falshood for truth, and erroneous, for Orthedoxe Christi­an doctrine. Nay, otherwise he cannot possibly tell, when he shall appeale from the pope, as a false teacher and se­ducer of the people.

[Page 150] Secondly, the time cannot be named, in which the By­shop of Rome, shall be the Byshop there, & not a publick person at the selfe-same time, for euen then when hee is a sleepe, he is a publicke person, or else no Byshop doubt­lesse. For once a Byshop euer a Byshop, by Popish inde­leble Character. Yet I willingly graunt, that a publique person may do some act, which may be censured the acte of a priuate man; but that cannot serue their turne.

Thirdly, If the Papists will neuer apeale to the pope, nor haue any intercourse with him, vntill he be Saint Pe­ter, they shall neuer do it, till the worlds end.

Fourthly, if he be Peter by Office or calling, then is hee alwayes Peter; vnlesse perhaps hee be sometime Lucifer, which were a rare Metamorphosis.

Fiftly, this Popish distinction, may fitly be termed a trick of fast and loose. For, if the Pope define a truth, they may thē say, he defined as a publick person. But if he define an error, then they say, he defined as a priuat mā. So doubtles it may be said indeed, that he can neuer erre, but some mā in his robes, or some Deuill vnder his pall. Briefely, on the one side (as we haue heard already) the Pope commands vpon paine of Sacriledge, not to dispute of his power, nor to examine his doings, and yet on the other side, we must know whether he speake and define as a publicke person, or as a priuate man, before we beleeue his decrees: which knowledge for al that can no way be had, but by due exa­mination of the popes doings. What remaineth but to ex­claime and complaine to our trusty friendes (as the great learned Papist Gielerius did) that by this Popish Doctrine no man can go to heauen.

For we must obey and beleeue what he decreeth iudi­cially, though in hart he be an Hereticke.

Then sir, we must examine the doctrine which the pope deliuereth, to know whither it proceedeth from the Pope as a publique person, or as a priuate man. For otherwise [Page 151] we may as soone receiue deadly poyson, as wholy medi­cine; and as soone worship Harmannus the Heretiques bones, as the reliques of S. Peter, or S. Paule. But this ex­amination the Pope forbids and your selfe (Maister Fry­er) tels vs the same tale in your next wordes, which are these; Because Byshops must not examine the Doctrine, which the Pope deliuereth iudicially out of S. Peters chaire, as supreme pastor of Gods Church, but onely that, wherein hee vttereth his owne priuate Opinion. Thus writeth our Iesuite, truly telling vs the Popish faith. Which Doctrine, if any but a Papist had deliuered it, few or none woulde haue giuen credite thereunto. O sweet Iesus! I wonder how any Papist hea­ring such Doctrine published in print, by our Iesuites, so deare & so neare to the Pope himselfe, and duely ponde­ring the vanity thereof, and the blasphemy therein con­tained, can still be a Papist, and not defie the Pope & his damnable doctrine. What shal we do with holy scripture? Is it the infallible rule of faith? Is it superior to the Popes iudiciall sentence? No, no, if the Pope define against it, his sentence must bee obeyed, neyther may any Byshop, (much lesse euery priuate man) examine the same, or else cal it into Question, Apage, Apage, fire & faggot for such rotten Popery, God will vomit it out of his mouth.

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

You pope sitteth in Cathedra pestilentiae, & not in Cathe­dra petri. I haue proued it elsewhere at large; here I wil adde one point or two,In the Golden Ballance of Tryall. for the Readers better satisfaction in this behalfe. Iohannes Gerson a famous Papist and chan­sellor of Paris teacheth so plainely, that Popes may erre not only as priuate men, but euen as publicke persons in their publick and iudicial decrees of faith and manners, as none for very shame can deny the same, that shall eyther read or heare his words.Gers. in serm. de pase. page, 3 Thus therefore doth h [...]e write; [Page 152] Propter quod insuper apparet falsitas doctrinae papae Iohannis 22. quae damnata fuit cum s [...]no buccinarum coram [...]ege Phillippo per Theologos Parisienses, & credidit potius Theologis Parisiensibus, quam [...]uriae. By reason whereof appeareth further the fals­hood of the Doctrine of Pope Iohn, which was condem­ned by the sound of Trumpets, before king Phillip by the Diuines of Paris, & the king beleeued rather the diuines then the court (of Rome.) Out of these words I note first, that the Doctrine of pope Iohn the 22. of that name, was condemned at Paris, as false and erroneous.

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

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

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

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

Sixtly, that neyther the king, nor the learned papistes, did in those dayes graunt such authority to the Pope, as now adayes the Pope arrogantly challengeth to himself, vvhereuppon it followeth consequently, that the Pope taught false Doctrine, euen in a weighty matter of faith. To which is consectary, that his Doctrine was publicke, as which was publikely condemned at Paris, and that in the presence of the King. But now kings must not deale in such matters, where the Popes holinesse beareth any sway. Yet thus dealt the King of France with the Pope, almost 300. yeares ago. I thinke it not amisse heere to in­sinuate to the Reader, how the kings of France haue vsed the Popes Messengers. Boniface the eight falling at vari­ance with King Phillippe the faire, woulde needes excom­municate him, but there was neuer excommunication cost Pope so deare, as that did him, for his Nuncios were [Page 153] committed prisoners his B [...]l [...]es burnt, and Bonif [...]ce him­selfe being taken by Naueret Chancellor of Fraunce, pre­sently after dyed for very sorrow. Wherein king Phillippe did nothing, but by the Counsell & consent of the whole Clergy of France. So Bennet the 13. otherwise called pe­ter de Luna, interdicted Charles the sixt and his Realm, but the king sitting in his Throne of Iustice in the Parliament or high Court of Paris, the 21. of May. 1408. gaue sen­tence, that the Bull should be rent in pieces, and that Gon­salue and Conseloux the bearers thereof, should bee set vp­on a pillory, and publiquely notified and traduced in the pulpit Which decree was accordingly put in execution in the moneth of August, with the greatest scorne that could be deuised, the two Nuncioes or Legates hauing this in­scription vppon their Miters; These men [...]re [...] to the Church, and to the King. These words are put downe by the French papists, in their book called the Iesuites Catechisme, [...] 3. cap. 17, fol, 182. translated into English by the secular priests. But because our papists stand so much vppon this [...]ond and most foo­lish distinction of the popes double person, and that hee cannot erre in his publique sentence and decrees, I will haue once a bout againe, to beate it better into the Rea­ders head, that the Pope both may erre, and hath De fac­to erred, in his iudiciall sentence and publique Decree. Marke well my discourse. Pope Adrian (saith Alphonsus, Alphons. [...] Castro. lib. 3 advers. hoer. prope finē. a very learned man and a zealous Papist) hath these ex­presse wordes; Nou ss [...]e fertur de Ioh [...]nne [...]. q [...]ò [...] publice docuit, [...], & ab omnibus teneri mandauit, quò [...] [...] purgatae a [...]te fiuale iudicium non habent stolam, quae [...] facialis visio Dei; & vn [...]uersitatem Parisieasem ad [...] dux­isse dicitur, quod nemo in ea poterat gradum in Theologi [...] adi­pisci, [...] primitus hunc errorem iurass [...]tse de [...]ens [...]r [...]m, & porpe­tuo ei adhaesurum.

Last of all, it is reported of Pope Iohn the 22. that hee publiquely taught, declared, and commaunded all men to hold, that the soules of the iust before the day of iudg­ment, [Page 154] haue not the Stole which is the cleare and faciall vision of God. And hee is reported to haue induced the Vniuersity of Paris to this; that none should take degree in Theologie, but he that did first sweare to defend this er­ror, & to adhere to it for euer. Thus writeth Adrian, who himselfe was Byshoppe of Rome. And Alphonsus a man of high esteeme in the Church of Rome, after he had rec­koned vppe fiue Heresies, setteth downe this for the sixt; (That the soules of the iust do not see God till the day of doombe) ascribing the said Heresie to the Arm [...]nians as to the Au­thors thereof, and to the Greekes together with pope Iohn, as to the patrons and Defenders of the same. Heere the Gentle Reader must obserue seriously, lest he be sedu­sed with the colorable glosse of the Iesuit Bellarmine, who seeing the force of this Testimony, to ouerthrowe, the highest point in popery, bestirreth himselfe mightily in defence of the popish faith. He telleth vs forsooth, if we will beleeue him, (as none will that haue either any wit or reason) that pope Iohn erred in deede, as Adrian and Alphonsus witnesse, but he did that as a priuate man (sayth our Iesuite) not as pope of Rome. Which distinction doubtlesse, wanteth not onely a good foundation whereuppon it shoulde bee built, but also it flatly de­stroyeth the plaine Text; the reason is euident, euen to euery childe.

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

Secondly, because it is said; Publice, publikely.

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

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

Fiftly, because euery graduat was sworn to defend it, & to hold it for euer. So then, the pope may erre, & the pope hath erred De facto, & that not only in his priuat opinion, as a priuate man, but euen in his iudicial and publike sen­tence, [Page 155] as a publique person and pope of Rome. This argu­ment is insoluble; it will neuer be truely answered, while the world stands. This is enough, yet we wil be content, in way of congratulation to our Iesuit, to say a litle more.Alphons. lib. 1. cap. 4. adu. haeres. Pope Celestine the thirde of that name, erred as Pope and publicke person in his iudiciall sentence and publicke de­cree.

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

First, that pope Celestine erred, and that, not as a pri­uate man, but euen as pope and publique person. Marke this, (Gentle Reader,) for it striketh dead, and clearely taketh a [...]ay the friuolous distinction of the popes double person. The wordes are verie easie and plaine; Hee erred, (sayeth the Text,) not as a priuate man, but euen as he was pope and Byshop of Rome, [Page 156] no deniall can be made.

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

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

Fourthly, that Alphonsus saw and read the same.

Fiftly that the said Decree cannot this day be found, a­mong the Popes Decretall Epistles. Where I wish the Reader to note by the way, that the Decrees of our holie fathers the Popes, haue beene such and so much against late Popery, that they are ashamed to bring them now to light.Canus de loc [...] lib. 6, cap. [...]. in fine. pagina. 189. Yea, Melchior Canus, though otherwise he be a great learned Papist, telleth vs plainly and roundly, that Iohannes Gerson, Iacobus Almanus, and Thomas Waldensis, all three being famous Papists, and very learned writers, do constantly hold and defend, that the pope as pope & publicke person, may erre iudicially in a matter of fayth. Now, where our Iesuite obiecteth Christs words, com­maunding the Iewes to follow the Doctrine which the Scribes taught out of Moyses chaire;Mat, 23, 3. I answere, that our Sauiour Christ seeing many thinges amisse in the Scribes and Pharis [...]es, thought it m [...]ete and conuenient to giue the people warning thereof, and he wisely tempereth his admonition, least they shoulde reiect the good together with the euill. For to teach the Lawe and the prophets, which was to sit in Moyses Chaire, or to ex [...]cute Moyses Authority, (which was all one in effect) was a thing very honest and lawfull. Christ, therefore commaunded the people to obey them, and to doe whatsoeuer they bidde thē do; but this must be vnderstood with this limitation; so long as they taught & cōmanded ex cathedra, that is; [Page 157] agreeable to Gods Law, not otherwise. This to be the true sence and meaning of Christs words, I haue prooued not onely out of Saint Austen and Saint Hylary, but also out of Nicholaus de Lyra, and Dionysius Carthusianus, tvvo learned Papistes, and Religious Fryers. The Reader may finde their wordes at large, in my Golden ballance of tryall; with solutions to all other Obiections, that can be made in this behalfe. But I must needes put the Reader in mind of one thing, that euen now commeth to my remēbrance, (viz:) of one of the Popes owne decrees, in which I find these expresse wordes;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 cathedrā. Non locus sanctificat hominē, sed homo sanctificat locū. Non omnis sacerdos santcus, sed omnis sanctus est sacerdos. Qui bene sederit super cathedrā, honorē acci­pit cathedrae. Qui male sederit, iniuriam facit cathedrae. Ma­ny Priestes, and few Priestes. Many in name, and few in worke. Therefore my Brethren, beware how you sit vp­on the Chaire. For, not the Chaire makes a Priest, but the Priest makes the Chaire. The place doth not sanctifie the Manne, but the manne sanctifies the place. Euery Priest is not an holy man, but euery holy manne is a Priest. Hee that shall sit well in the Chaire, receiues the honour of the Chaire, but hee that sits euill, dooth in­iury to the Chaire. Thus saith the Popes owne Decree; which would to GOD the Pope and his Iesuited Pope­lings, did this day put in practise christianly. Let not the Popes henceforth, boast of sitting in Peters Chaire. Let them know that they be many in name, but few in work. They haue not these hundered yeeres, preached an hun­dred Sermons. What? say I, an hundred Sermons. For, so far as I can learne, not one at all. Therefore as the Popes owne Cannons tell vs, the Popes dishonour Saint Peters Chaire.

Bell auoucheth an vntruth vppon the Rhemists, Page 418. affirming [Page 158] them to say, that the determination of Councels, is needlesse, because the Popes iudgement alone is infal­lible.

Bell chargeth both you and your Rhemists truely; and your religious Fryer, Alphons. lib. 1. cap. 2. fol. 4. c. Alphonsus de Castro, shall be the vm­pire in this mystery. These are his words; At papam, so­lum abs (que) congregatione concilij, posse in ijs quae ad fidem spec­tant errare, multi non contemnendae authoritatis theologi asser­uerunt; imò aliquos pontifices summos in fide errasse, comper [...]uns est. Deinde, si tanta esset solius Papae authoritas, quanta totius concilij plene & recte congregati, frustra tantus labor pro conci­liorum congregatione sumeretur. That the Pope alone with­out the assembly of a Councell, may erre in thinges per­tayning to the Faith, many Diuines of high esteeme, doe hold and affirme; yea, it is most certain, that some Popes haue erred in the Faith. Againe, if the Popes authority alone, were as sure & sound, as the whole Councell fully and lawfully assembled; then doubtlesse, in vain should such paines bee taken, in calling a Councell together. Thus writeth this learned Popish Fryer, affirming stoutly and resolutely mine illation against the Rhemists. For this which I haue often tolde the Papistes, will in the ende be found an vndoubted and inuincible truth, (viz:) that I defend no point of Doctrine against the Papists, which the best learned Papists doe not approoue in their prin­ted Bookes. And heere by the way, I note out of this Po­pish Doctor, that many great learned Papistes doe con­stantly affrim, that the Pope may erre in matters of faith; as also that sundry Popes haue De facto, erred already. Now in Gods name, let vs proceed to the mighty Traedi­tion, (viz:) of the Bible it selfe.

Whence haue we the Apostles Creede, but by Traditi­on, as testifie Saint Hierome, Page 365. Saint Austen, and Ruffinus? VVhence the perpetuall virginity of our blessed Lady? [Page 159] VVhence the lawfull transferring of the Sabbaoth day from Saterday to Sunday? Whence many other thinges, as testifie S. Hierome, S. Cyprian, and others, but by Tra­dition? But especially, whence haue we the Bible it selfe? Whence haue we, that euery Booke, Chapter, and verse of it, is Gods word; and no one sentence therein corrup­ted in all these 1600. yeares?

This is nothing else, but ridiculous and irkesome Tan­tologie. It is answered againe, and againe. The Apostles Creede wee haue by Tradition in compendious manner, but it is conteyned in the written Word. As the Fathers admit many Traditions, so doe I with the Church of Eng­land. For we reiect no Tradition, vnlesse it bee either re­pugnant to holy Writ, or else obtruded as a necessary point of Saluation. Which if the Reader marke seriously, hee shall finde the Iesuite at a Non plus. Concerning the Bible, that it hath not beene corrupted for these 1600. yeares; I aunswere, that this blessing commeth not from the late Romish Church, but from the GOD of Heauen, who preserued the old Testament from corruption, whē it was longer in the handes of the wicked Iewes. Howe we know it to be the word of GOD, I haue shewed at large in the Downefall, and thinke it needlesse heere to iterate the same. Yet as our Iesuite shall giue occasion, some more shall be added by way of reply.

Bels first aunswere is, that there is great difference be­twixt the primatiue Church,Page. 365. & the Church of late daies. For the Apostles heard Christes Doctrine, saw his Mira­cles, and were replenished with the Holy-Ghost; and consequently, they were fit witnesses, of all that Christ did, and taught; which adiunctes the Church of Rome hath not. Here Bell blasphemeth Christes Church of late dayes, auouching her neither to be replenished with the Holy-Ghost, contrary to our creede professing her to be [Page 160] holy and Christs promise,Ioh. 14, 16. 1 l [...]. 3. 15. that the Holy-Ghost should remaine with her for euer. Nor to be a fit Witnesse of his truth, contrary to Saint Paule, calling her the Pillar of Truth.

The blasphemy proceedeth from your selues, & from your pope, to whom you ascribe such a prerogatiue as is proper to God alone, when you tell vs he cannot erre. I therefore answere, that the true Church of God is holy, hath the assistance of the Holy-Ghost, and is a constant witnesse of Christs truth. But these promises pertaine not to the church of Rome, but to the whole congregation of the faithfull. This Congregation is the pillar of Truth; this Congregation hath the Holy-Ghost; this Congregation is holy; this Congregation cannot er [...]e, in things necess [...]y to eternall life. This proposition is prooued at large, in my Suruey of Po­pery. It is now enough, to admonish the Reader thereof. For I haue prooued it, both by the Testimony of the ho­ly Fathers, and of the best approued Popish Writers. One or two shall now suffice.Alphon. adu. haer. lib. 1. c. 6 Alphonsus that famous Popish Fryer, hath these wordes; Ecclesiamil [...]tans est fidelium om­nium, congregatio, quae corpus vnum est, cuius caput est Chri­stus. The Church militant is the Congregation of all the faithfull, which is one body, whereof Christ is the head. Thus writeth our religious Fryer. VVho would haue thought, that a Popish Fryer should or would, thus haue defined the Church? The Iesuites will not thus define it. Heere is no mention of the pope, and yet of the Popish Church he is the head. He that opened the mouth of Ba­laams Asse, opened now the mouth of our Fryer Alphon­sus. The truth must and will in time preuaile. Panormita­nus a Popish Abbot, Panor. de e­lect. cap. sig­nif. a Popish Arch- [...]ishop, and a Popish Cardinall, hath these expresse wordes; Licet concilium gene­rale representet totamecclesiam uniuersalem, tamen in veritate i [...]i non est vera ecclesia vn uersalis, sed repr [...]sentatiuè quia v­niuer salis ecclesia constituilur, excollectione omnium sidelium; [Page 161] vnde omnes sideles orbis constitunt istam ecclesiam vniuersalē, cuius cap [...]t & sponsus est Christus. Sequ tur, & ista est illa ec­clesia, que errare non potest. Although a generall Councell represent the whole vniuersall Church, yet in truth, there is not the true vniuersall Church, but representatinely: for the Vniuersall Church consisteth of the collection of all the faithfull. Wherefore all the faithfull in the world make this Vniuersall Church, whose head and Spouse is Christ. And this Church is it, that cannot erre: yea, the Popes owne glosse vpon his owne Decrees, dooth most liuely describe that Church which cannot erre, to bee the congregation of the faithfull. Thus is it there written in expresse wordes; Quaero, de qua ecclesia intelligas, Caus. 24. q. 1 cap. àrecta. quod hic dicitur, quod non possit errare. Siipso papa, certum est quod papa errare potest. Respondeo, ipsa congregatio sidelium hic dici­tur ecclesia, & talis ecclesia non potest nonesse. I aske thee (O pope Luci) of what Church thou vnderstands that, which thou tellest vs in this place? To wit, that the church can­not erre. For if thou vnderstandest it of the pope himself, it is very certaine that the pope may erre. I answere ther­fore, that the church is here taken for the congregation of the faithfull, & such a church can neuer erre (indeed.) Out of these words of these great Papistes, I note: First, that the Church is the Vnïuersall Congregation of the faithfull, throughout the whole VVorlde; whereof the head is not the Pope, but Christ Iesus our Lord.

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

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

Fourthly, that the church in which the truth alwayes abideth, is the congregation of the faithfull: and there­fore truly said Durandus; that the late popish church is not [Page 162] comparable to the primatiue. Church, which heard Christs Doctrine, saw his Miracles, and was replenished with the Holy-ghost.

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

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

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

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

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

Secondly, that seeing the Scripture acknowledged for Gods word of all Christians, containeth by the Iesu­ites confession (as is already prooued) all thinges neces­sary for christian beliefe vnto Saluation; it followeth of [Page 164] necessity, that no vnwritten Tradition is necessary to Sal­uation. For doubtlesse, if euery Article, and all thinges necessary to salution be written; then can nothing at all be necessary, that remaineth vnwritten.

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

Secondly, because Christ himselfe telleth vs, that his Sheepe do heare his voyce.Iohn, 10. 27. Iohn, 10, 14. My Sheepe (saith he) heare my voyce, and I know them, and they follow me. Againe thus; I am the good Sheepheard, I know my Sheepe, and they know me. But C [...]rtes, if it bee true, (as it is most true, because the truth it selfe hath spoken it) that Christes Sheepe heare Christ, and know Christs voyce, then must it needes be true in like manner, that when they eyther read the scrip­tures, or heare them read, then they know Christ spea­king in the same, and heare his voyce. Toletus a Iesuite & Cardinall of Rome, T [...]t. in I [...]han cap. 10. hath these expresse wordes; Electi & praedestinati dei infallibi [...]er cognoscunt pastorem Christum, quae [...] ad tempus errent, tamen tandem suum verum agnoscent pastorem. Sequitur, at Christum necesse est agnoscere. Est au­tem haec nota effectus prioris, propterea. u. oues cognoscunt me, quia ego cogn [...]sco eas. Gods elect and predestinate Chil­dren, do know Christ their Pastor infallibly; because al­beit they erre for a time, yet in the ende they will know their true Sheepheard: for of necessity they must knovv Christ. For therefore do my Sheepe know me, because I know them. Thus writeth our Iesuite, out of wose words [Page 165] I note first, that all Gods children are not effectually cal­led at one time, but erre and wander as sheepe without a s [...]epheard; but euer in the end they acknowledge Christ their true Shepheard.

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

Thirdly, because the spiritual man (as the Apostle wri­teth) iudgeth al things,1 Cor. 2, 15 and himselfe is iudged of no man. Ergo he can iudge the holy Bible to be Gods worde. For doubtles, he that can Iudge euery thing, can especially Iudge that thing, which is most necessary for him. And consequently, Hee can Iudge truth from falshood, Gods word from the word of euery creature. This reason is confirmed, by the constant Testi­mony of many famous papists. Dionisius Carthusianus hath these words; Spiritualis autem hom [...] in quo est spiritus dei, iudi­cat, id est, Carthus. in 1. Cor. 2 ben [...] discernit omnia adsalutem pertinentia, de singulis talibus verum iudicum proferendo, inter bonum & malum, verū & falsum veraciter distinguendo. The spirituall man which hath the spirit of God, indgeth and truely discerneth all thinges, which pertaine to saluation, prououncing true iudgement of euery such thing, and truely distinguishing betweene good and euill, truth and falshood.Lyran. in hunc loc [...]. Nicolaus de Lyra affoordeth the same exposition to this Text of scrip­ture. The famous popish writer Aquinas is of the same mind.Aquinas in 1. cor. 2. These are his words: Apostolls hic dicit, quod spiritu­alis iud [...]at omnia; quia (s [...]lt) homo habeus intellectum illustratii, & affectum ordinatum per spiritum sanctum, de singulis quae per­tinent ad salutem rectum indicium habet? The Apostle heere saith, that the spirituall man Iudgeth all thinges, because forsooth a man hauing his vnderstanding enlightned, and [Page 166] his affection ordered by the Holy-ghost, hath a right Iudgement of all things which pertaine to saluation. Io­hannes Hosmeisterus hath these words;Hosmeist. in 1. cor. 2. Spiritualis fide sua eo penetrat, vt omnia quae sunt spiritus Dei dijudicare possit, nec iu­dicio su [...] fallatur, vt bonum dicat malum, vel stultum [...] est sapientissimū. The spiritual man doth penetrate so far by his faith, that he is able to iudg al things that are of the spirit of God, neyther can he be deceiued in his Iudgment, that he eyther call Good, euill; or that foolish, which is most wise. Out of the words of these great popish Doctours, (who are euer the best witnesses against the papists, I ob­serue these instructions for the Reader.

First, that euery regenerate person and child of God, (for all such are Spiritual) is able to Iudge of euery thing, that concernes his saluation; and consequently, which is falshood, which is Gods word, which is not; because that especially pertaines to his saluation.

Secondly, that euery childe of God is able by his faith to wade so farre, that he can iudge of all needfull trueth, and whatsoeuer is conuenient for his soules health, & ne­uer be deceiued in his Iudgement.

Fourthly,1. Ioh. 2. 27. because S. Iohn tels vs, that the vnction which the faithfull haue receiued, doth teach them all thinges; Ergo to discerne Gods word from mans word. Melchior Canus a learned Schooleman and a famous Byshop, tea­cheth vs the selfe-same Doctrine in plainer termes. These are his expresse words: Praestanti quod in se est, Deus fidem ad salutem necessariam non negat. Cam [...] de lo. cis theol. lib. 2. cap. 8. fol. 29. b. et. fol. 30, [...]. Sequitur; non. n. vnctio quē ­cunque simpliciter docet de omnibus, sed quem (que) de his quae sunt cipropria & necessaria. Sequitur; concedimus liberaliter doctrinā cui (que) in sua vita & statu necessariam, illi fore prospectā & cogni­tam, qui fecerit voluntatem Dei. Sicut n. gustus bene affectus, differentias saporum facilè descernit: sic animi optima affectio fa­cit, vt homo doctrinam dei ad salutem necessariā discernat ab er­rore contrario qui ex deo non est. To the man that doth what in him lyeth, God neuer denyeth faith necessary to salua­tion. [Page 167] For the vnction doth not simply teach euery one e­uery thing; but it teacheth euery one so much, as is pro­per and necessary for him. And we graunt freely, that do­ctrine necessary for euery mans life and state, is sufficient­ly knowne to him, that doth the will of God. For like as the well affected tast, doth easily discerne the differences of sauors or tasts; so doth the good affection of the mind bring to passe, that a man may discerne the Doctrine of God necessary to saluation, from contrary error which is not of God. Thus writeth the grauest Papist for learning, in the vniuersall world; and consequently, it is and must bee of great force against the Papistes, whatsoeuer hath passed from his pen. And I protest vnto the (Gentle Rea­der) that nothing hath more estraunged me from Pope­ry, and set me at defiance with it, then the cleere & pro­spicuous Doctrine, of the best Learned and most renow­ned Papistes, for whosoeuer will seriously pervse the Bookes which I haue published to the view of the world, shall therein finde by the Testimony of the best approued Papists, euery point of setled Doctrine in the Church of England.

Out of the words of this learned Popish Byshop, that when S. Iohn sayth, The vnction teacheth vs all things: Hee meaneth not the difficult Questions in Religion, but all, 1. Iohn 2. 27. such points as are necessary for euery mans saluation.

Secondly, that no man wanteth this knowledge and iudgment of Doctrine, but he that is willingly ignorant, and will not apply himselfe to liue Christianly.

Thirdly, that euery priuate man, is able to discern true Doctrine from Falshood and Error, so farre forth as is re­quisite for his saluation; as well as a sound and good tast is able to discern differences of tasts. Ergo, euery faithful Christian is able to discern Gods word from mans word; because it is a thing necessary for his owne soules health. The case is so cleare, as it can by no reason be denyed.

Fiftly, because the formall obiect of our faith, is Veri­tas [Page 168] prima or God himselfe,De diuinis nomi [...]b [...]ca. 7 as Dionisius Areopagita telleth vs. Yea, Aquinas the Popish Angellicall Doctor teacheth the selfe-same Doctrine. Non. n. fides inquit, diuina alicui assemitur, Aquinas 22. q. 1. art. 1 nisi quia est à deo reuelatum. For Diuine faith (saith Aquinas) will not yeeld assent to any thing, vnlesse it be reuealed of God. The truth of which doctrine,Aug. in Ep. Ioh: tract: 3. tom. 9. S. Austen confirmeth in these Golden wordes; Iam hic videte &c. Nowe bretheren behold heere a great sacrament. The sound of our wordes pierceth your eares, but the Maister that teacheth you is within. Thinke not, that man lear­neth any thing of mā. We (Preachers) may admonish you by sound of words, but if he be not within that teacheth, in vaine is our sounde. The outward teachings, are some helpes and admonitions, but hee sitteth in his chaire in heauen, that teacheth the hart. The maister is within that teacheth. It is Christ that teacheth. It is his inspiration, that instructeth. Where his inspiration and vnction is not, there the outward noyse of words is in vaine. Thus wri­teth this holy, auncient, and Learned father, with many moe words to the like effect. By whose doctrine togither with that of Dionisius and Aquinas, wee may learne suffici­ently, if nothing else were saide, that howsoeuer Paule plant, or Apollo water, yet will no increase followe vn­lesse God giue the same.

I therefore conclude, that we do not beleeue this book or that Booke to be Cannonical, because this man or that man, or the church saith so, but because the Scripture is 'axiopistos; because it hath in it selfe that dignity, that ve­rity, and that Maiesty, which is woorthy of credite in it selfe. The declaration of the church, doth make vs know and beleeue the scripture; but is onely an externall help, to bring vs thereunto. We indeed beleeue the Scripture, & this or that Booke to be canonicall, because God doth inwardly teach vs, and perswade our harts so to beleeue. For Certes, if we should beleeue this or that booke to be [Page 169] canonicall, because the Church saith so; then should the formall obiect of our faith, and the last resolution therof, be man, and not God himselfe; as Areopagna, Aquinas, & the truth it selfe teacheth vs.

Sixtly, because we cannot be assured, that the Church telleth vs the truth. For how can the Church perswade vs, that she knoweth it to be Gods word? If aunswere be made, that shee knoweth it of another Church; then I demaund againe, how that other Church can performe it? And so, either contrary to all Diuinity, Phylosophy, and right reason, Dabitur processus in infinitum; Or else they must say, they receiued it by Tradition from the A­postles, and thē are they where they began. For first, they cannot make vs know that assuredly. Againe,Page 387. our Iesuite confuteth that answer, when he liberally telleth vs, that many partes of the Bible were long after the daies of the Apostles doubted of, and consequently, their Apostolicall so supposed Tradition, is of no effect. If answere be made, that the Church knoweth it by Reuelation, then their fa­mous Bishop Melchior Canus telleth them plainely,Canus de Io­cis, lib. 3. ca. 4 Page 101. and roundly, that it cannot bee so. These are his expresse wordes; Nec vllas in fide nouas reuelationes ecclesia habet. For the Church hath no new Reuelations, in matters of Faith. If answere be made, that the Scripture saith, the Church cannot erre, and so her testification is an infalli­ble rule thereof; we admit the answer, we hold the same, the controuersie is at an end, the victory is our own One­ly we must adde this, which is already proued, that that Church which cannot erre, is not the late Romish church, but the congregation of the faithfull.

Lastly, the Scripture it selfe in many places telleth vs ex­presly, that it is the word of God.

First, wee haue in the foure Euangelistes these vvordes expressely set downe. The Holy-Ghost of Iesus Christ accor­ding to Matthew, Marke, Luke, and Iohn.

Secondly, Saint Luke affirmeth, in the beginning of [Page 170] the Actes of the Apostles, that he made a Book of al those thinges which Iesus both did and taught; meaning that gospell which is the third in number.

Thirdly,2. Peter. 1. 21. wee are taught by Saint Peter, that no pro­phesie of Scripture is made by any priuate motion, but that holy men of God spake, as they were mooued by the Holy-Ghost.

Fourthly,1. Cor. 11. 23. S. Paule telleth vs, That he receiued that of our Lord God, which he deliuered in the Scripture.

Fiftly, the same Apostle affirmeth, that That Gospell of God [...] written, which was promised by his Prophets in the holy Scriptures.

Sixtly, Rom. 1. 12. S. Iohn receiued his Reuelation from Christ, which he was commaunded to write.

Lastly,Apoc. [...]. 10. (and this striketh dead) When the rich Glutton tor­mented in Hell, desired of our holy Father Abraham,Luke 16. 29. Luke. 24. 44. that one might be sent from the dead to his Bretheren then liuing; Abra­ham answered, that they had Moses and the Prophets, whom ther ought to heare and beleeue. And Christ himselfe told his Apostles; that all thinges must needes bee fulfilled which were written of him in the Law of Moses, in the Prophets, Luke. 16, 13, 15, 25, 27. and in the Psalmes. Yea, Christ tolde the two Disciples going toward Em­maus, that they ought to beleeue all thinges which the Prophets spake: and therefore beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, hee did interpret to them in all the Scriptures, the thinges which were written of himselfe. And consequently, the Scripture it selfe doth plainely tell vs, that it is the word of GOD. For out of these wordes of the holy Scripture, wee haue these points of Doctrine most cleerely deliuered.

First, that our Sauiour Christ spake them.

Secondly, that all things must be beleeued, which are written in the Law in the Prophets, and in the Psalmes.

Thirdly, that all things foretold of Christ in the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalmes, were fulfilled indeed.

Fourthly, that Christ did interprete the chiefest partes of all the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalmes. I therefore [Page 171] conclude, that it is the word of GOD. As also, that the dignity, the excellency, and the Maiesty thereof, dooth insinuate no lesse vnto vs.

Neither is Bels comparison true. For wee beleeue not the Olde Testament to bee Gods word,Page 369. for any Tradition which the Iewes haue; but which the Catholique church hath from the Apostles and their successors. Who deli­uered to the church, and she to vs, as well the Old as the New Testament for Gods word.

You contradict your selfe good Maister Fryer, Page 387. 2. Peter. Iohn. 2. 3. Iacob. Apocal Euseb. libr. 3. cap. 19. as who tels vs right plainely in another place, that many parts of the Bible were doubted of, a long time after the Apo­stles. For, if you had receiued by Tradition from the Apo­stles, all the Scriptures, both of the Old and New Testa­ment, ye could neuer so long after the Apostles, haue bin in doubt of many partes thereof. For by your supposed Tradition, you had the same assurance for the whole, as for the parts. And consequently, seeing you graunt your vncertainty for many parts, you must perforce graunt the same vncertainty for the whole. And so you confesse vn­awares, and against your wils, so much in effect and true meaning, as I contend to proue, (viz:) that your vnwrit­ten supposed Apostolicall Traditions, are as vncertaine as the winde, and not an infallible rule of faith.

Bels third solution is,Page 370. that the New Testament is but an exposition of the Old, and therefore may be tryed and discerned by the same. But Sir? Will you indeed try the New Testament? Will you take vpon you to iudge Gods word? And if you will try Gods word,A very fond saying. by what will you try the Old Testament? Surely by Tradition, or by nothing.

I answere, that I admit both the Old Testament and the New, because I beleeue God speaking in the same. This [Page 172] is prooued already. Againe, seeing the Law, and the Pro­phets, and the Psalmes, are approoued by Christes owne Testimony, as we haue heard already; and seeing with­all, that the New Testament is but an exposition of the Old, as I haue prooued in the Downefall; it followeth of necessity, that the Old being receiued, the New cannot be reiected. Neither is he Iudge of Gods word, that discer­neth one Scripture by another [...] because hee maketh not himselfe,Aug. de trinit. 3. cap. 26. but Gods word the iudge thereof. No more thē hee, who conferring Scripture with Scripture, expoun­deth one place by another. Which kind of exposition S. Austen preferreth before all other.

Bell saith,Page 371. canonicall Scripture may bee discerned of it selfe, as light from darke. He prooueth it,Psa 119 105. because Gods word is called a light and a Lanthorne which shineth to Men.1. Pet. 1, 19. Because spirituall men iudge all things; because the vnction teacheth Gods children all things;1. Cor. 2, 15. And Christes Sheepe both heare and know his voyce. 1. Ioh. 2, 27. But this is easily refel­led. First, because though Samuell were a faithfull and holy man,Iohn. 10, 3. 4, 27. and God spake thrice to him, yet he tooke his word for mans word, vntill Hely the high Priest tolde him it was Gods word. Gedeon was faithfull, [...]. Reg. 3. and yet knew not at first, that it was God that spake vnto him by an Angell, and therefore demanded a Miracle in confir­mation of it. Likewise Saint Peter was faithfull, and yet at first he knew not, that it was an Angell that spake and deliuered him. Secondly,Iudic. 6. Gods word consisteth in the sence and meaning, which the faithfull oftentimes doe not vnderstand.Act. 12. Thirdly, the distinction of Scriptures from not Scriptures, is not so euident, as the distinction of light from darknesse is, for then no man could erre therein.

This aunswere of our Fryer is friuolous, and childish. That which hee obiecteth of Samuell, Gedeon, and Peter, [Page 173] is not to the purpose. For, as I haue prooued out of Mel­chior Canus and others; euery one of the faithfull know­eth not euery thing, but onely so much as is necessary for his saluation to know; neyther is such their knowledge at euery houre & moment, but then onely and in such mea­sure, when and in what degree it pleaseth God to giue it. Some of Gods children are effectually called at the first hour, Mat. 20 some at the third, Luke 23 some at the sixt, some at the last. For though al Gods children, be elected and predestinate before all time, Rom. 9, 10. yet are they al called both generally and effectually in time: some sooner, some la­ter, Ephes. 1, 12. according to the good pleasure of the caller, who calleth freely without respect of persons. Ephes. 2, 9 Now, where our Fryer denyeth the distinction of Gods word from mans word, to be so eui­dent as the distinction of light from darkenes,Act. 10, 34 because then none (as he saith) could erre therein.Rom. 2, 11 I answere,Ioh. 15, 5 that as he that is blinde corporally,1, Cor. 3 cannot discerne colours, nor behold the bright beams of the sinne,1, Cor, 12 so neither can he that is blind spiritually,2, Cor. 3 discerne Gods word frō mans word, nor behold the brightnes of eternall truth. For as the Apostle teacheth vs. If Christs Gospell be hid, it is hidde in them that perish: in whom the God of this world, 2, Cor. 4, 4 hath blinded the minds of them which beleeue not, least the light of the gospell of the glory of Christ, should shine vnto them. And the same Apo­stle telleth vs else-where,1, Cor. 2, 25 That the spirituall man iudgeth all things, but the naturall man perceiueth not the things, which are of God.

Saint Iohn (sayth Bell) affirmeth that the Vnction tea­cheth vs all thinges) which wee deny not;Page. 375. but no where (saith he) that it alone teacheth vs without the testimony of the Church, which is it that wee deny, and Bell should proue.

I haue proued at large, euen out of your owne reue­rend Byshop Melchior Canus; that as the well affected tast, can easily discerne the differences of sauours; so can [Page 174] the good affection of the minde, discerne the Doctrine of saluation. And therfore as the testimony of the church is not necessary to the one, no more is it to the other. Yea if that sence of our Fryer, had beene the truth of the text, all the graue expositors of S. Iohn, woulde neuer haue o­mitted the same. But our Fryer coulde bring no exposi­tor for himselfe, and therefore no reason, that we should admitte this bare denyall, against the plaine wordes of the Text.

That of the Spiritual man is not to the purpose,Page. 375 both be­cause all the faithfull are not spirituall, but some carnall; and therefore may we better inferre,1 Cor. 3, 1. 2, 3 that the Gospell is not euident to all the faithfull,Gal. 6, 1. as also because Saint Paul explicateth not, by what meanes the spirituall man iud­geth all things; whether by the euidency of the thinges, as Bell woulde haue him to Iudge scripture) or by some outward Testimony.

I answere; first, that all the faithfull rightly so tearmed, are spirituall and not carnall,1. Co. 3, 1, 2, 3 neyther do the places quo­ted by our Iesuite,Gal. 6, 1. proue any thing for his purpose. For if he will haue none to bee spirituall that are sinners, then must he deny the Apostles of our Lord to haue beene spi­rituall. For as S. Iames granteth freely,Iam. 3, 2. They all sinned in ma­ny thinges.

Secondly, that if the Apostle had not explicated, by what meanes the Spirituall man iudgeth all things, as he did indeed, yet would it not follow thereupon, that our Iesuite may expound it to his best liking.

Thirdly, that the Apostle sayth plainly in the words a­fore going,1. Cor. 2, 10, 12. That the spirituall man iudgeth by the spirit of God that is in him.

Fourthly, that our Iesuite belyeth Bell heere, as he doth many times else-where. For Bell would not haue the spi­rituall man to Iudge the scripture by the euidency of the [Page 735] things, but by the spirit of God, which is euer at hand, e­uen within him to teach him all necessary truth.

Bell alledgeth the Scripture,Page 375. That Christes Sheepe heare and know his voice, Ioh. 10, 3, 4, 24. which no man doubteth of. But the question is, whether they heare it of himselfe alone, or of his church.

This is but irkesome Tautologie, it is answered againe and againe.

First, the late Romish Church, is not the church that cannot erre: this is already proued.

Secondly, I haue proued, euen out of their owne Car­dinall Tolet, That Christes sheepe know him, because hee first knoweth them. Yea, the Text doth plainly yeeld that sence. I knowe my sheepe (saith Christ) and they know mee, As if he had said, My Sheepe therefore know mee, Iohn. 10, 14. because I first know them. Christ therefore, not the church, maketh his sheep to know and discern his voyce.

Thirdly, the church is an outward help, as is the prea­ching of the word. To beget a kind of morral certitude or humane faith in the hearers, but neither of them eyther doth or can, beget faith Diuine in any man. Paule may plant, and Apol'o may water, but only God can giue the increase. 1. Cor. 3, 6. Experience may confirme this to be so. For no testificati­on of the Romish church, can make the Turke or Iew be­beleeue or acknowledge Christs Gospel. If it were other­wise 10000. Iews this day in Rome, would becom christi­ans I wil say more,August▪ Vbi supra. and it is S. Austens Doctrin; Many come to the Church, and heare the word of God read and preached vn­to thē, but beleeue it not, as their liues declare, Mat. 7, 17. for euery good tree bringeth forth good fruits, as our master christ telleth vs. And what is the cause? Forsooth, saith S. Austen, because they onely heare a sound in their outward eares, but not the heauenly Preacher sounding in their harts.

Well saide S. Austen, Page [...]77 I would not beleeue the Gospell, vnlesse [Page 176] the Authority of the Church did moue me thereto. This place so stingeth Bell, as he windeth euery way to auoyd it.

Howsoeuer in your opinion it stingeth me, yet haue I so sufficiently aunswered it in the Downfall, as there is no need heere to adde any thing in defence thereof. Neuer­thelesse, some few Annotations I will adde for explicati­on sake.

First, when S. Austen saith, I wold not beleeue the Gospel, vn­lesse the Authority of the Church, did moue me thereto, He mea­neth of himselfe as being a Manichee, not as being a chri­stian. As if he had said; If I this day were not a Christian, but a Manichee, as I once was, I woulde not beleeue this Gospell, (which I wish thee to embrace) vnlesse the Churches Au­thority did moue me to the same. For these are S. Austens own words;Cap. 5. cont. Epist. Funda men. tom. 6. pag. 80 Si ergo invenirem aliquem, qui Euangelio nondum crè­dit, quid faceres dicenti tibi; non credo? Ego vero Euangelio nō crederem, nisi me Catholicae Ecclesiae comm [...]veret authoritas. If therefore I shoulde finde one, that yet beleeueth not the Gospel, what wouldst thou do to him, saying to thee, I beleeue it not? I doubtlesse would not beleeue the gos­pell, vnlesse the authority of the Catholicke church, did mooue mee ther [...]unto.

Loe, he speaketh of him that beleeueth not the gospell, and of himselfe not being a christian, not of himselfe, or any other that professeth the gospell. Where I am to ad­monish the Reader, that here, as in many other places of my Bookes;I was almost 200, miles frō london. this period last recited, is vnperfect in the Downefall. For my selfe being absent from the Presse, as dwelling farre off, many faultes escape the Printer. That this is the true meaning of S. Austen, I proue it first, be­cause in the very same Chapter hee confesseth, that the Authority of the Gospell, is aboue the authority of the Church.

Secondly,Cap. 4. because in the Chapter aforegoing, after he hath discoursed of many notable things in the church [Page 177] Consent, Miracles, Antiquitie, and Succession; he addeth that the truth of the Scriptures, must be preferred before them all.

These pointes and reasons,Page 381. I cited before out of Saint Austen; which because they confound our Iesuite, hee impudently denieth them; affirming that Saint Austen saith not so. These therefore are S. Austens owne words, in the first Chapter; Quòd si forte in euangelio aliquid aper­tissimum de Manichaei Apostolatu [...] p [...]tueris, infirma­bis mihi catholicorum anthoritatem, qui iubent, non credam. If happily thou canst finde in the Gospell, any manifest thing of the Apostle-ship of Manichaeus, thou shalt dis­credite the authority of Catholiques to mee, who com­maund mee not to beleeue thee. Againe, in the fourth Chapter he hath these wordes; Apud vos sola persona [...] veri­tatis pollicitatio, quae quidem si tam manifesta monstratur, vt in dubium venire non possit, praeponenda est omnibus illis rebus, qui­bus in Catholica teneor. With you onely soundeth the pro­mise of truth, which if it bee prooued so manifest, that it cannot be doubted of, it is to be preferred before al those thinges, that hold me in the catholique church. Loe, in the former place Saint Austen graunteth freely, that the authority of the Scripture, is aboue the authority of the church; And in the latter, that the truth of the Scripture must be preferred before all other things whatsoeuer. A­way therefore with our lying Fryer, Vide Aug. ep. 165. and giue hearing to his fables no longer.

Secondly, the faith that proceedeth from the Church for Testificatiō, is but humaine, and not diuine. For none saue God onely, can beget faith diuine in vs. It pleaseth GOD to vse externall meanes and Ceremonies, for the confirmation of our Faith; but the grace, power, & ver­tue, is from himselfe alone. The Law was giuen by Moyses, Iohn. 1. 17. but grace and truth came by Iesus Christ. I prooue it: First, because a supernaturall effect, must needes bee produced of a supernaturall cause; and consequently, diuine faith [Page 178] beeing a supernaturall effect, cannot proceede from the Romish Church.

Secondly, a corporall agent, cannot ascend and pene­trate a spirituall obiect; as a materiall Sword cannot pe­netrate an immateriall Spirit; and consequently, neither produce an immateriall effect, as is faith diuine.

Thirdly, no immateriall and spirituall accident, can bee receyued into any corporall subiect; and consequently, no corporall subiect is apt to produce a spirituall effect.

Fourthly,Aug. tract. 72. in Iohan. A­quin. p. 1. q. 45. art. 5. Saint Austen saith plainly, that it is a greater woorke to iustifie a man, then to create the VVorlde; but no power (saith the Popish Angelicall Doctor Aquinas) which is vpon earth, can concurre to creation; Ergo, nei­ther to iustification; and consequently, neither to the producing of Faith diuine.

Thirdly, when saith is wrought and begotten in vs, we may not diuide the worke; giuing part to God, and part to the Church; but we must ascribe the whole to GOD, the true Author of the whole. Therfore, after S. Paule had tolde the Corinthians, that he had laboured more aboun­dantly then all the Apostles; hee forthwith added these wordes.1. Cor, 15. 10. Yet not I, but the grace of God, which is with me. For though mā be not in his actions as a brute beast or block, but free from all coaction and constraint; yet hath he no power but from aboue, neither hath he any part more or lesse, in producing Grace, Faith, or the supernatuall ef­fects. For though it be Gods pleasure to vse mans exter­nall acts and operations, for the exercise of his faith, whē he meaneth to produce supernaturall effectes; yet dooth hee himselfe solely and wholy of himselfe, produce the same effectes. And heere I must tell the Reader of a great defect in the Latine Vulgata editio; which the late Coun­cell of Trent extolleth to the Heauens; and withall Pa­pists are bound to vse and beleeue.1. Cor. 15. 10 It saith thus: Yet not I, but the grace of God with mee; as if forsooth, part were im­puted to grace, and part to the act and woorke of Saint [Page 179] Paule. Vide Hier? lib. 2. aduers. Pelag. fol. 129. D. Whereas indeed, the Apostle ascribeth the whole to God, and vtterly refuseth to take any part to himselfe. Which the Article ( [...]) in the Greeke left out, in the La­tine Vulgata editio, maketh plaine and euident. For after Saint Paule had saide, That hee had laboured more then all the Aopostles; he by and by addeth this correction; Yet not I, but the grace of God, which is with me. And heere (because sensible things worke most in sensile persons) let vs take an example of the Napkins and Partlets, which were brought from Saint Paules body vnto the sicke, for the Napkins by touching Saint Paules body,Act, 19, 12, 11. receiued no in­herent vertue to worke Miracles. The Text saith plaine­ly, that God wrought the Miracles by the hand of Paule. The Napkins and Handkerchiefes were but outward to­kens, to confirme the faith of those that were to be hea­led in the absence of the Apostle; that they might there­by know and perceiue, that the gift of healing (which God for his own glory had bestowed on him) was not tyed to the presence of his body. The like may be said, Of touching Christs Garment, and of the Clay which Christ vsed in restoring the blind man to his sight. Mat. 9, 21. Iohn, 9, 6. Luke. 8. 46. For the vertue was not in the garments, but in Christ himselfe. Christ said not; Vertue is gone out of my Garments; but (as Saint Luke ad­deth) I perceiue that vertue is gone out of mee. And all men know, that Clay was rather an hinderance, then a furthe­rance, to effect that was wrought in the blind man. For, if we respect the nature and operation of Clay, wee shall finde it more apt to destroy sight where it is, then to re­store sight where it is not. But it pleased Christ, this way to try the faith and obedience of the blind man. For there can bee no better tryall of true faith, then when a godly mind being content with the simple word of God, doth promise that vnto it selfe, which otherwise seemeth in­credible. Much more might be saide, but the Reader, (if he shall ioyne this with the Downefall) shall find sufficient matter, for the full confutation of the Fryer. And now I [Page 180] proceed in Gods holy name, to bicker and grapple with the Iesuite, concerning the last Article beeing the eyght in number.

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

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

Secondly, that whosoeuer stealeth but those thinges, which with our Iesuite are trifles, transgresseth both Gods Lawes, and the Lawes of his Prince. Gods Laws,Exod. 20, 15 because God absolutely without exception forbiddeth to steale: The Princes Laws, because he that stealeth but our Iesuites trifles, must be stocked and whipped for his paines; & that is inflicted, by due execution of the Prin­ces Lawes. But our Iesuites are so acquainted with noto­rious Treasons, that stealing with them is but a trifle, yet not only their Angelicall Doctor Aquinas, but S. Austen al­so writing to Consentius, Aquin. 22. q 110. art. 3. Aug. ad Cō ­sent [...]ū, cap. 8. 9. 10. tom. 4. affirmeth most christianly; that an officious lye (which is the least lye that can bee commit­ted, and one of our Fryers trifles) may not bee made to saue the whole world. And our Maister Christ telleth vs [Page 181] in his holy Gospell,Mat. 12, 36 That wee shall giue account of euerie ydle word. Well, howsoeuer our Fryer flatter himselfe in stea­ling strifles,Vnles he haue a dispensation. or in trifling stealing, yet whosoeuer (vnlesse perhaps a Iesuite) breaketh the Popes Law by eating an Egge in Lent, committeth a deadly sinne. Yea, that man, or that woman, that shall tell a hundred lyes in one day, shall not be so hardly censured with the Papistes, as one godly Christian eating an Egge in Lent,Page 423 with thanksgi­uing to God for the same. Note that our Iesuite here em­boldeneth to steale trifles, affirming it, not to be against the Princes law.

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

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

Secondly, that where I haue proued in the Downfall by the Testimony both of Saint Austen and S. Hierom, that that the young man lyed, when he said hee had kept the Commaundements: our Iesuite returneth this answere, that it is probable hee spake truely. Because forsooth, S. Marke saith, Christ behelde him and loued him. But this answere is not to the purpose, (to say nothing of our Ie­suits pride, who so roundly reiecteth both S. Austens and S. Hieroms opinion) because S. Mark speaketh only of ex­ternall shew of loue, and not of true loue indeede. The like Phrase we haue in S. Mathew, where Herod is saide [Page 182] to be sorry, when he was glad indeede. And therefore doth S. Hierom censure him in these words.Exod. 1, 17, 20, 21 Christ as true God did this. In face tristitiā, in corde habebat laetitiam. In his face sorrow, but gladnes in his hart. Our Sauiour Christ, as hee prospered the Mid­wiues, and made them houses, not for their lying, but be­cause they feared him; euen so, did he looke chearefully vpon the young man, and in louing manner set before his eyes, what a vaine conceit he had of himselfe; not for the lye which he boldly auouched, but because he had a de­sire to go to heauen. Our Iesuite addeth, that S. Chrisostom saith, the young man was no dissembler; and that S. Hie­rom saith, Christ loued him, because he said he had done all. But our Iesuite is addicted to lying, and falsly surchar­geth the holy Fathers. Their assertions are truly cited, in the Downfall of Popery.

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

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

Againe, in many Psalmes hee confesseth his owne sins, [Page 183] and withall, constantly affirmeth, that none liuing can be iustified by his best workes. Haue mercy on me O God, wash me from my sinnes, and clense me from mine iniquity. Psalme 51 I know my sinne, and mine iniquity is euer before me. I was borne in sinne, & in sinne hath my Mother conceiued mee, Againe, in another place thus; If thou O Lorde, straightly markest iniquities: O Lorde, Psalme 130 who shall abide it? But with thee is mercie, that thou mayest be feared. Againe in another place thus: Enter not in­to iudgement with thy seruant, Psalme 143. for in thy sight shall none that li­ueth be iustified. So then, as wee haue in one Psalme, that Dauid did keepe Gods commaundements, so haue wee in many other Texts of holy writ, both in the Psalmes, and else where, that neither himselfe nor any liuing, can per­fectly keep the same. What must we now do? One scrip­ture is not contrary to another. The spirite of God spea­king in Dauid, saith in one place, That he kept Gods Lawe; in another place he saith, That neither hee nor any other can keepe his Commaundements. How stand these two together? This is the resolution and true sence of holy writ. Dauid (as euery childe of God in like maner) is truely saide to keepe Gods Commaundements, when he hath an inward feruent desire to do the will of God, and chearefully ap­plyeth his heart and all his affections to that end,Howe Gods children thogh sinners, keepe his commaun­dements. so farre foorth as standeth with mans infirmity, and the state in which we liue, although he be a greeuons sinner indeed, and Trangresse Gods law many waies. This I prooue to be so by many arguments: first, because the sinnes of the faithful, are not imputed to them for the merits of Christ Iesus. Therefore (saith the Apostle) Being iustified by faith, we are at peace with God, through our Lord Iesus Christ. Again thus;Rom. 5, 1. Rom, 4, 7, 8. Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiuen, and whose sinnes are couered. Blessed is the man, to whom the Lorde will not impute sin. By these places it is cleare, that Gods chil­dren are said to keepe his Commandements, not because they keepe them exactly and perfectly, but for that the want and defect is not imputed to them. This is it that S. [Page 184] Austen saith, in these golden words; Omnia ergo mandata facta deputantur, Aug. lib. 1 [...]. cap. 19 quando quicquid non sit, ignoscitur. All the Commandements are then reputed as done, when what­soeuer is not done (Is of mercy) forgiuen. Again, the same S. Austen in another place hath these words; Beatus vir, cui nō imputauit dominus peccatū. Hoc prestant viae domini, ac per hoc quoniā ex fide iustus viuit, ab ista via domini illa alienat mi­quitas, Aug in Pso, 118. conc. 3. pag. 925. quae est infidelit as. In hac antē via domini, id est, in fide pia quisquis ambulat, aut peccatum non operatur, aut si quid à deui­ante committitur, propter viam non imputatur, & tanquam non fuerit operatus accipitur. Blessed is the man, to whome the Lord hath not imputed sinne. This the wayes of our Lord performe, and by reason heereof, because the iust man li­ueth by faith, that iniquity estraungeth from this way, which is infidelity. For in this way of the Lord, that is, in a godly faith, whosoeuer walketh, he either sinneth not, or if any thing be done amisse, it is not imputed by reason of the way, and is so taken as if he had not done it. Thus writeth this holy father vppon that very Psalme: out of which our Iesuite hath borrowed certaine Textes, which (as S. Austen sheweth plainely) are altogether applyed, contrary to the Prophets meaning, and to the truth of the matter in hād. For therfore (as we see by S. Austens Testi­mony) is not only the Prophet Dauid, but also al the chil­dren of God, thoght to keep Gods commandements, be­cause they aplying thēselues chearfully with hart, voyce, and all their power to keepe them,1 Cor, 1, 30. Phil. 3, 9 2 Cor, 5, 12 Rom. 5, 19. the defect and want is not imputed to them. Briefely, by Gods grace, not of our selues, we keep his Commandements, though not in such perfection as his Iustice requireth; yet, in such mea­sure, as he of his mercy in Christ accepteth.

Secondly, because the sonne of God, hath truly appea­sed the wrath of God,Mat. 26, 27 Mark 14, 14 by once offering vppon the Altar of the Crosse, a perfect, sufficient, and absolute satisfac­tion for the sinnes of all the faithfull and elect people of God;Heb. 10, 14 and as a Creditor hauing receiued the iust and full [Page 193] paiment of that which was due vnto him, though by the hands of another, yet in behalfe of him who was the deb­tor, cannot with Iustice require the same at the Debtors hands; no more can GOD almighty, (who is not onely iust, but iustice it selfe in the abstract) iustly require satis­saction of his elect for their sinnes, for whose transgres­sions he hath receiued a most perfect, absolute,Mat. 3. 17. Apoc. ca. 7. 14 and con­summate satisfaction, and attonement for euer, at the handes of his deare Sonne, In whom he is euer well pleased. This is it, that one of the Elders said to Saint Iohn; These are they which came out of great tribulation, and haue vvashed their long Robes, and made them white in the bloud of the Lamb.

Thirdly, to acknowledge our sinnes, and to confesse our selues to bee grieuous Sinners, and not to trust in our owne righteousnesse (which is none at all indeed) but in the righteousnesse of Iesus Christ, who (as the Apostle teacheth vs) Is our Wisedome, our Righteousnesse, our Sancti­fication, 1. Cor. 1. 30. and our Redemption is in the scripture to be righte­ous, & to keep Gods commandements. Therfore saith S. Iohn, 1. Ioh. 1, 8, 9. Philip. 3. 9. 2. Cor. 5. 21. Rom. 10. 3. That if we say we haue no sinne, we deceiue our selues, and the truth is not in vs. But if we knowledge our sinnes, he is faith­full and iust to forgiue vs our sins, and to cleanse vs from all vn­righteousnesse. Loe, to confesse our sinnes, and to acknow­ledge our selues to be Sinners, is to be righteous in Gods sight,Hier. lib. 1. ad [...]. Pelag tom. 3. sol. 120. D. and to keepe his Commaundementes. This Saint Hierome confirmeth, in these Golden wordes; Tunc ergo iusti sumus, quando nos peccatores fatemur; & iustitia nostra non ex proprio merito, sed ex dei consistit misericordia. Then therefore are wee iust, when wee confesse our selues Sin­ners, and our righteousnesse consisteth not in our owne merite, but in Gods mercy. Thus writeth this holy and learned Father, shewing most euidently to all that haue eyes to see it that we may both be breakers and Keepers, of Gods Commaundementes at once; both Sinners and Righteous at one and the same time, though not in one & the same respect. Sinners, in respect of our selues, and [Page 194] our corrupt Nature;Ezech. cap. 18, 21. Esa. 1, 18. Righteous in the sight and iudgment of God, who of his great mercy pardoneth all penitent Sinners, and for Christs merits doth not impute their sins vnto them.

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

I answere: First, [...] all these holy men, were in their life time sinners, and Transgressors of Gods holy Lawes, which I could easily prooue by many Texes of holy Writ, if I deemed it needfull so to doe: this onely shall suffice for the present,Iam. 3, 2. that the Apostle saith, The best Liuers of all offend in many thinges. And that the Prophet Dauid telleth vs,Psa. 143, 2. That none liuing can be iustified in Gods sight. Secondly, to Saint Paule I answere, as in the Downefall; That the raging vnvoluntary motions of Concupiscence were sinne in him, al­though he did not actually yeelde his consent vnto them. And thereupon I inferred then, and now againe; That that sin which Saint Paule lamented in himselfe, affirming himselfe to bee sold vnder sinne, Rom. 7. 14. was truely and properly sinne indeede, but not Actuall, because hee gaue no consent vnto it; Ergo, hee must needes speake of Originall. This point I deliuered so plainly in the Downfall of Popery, as none, but eitherfooles, or malicious Readers, can be ignorant thereof. Of other Actuall sinnes I spake not.

Christ (saith Bell) being asked what good a man shouldPage 427. doe to attaine eternall life, aunswered; If thou wilt haue e­ternall life by doing good workes, Mat 19, 17. then must they keepe Gods com­mandemēts; but this is impossible (saith Bell.) Here is most shamefull abuse of Gods word, and this sheweth Bell to [Page 195] haue a scared conscience: For neither in the mans Que­stion, nor in Christes aunswere, is there any word how a man should come to Heauen by this way, or that way, (viz:) by beleeuing, or by working, or by both; but on­ly what was the meane in generall to come to Heauen: which the man supposing to bee good, asked what good he should doe to come thither. Which Question of his is common, either to Faith, or Works, or both; foral include doing good. And our Sauiour answered him, If thou wilt enter (not this way, nor that way, but absolutely) Into life, Keepe the Commaundements.

What a one is this Fryer? Hee chargeth mee to haue a seared conscience, which may more iustly bee imputed to himselfe. I willingly acknowledge my selfe to be a great Sinner, GOD forgiue mee; yet may I stand at defiance with this Iesuite, and withal the Iesuites in the World, for any corrupt or falfe dealing, either in the Scripture, or in the Fathers, Councels, Histories, Chronicles, or other Writers whosoeuer, they are alike to charge me withall. Nay, in this very point, wherein he desperately accuseth me, I am able to charge him too deeply, and iustly retort that agianst himselfe, which he would most falsly and vn­iustly impose vpon me. He auoucheth most impudently, that there is not any word, neither in the mans question, nor in Christs answere, how a man should come to Hea­uen this way, or that way. Let vs therefore ponder the mans words seriously, and then yeeld our censures accor­ding to the truth.Math. 19, 16. S. Matthew hath these wordes; Good Maister, what good thinge shall I doe, that I may haue eter­nall life? Marke. 10, 17 Saint Marke hath these wordes; Good Maister, what shall I doe, that I may haue eternall life? Luke, 18, 18. Saint Luke hath these words; Good Maister, by doing, what shall I possesse eter­nall life? Now, I pray thee Gentle Reader (whosoeuer thou art) to be an indifferent Iudge betweene the Iesuite and me. Thou seest euidently, that the man demaunded [Page 196] of Christ, what he should doe to possesse and inioy eter­nall life. For he said plainely; What shall I do, & by doing? What, shall I possesse eternall life? Doth not he aske to go to Heauen this way, or that way, who asketh to goe thither by doing Goodworkes? Yes doubtlesse, it cannot be deny­ed. For to go to Heauen by doing this or that, & to go to heauē this way, or that way, is al one in effect. So likewise, he that saith, shal I go to Heauen by doing this, or by do­ing that; and he that saith, shal I go to heauen this way or that way, saith one & the same thing in effect. Truly ther­fore did I answer to the Obiection, by my selfe propoun­ded cut of the Gospell (viz:) that our Sauiour Christ did not shew in that place, how men may attaine eternal life, but shewed plainly vnto the man, who trusted much vnto his workes and good life, that perfect obseruation of the Law is required of him, that thinketh to bee iustified by the workes of the Law. The man did not say, how shall I go to Heauen? Or how shall I attaine eternall life? But thus; by doing what, shall I haue eternall life? Christ therefore aunswered directly to his manner of demaun­ding; If thou trust so much to thy works and thine owne doings, that thou thinkes thou canst go to Heauen by doing, then do I tell thee, that thou must looke well vnto the matter, and see thou keep the Commandements. This answere is directly and cleerely deduced, out of the very text it selfe.

Bell saith,Page 429. that Goodworkes are so necessary to attaine e­ternall life, as the vsuall, ordinary, & vndoubted meanes, by which God decreed from eternity, freely for his owne name sake, to bring his elect to saluation: and that with­out them, none haue beene, are, or shall be saued, if time be graunted to doe them. How are they now become an impossible meane to come to Heauen? How did the man enquire of an impossible way to heauen, by Goodworkes? What need this challenger any aduersary, who thus ouer­throweth himselfe?

If our Iesuite had either eyes to see, eares to heare, or wit to vnderstand; he could not but both see & perceiue, that he confoundeth himselfe in his owne dispute. For, al­beit the best liuer vpon earth, cannot for any merit of his best workes, by any possible meanes attaine eternall life, (for it is the gifte of God,Ephes. 2, 8, 9. 10. not of workes) yet hath GOD decreed to bring vs to heauen by good workes, which he of his great mercy freely worketh in vs. For these are the Apostles expresse wordes, as the Rhemists haue put them downe. For by Grace you are saued by Faith, and that not of your selues, for it is the gift of God, not of workes, that no man glory, for we are his worke, created in Christ lesus in goodworks, which God hath prepared that we should walke in them. Thus writeth the Apostle, euen as our Papists alledge his words. Out of which holy discourse of the chosen vessell of our Lorde Iesus, I obserue these golden lessons.

First, that we are saued By grace.

Secondly, that saluation followeth not onely our first iustification so called of the Papists, which they confesse to be of Grace, but their second falsly supposed iustifica­tion also, which they wold haue to come of Works. For (as we see here, our saluatiō, which is after al maner of iustifi­cation (if ther were as many as the Papists imagine) is on­ly of grace, not of Workes. You are saued saith Saint Paule, marke wel the word (Saued.) He saith not, you are iusti­fied by grace, which goeth before saluation, but you are saued by grace, which followeth your iustification.

Thirdly, that the Apostle saith Negatiuely (We are not saued of Workes,) and consequently, that he confoundeth our Papistes, who say that their second iustification and their saluation come of their works. But as their second falsly so named iustification, was neuer knowne to any of the holy Fathers, nor to any ancient counsel; so wil their saluation neuer bee knowne to Gods elect, vnlesse they repent and reuoke this their damnable Doctrine.

[Page 198] Fourthly, that God worketh our Good Workes in vs.

Fiftly, that God hath ordained Good Workes for this end, that we walke in them. This doctrine is confirmed by the same Apostle in another place,Tit. 3, 5 where he hath these wordes. Not by the Workes of Iustice which wee did, but according to his Mercy hee hath saued vs. Loe, the holy Apostle is still constant in his former position, (viz:) that We are not saued by the Workes of Iustice, but of mercy & grace. For this cause saith S. Austen, Aug. lib. 9. con. fession. cap. 13. Chrisost de cō ­punct. cord. lib, 2. tom, 5. col. 592 Woe vnto the best liuer vppon earth, if God examin his life, his mercy set apart. For this cause saith S. Chrisostome, & si millies moriamur &c. Though we die a thousand times, and though we accomplish all ver­tues of the minde, yet do wee nothing woorthy of those things, which we receiue of God. For this cause saith S. Theophilact; Seruauit nos aeternum, non ex operibus, &c. Hee hath saued vs eternally,Theophil. in 3. cap. Tit. not of the workes which we haue done; that is, neither haue we done the works of Iustice, neither are wee saued by them, but his goodnes and his clemency, hath wrought our saluation wholly. Yea,Berna. in cant. serm. 68. tom. 1 pagina 1006. for this cause saith their highly renowned Abbot Bernardus; Sic non est &c. So there is no cause, that thou shouldst now aske, by what merits we hope for glory, especially since thou hearest the Prophet say; I will do it (sayth the Lord,) not for your sake, but for mine owne. It is sufficient to merite, to know that our merites are not sufficient. Thus write these holy fathers, with the famous popish Abbot, whose words are so plaine for the truth which I defend, as euery childe may with facility discerne the same. For I did not say, (as our Iesuite woulde deceitfully perswade his Reader) that Good Works are an impossible mean to come to heauen; No, nor that the young man did enquire of an impossible way to heauen. For I know, and I haue con­stantly affirmed the same in the Downfall; that Goodworkes are a meane, and the way that leadeth to heauen. But withall, I said then, and now againe; that neither can the best liuer on earth, keepe the Commandements so exact­ly [Page 199] as the law requireth; neither can any man for any works he doth, condignly merit eternal life. And this is the point indeede, which I defend against the Papists. Whosoeuer shall with a single eye pervse the Downfall, will find it to be so. For, it is one thing to say, that Good Workes are a meane, or the way to heauen; another thing to say, that a man can fulfill the Law, and by his Workes condignely merite heauen. The former I graunt willingly, the latter I deny constantly; neither is any Papist able, to answere my reasons in that behalfe. For example, the Pope (Boni­face) sicke at Rome, of his meere good wil bequeathed by his Testament 7000. crownes of Gold, to Robert Parsons the Iesuite, lame of hands and legs at Paris (his lamenesse not knowne to the Pope) to be giuen to the said Parsons, whē he cōmeth to Rome in his own person to demand the same. Now, the said Parsons hauing inteligence of the said Legacy, prouideth a good Gelding, a strong man-like fellow, and so taketh his iourney towards Rome, where he no sooner demaundeth the saide 7000. Crownes, but he in friendly manner receiueth the same, acording to the true meaning of the Popes will. In this case, the Gelding▪ the tall fellow, and the iourney it selfe, were good & ne­cessary meanes to receiue and possesse the said Crownes: Howbeit, neither did they merite the said Crownes,Rom. 6, 23 ney­ther were they the cause of bequeathing them Euen so in our case,Ephes. 2, 8 Eternall life (as the Apostle saith) is the free gift of God, Ephes. 2, 10 it is of grace, Mat. 7. 17 not of Workes: Rom. 8, 30 neuerthelesse, Goodworkes (as the same Apostle telleth vs) are the way which God hath ordained for vs to walke in; and the vsuall, ordinary, & vndoub­ted meanes, by which God intendeth to bring his elect to heauen. This notwithstanding, this must euer bee a constant and vndoubted position, with all the children of God, (viz:) that none (not the best liuer vpon earth) is able ex­actly to keepe Gods commandements, and by the merit of his works to enter into heauen.

Will not Christ say in his last sentence;Page 428. Come ye blessed [Page 200] of my father possesse the kingdom prouided for you, Mat. 15. 34, 35 from the con­stitution of the world? I was hungry, and ye gaue me meate. As well as he will say, Go you from me you cursed into euerlasting fire? For I was hungry, and ye gaue me not to eate.

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

First, that we are the sonnes of God, not by nature (for so we are his enemies, and the children of wrath) but by [Page 201] grace and adoption in Iesus Christ.

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

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

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

Fiftly, that all our Goodworkes, are the effects and fruits of our predestination. For,Psa. 51, 5. if it be true, as it is most true, (else the Apostle should be a lyer) that wee were elected to be holy,Esa. 59, 2. and to do Goodworkes; it is also true, (it can­not be denyed) that holy life and Goodworkes, Ephe. 2, 3, 5. are the ef­fectes and fruites of our election and predestination in in Christ Iesus. For this cause (saith the Apostle) that pre­destination proceeds freely of Gods eternall purpose; Iu­stification, of predestination; and glorification, of iusti­fication. For first, hee chooseth vs in Christ; then,Rom. 8, 30. he iu­stifieth vs in Christ. Thirdly, and lastly, he glorifieth vs for his owne names sake. For this cause saith that famous Papist, Nicholaus de Lyra, in this manner; Dicendum, quod predestinatio diuina est preparatio gratiae in presenti, & gloriae in future & ides cūsit aeterna, Lyra. in cap. 6. Mat. sicut ab aeterno predestinauit al [...]quē ad beatitudinē, ita preordinaui [...] modū quē daret sibiillā beatitudinem. I answere (saith this Popish Doctor) that Gods predestina­tion is the preparation of grace in this world, and of glo­ry in the World to come. And therefore, seeing it is eter­nall, as hee hath predestinated any one from eternity to endlesse blisse or beatitude; so hath he also fore-orday­ned the meane, by which hee would bring him to the same. For this cause saith the Popish Angelicall Doctor A­quinas, [Page 202] that predestination includeth Gods will of be­stowing both Grace and Glory. Aquin. p. 1. q. 23. art. 3. ad 2. And hee addeth these words; Nam praedestinatio ect causa, & eius quod expecta­tur in futura vita à praedestinatis (selt) gloriae, & eius quod perci­pitur in presenti, (selt) gratiae. For predestination is the cause, both of that which is expected in the life to come, that is to say, of Glory, and also of that which the predestinate receiue in this life, that is to say, of Grace. For this cause saith our Iesuite Bellarmine, that Goodworkes follow prede­stination, as effects follow their causes. These are his ex­presse wordes; Ita (que) sunt opera bona effectus praedestinationis. Therefore Goodworkes are the effect of predestination. A­gaine,Bellar. tom. 3. col. 627. & col. 628. in another place thus; Ita (que) illa propositio, (deus ab aetet no praedestiaaut hominibus dare regnum per opera bona prae­uisa) potest & vera esse & falsa. Nam si illud (per opera prae­uisa) referaetur ad verbū (praedestinauit) falsa erit, significabit. n. Deum praedestinasse homines, operaillorum bona praeuiderat; si referatur adverbum (dare,) vera erit, quia significabit executi­onem futuram esse per opera bona, siue quod est idem, glorificati­onem effectum esse iustificationis & operum bonorum; sicut ipsa iustificatio effectus est vocationis, & vocatio praedestinationis. Againe, in another place thus: Non ideo pendet praedestina­tio ab operibus, sed opera à praedestinatione. Therefore prede­stination doth not depend of workes, but workes depend of predestination. Againe,Bellar. tom. 3. col. 626. & col. 628. in another place thus; Alia ratio est praedestinationis, alia exequutionis; constituit. n. in prae­destinatione regnum caeloruū dare certis hominibus, quos abs (que) vlla oper ūpraeuisione dilexit; tamen simul constituit, vt quo ad exequ [...] ­tionem, via perueniends ad regnū essent opera bona. There is one reason of predestination, another of execution; for in predestination, God decreed to giue the Kingdome of Heauen to certaine men, whom hee loued without any fore-sight of workes; Howbeit hee decreed withall, that in respect of the execution, Goodworks should be the way to come to the Kingdome. For this cause say our Rhe­mists, that our first iustification is of Gods Grace, and not [Page 203] of our deseruinges; because none of all our actions that were before our iustification, could merite or iustly pro­cure the Grace of iustification. Out of this discourse of the famous Popish Doctours, I obserue these memorable Lessons for the great good of the Reader.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Secondly, that there is great disparity betweene salua­tion [Page 204] and damnation, and therefore that Goodworkes can­not merite Saluation, though euill workes bee enough for damnation. The reason is euident, both in Phyloso­phy and Diuinity, because as Saint Dionysius Areopagita saith (and the Popish Angelicall Doctor Aquinas approo­ueth the same) Bonum ex integra causa existit, A [...]op, de diuin [...], cap. 4 p 267. malum ex quolibet defectu?) Good, is of an intire and whole cause, but euill, comes of euery defect: yea, that more is requi­red to good then to euill,Aquinas, 12. q. 18. art. 4. daily experience teacheth vs; for one may soone do that hurt to his Neghbour, which cannot without great cost and long time be cured againe. This S. Austen well obserued,August. tract. 72. [...] Ioh. tom. 9. Page. 262. when hee left in writing to be read of all posteritie, that it is a greater thing to iu­stifie the wicked man, then to make heauen and earth.

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

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

Secondly, that our Iesuite belyeth me, after his won­ted manner, when he saith; that I affirme the wordes to be meant in respect of Christ, and not of our selues. For [Page 205] after I had proued by many arguments drawn out of ho­ly Writ, that the yoke of Christ is sweet to the faithfull,1 Cor. 1, 30 I added these words.Phil. 3, 9 This being so, we may truely say, that in Christ we fulfill the Law:Colos. 2, 14 Because he is our righteousnes, our sanctification, 1 Iohn 5, 4 and our Redemption; because hee hath ouer­come death; because he hath clothed vs with his righteousnes, Acts 15. 11 be­cause he hath couered our nakednes with his garments; 2 Cor. 5, 21 because in him we haue gotten the victory, Rom. 5, 19 ouer hell, death and damnati­on. Iohn 16, 33 Thus I answered in the Downfall. Psalme 32, 1

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

Againe thus; Hee made him sinne for vs, which knewe no sinne, that we might be the righteousnes of God in him. Here­vpon S. Austen that worthy pillar of Christs church, 2 Cor. 5, 21 gi­ueth this glosse and true meaning of these words of Saint Paule. Christum pro nobis peccatum fecit Deus,Aug. in enchir. cap. 41. tom. 3 pagina 118 cuireconcilian­di sumus; hoe est, sacrificium pro peccatis, per quod reconciliari valeremus. Ipse ergo peccatum, vt nos iustitia; nec nostra, sed dei; nec in nobis, sed in ipso; sicut ipse peccatum non s [...]um, sed [Page 206] nostram, nec in se, sed in nobis constititutum, similitudine carnis peccati, in qua crucifixus est, demonstrauit. God made Christ sinne for vs, to whom we are to be reconciled; that is, a sacrifice for sinnes, by which we might be reconciled. He therefore was made sinne, that we might be made Iustice; not our Iustice, but Gods Iustice; neither in vs, but in him; as hee declared, sinne not to bee his, but ours; not placed in him, but in vs, by the similitude of sinfull flesh, in which he was crucified. Thus writeth this ancient, ho­ly, and learned Father. Out of whose graue Testimony, together with the Texts of holy scripture produced al­ready, I obserue these memorable documentes, for the comfort of the well affected Reader.

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

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

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

Fourthly, that as the sinne for which Christ suffered, was ours, not his; in vs, not in him; euen so that iustice by which we are made righteous, is not ours, but Gods; not in vs, but in him. I therefore conclude, that we fulfill the Lawe in Christ, not in our selues. And I adde with S. Austen, O lesuite con­fesse thou art confounded. (to the euerlasting confusion of our Iesuite and al Iesuited Papists in the world) that that Iustice, by which and with which wee are formally iustified in Gods sight, is not inherent in our selues, but in God; not ours, but his; not in vs, but in him; and yet ours by imputation, as our sinnes by imputation were his. So as all the faithfull may ioyfully say with the Prophet Dauid; Blessed are they vvhose iniquities are forgiuen, and whose sinnes are couered. Blessed [Page 207] is the man, to whom the Lord will not impute sinne. And with the Apostle Paul: Psalm, 32, 1, 2. As many by the disobedience of Adam, were made sinners; Rom. 5, 19. so many by the obedience of Christ are made righte­ous. And heere I wish the reader to marke well: that to be iustified by imputation, is to bee made iust truely and indeed; though not by Iustice inherent in our selues, but by the Iustice of Christ.2 Cor. 5, 21 For as our sinnes were truely and indeed imputed to him, so is his Iustice truely and indeed imputed to vs. I also admonish the Reader, to remember well these words of S. Austen, Aug. in ench. cap. 41. tom. 3. pagina 118. Ipse ergo peccatum, vt nos iu­stitia, &c. He was made sinne, that we might be made iu­stice: not our Iustice, but Gods iustice; neither in vs, but in him. To remember well (I say) these words, beecause they are words of great consequence.These wordes strike dead. For they proue eui­dently, that our formal iustice is not inherēt in our selues, but in God; which confoundeth the Papists, and striketh them dead. They conuince mans inherent Iustice to be im­perfect; and their supposed condigne merit of Workes, to be plaine Hypocriticall.

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

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

Secondly,1 Cor, 13, 9. that as we know God vnperfectly, so do we keep his commandements vnperfectly. If our Iesuite say, that hee knoweth God perfectly: S. Paule condemneth him for an arrogant fellow: If hee say, hee keepeth Gods Commandements perfectly,lames 3, 2 S. Iames reproueth him as a [Page 208] proud Pharisaicall Fryer.

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

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

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

Thirdly, that when our Iesuite confesseth that their Veniall sinnes are pardoned, he vnawares confesseth, that they cannot keepe Gods Commandements. I prooue it, because God either hath forbidden their Venials, or is well pleased with them. If he be well pleased with them, then are they no sinnes at all, for God is not well pleased with sinne.Psalme 5, 4 This Dilemma is insoluble. If hee haue forbidden them, then are they a­gainst his precept, and consequently, seeing the Papistes graunt that they cannot liue without their Venials, they must also graunt of necessity, that they cannot keep Gods holy Precepts. And therefore it is time for all Iesuites and Iesuited Papists, to say with S. Iames, Wee all offend in many things. Iames 3, 2 And with the Prophet Dauid, Enter not into Iudge­ment with thy seruants, Psalme 143, 2 O Lord, for none liuing shall be iustified [Page 209] in thy sight. Aug. lib. 1. re­tract. cap. 19. I therefore conclude with Saint Austen; that all the Commandements are then reputed as done, when whatsoeuer is not done, Is of mercy forgiuen. And with S. Hierome; that the true wisedome of man is,Hier. lib. 1. ad­uers. Pelagio­ones fol. 121. Lib. 1, fol. 120 lib. 2. fol. 130 to know that he is vnperfect.

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

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

First, that all haue sinned, and cannot bee iustified, but by the mercy and fauour of God. These are his wordes; In multis offendimus omnes. Lib. 2. aduers. Pelag fol. 130. Non pauca peccata, sed multa; non quorundam sed omnium posuit. Omnes n. quae sua sunt quaerunt, & non ea quae dei sunt. We all offend in many things. He put not a few sinnes, but many; not the sinnes of some, [Page 210] but of all.Vbi supra, lib. 1. sol. 123. D. For all seeke the things that are their own, and not the things that are Gods. Again thus; Ne (que). n. homo potest esse sine peccato, quod tua habet sententia; sed potest si voluerit deus, hominem seruare sine peccato, & immaculatum sua misericordia custodire. Hoc & ego dico, quod deo cunct [...] possibilia sunt; homint autem, non quicquid voluerit possibile est, & maxime idesse, quod nullam, [...]egeris habere creaturam. For man cannot be without sinne, as thou thinkest; but God is able, if it please him, to preserue a man from sinne, and to keep him immaculate by his mercy. This I also grant, that all thinges are possible to God; but it is not possible for man to doe, whatsoeuer hee would; especially to bee that, which thou hast not read any Creature to haue. A­gaine thus;Vbi supra, lib. 2. fol. 129. D. Hec cuncta percurro; vt oftendam à nullo legem, esse completam, & per legem; mandat a omnia quae continentur in lege. Sequitur; ergo non liberi arbitry potestate sed de clementia conseruamur. I runne ouer all these thinges, to shew that none hath fulled the Law; and by the Law, all the Com­maundements contained in the Law: Ergo, we are preser­ued (Or saued) not by the power of free will, but by the clemency (Or mercy) of God.

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

The latter part,Vbi supra. the same holy Father prooueth thus; Audi eundem euangelistam; si confiteamur peccata nostra, si­delis & instus est, vt dimittat nobis peccata nostra, & mundet [Page 211] nos ab omni iniquitate.1. Iohn. 1, 5.Tunc ergo iusti sumus, quando nos pecca­tores fatemur; & iustitia nostra non ex proprio merito, sedex dei consistit misericordia: conclusit. n. [...]euso [...]ma sub peccato, vt omnibus misereatur.Rom. 11, 31Et haec hominis summa est iusti [...]a. quic­quid potuerit habere virtutis, non suum putare esse, sed Domini qui largitus est. Heare the same Euangelist; If wee confesse our sinnes, he is faithfull and iust to forgiue vs all our sins, and to cleanse vs from all iniquity. Then therefore are wee iust, when wee confesse our selues; and our Iustice doth not consist of our owne merite, but of Gods mercy. For GOD hath shut vp all vnder sinne,Vbi supra fol. 121. [...]. that he may haue mercy on all. Againe, in another place thus; Haec est ho­minis vera sapientia, imperfectum esse se nosse; at (que) (vtit a lo­quar) cunctorum in carne iustorum imperfecta perfectio est. This is the true wisedome of man, to know that hee is vnper­fect; and that the perfection of all the iust in the flesh, is imperfect. Out of this discourse of this holy and learned Father, I obserue these worthy documents.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seuenthly, that man is thē iustified, when he acknow­ledgeth himselfe to be a Sinner; and then perfect, when he acknowledgeth his own imperfection. This is a most excellent and golden Lesson. For here we see, how Sin­ners [Page 212] are iust and perfect in Gods sight. Marke well, gen­tle Reader. None (saith Saint Hierom) can fulfill the law; none can keepe the Commaundementes; none can liue without sinne; and yet the greater Sinner, the more iust man, if hee with the lowly Publican doe humbly confesse his sinnes. For (as Saint Hierome telleth vs) to acknovv­ledge our imperfection,Luke. 18, 13. is our perfection before GOD, and to confesse our selues sinners, is our iustification be­fore him in Christ Iesus. Away then with all Popish in­herent iustification; away with al Popish falsly supposed satisfaction; away with all Popish Condigne merits; away with all Popish supererogations.

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

This is answered already,August. lib. 1. retract. cap. 19 tom. 1. where I prooued out of Saint Austen, Vbi supra, lib. 2. fol. 130. B. Ibidem. C. that all the Commaundements are then reputed done, when whatsoeuer is not done, is (Of mercy) forgi­uen. Neuerthelesse, it shall not be amisse, to adde Saint Hieroms censure to the latter member, for explication sake. These are his wordes; Vis audire facilitatem precepto­rum dei? Ausculta quod dicitur; quam arcta via & Angusta est, quae ducit ad vitam, & pauci sunt, qui inveniunt eam. Non dixit, quigradiuntur per eam; hoc. n. difficillimum est, sed qui inveniunt eam. Pauci. n. inveniunt, & multò pauciores ingre­diuntur per eam. Sequitur; hac dico, & iterum iterum (que) ac per singulaingeram; vt erubescas ad sententiam tuam, facilia esse dei mandata. Wilt thou heare, how easie Gods Comman­dements are?Mat. 7, 14. Hearken what is saide; Strait and narrowe is the way, which leadeth vnto life, and few they are that finde it. He said not, which go by it, for that is a very hard thing, but which find it; for few doe finde it, and farre fewer [Page 213] enter in by it. These things I say, and will vrge them a­gaine and againe seuerally; that thou maist bee ashamed to say, that Gods commaundements are easie. Thus wri­teth this holy and most learned Father. Out of whose do­ctrine I note thus much.

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

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

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

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

Bell saith so, and that truely, and is already proued in this discourse,4 Reg. 23, 25 and more at lage in the Downfall. Now to your particulars. King Iosias (whom our Iesuite falsly nameth Iosue) returned to God in al his hart, al his soul, and al his strength. Which is nothing else indeede, but that here­turned to God with a sincere heart, and vnfainedly, not Hypocritically. Not that he was pure and free from sin, & no part of his hart or soul defiled with corruption, which [Page 214] our Iesuite might haue perceiued, to be implyed in the word (Returne.) For, from what did he returne, saue on­ly from sinne. If he had euer beene with God in all his heart, all his soule, and all his strength; then doubtlesse could he not haue returned to him. For hee that is euer with one, cannot be truly saide, to returne to him. But the scripture decideth the Controuersie,2. Par. 35, 21 22. when it telleth vs, that Iosias hearkened not vnto the wordes of Mecho, 2, Par. 15, 17. (king of Aegipt,)de Asa. notetur which were of the mouth of God, but came to fight in the valley of Megiddo, where hee was slaine for his paines. K. Dauid likewise (saith our Iesuite) sought God in all his hart, which must needs be vnder­stood, as I said of K. Iosias. For he was both an adulterer, & a murderer,2. Sam. 12. thogh also the child of God. This is already proued, & plainly cōfirmeth the doctrin which I defend.Psalme, 51 The same may be saide of king Ezechias, who was a great sinner,2. Par. 22, 25 and yet is saide to haue serued God with all his heart, and to haue kept his commaundements.4 Reg. 18. 6. 7, 8. The same answere serueth to the rest, that God hath those, that wil serue him with their whole heart;De Asa vide that is, vnfainedly and chearefully.2 Par. 16, 7, 13 & cap. 15, 17 & vda. For, as wee haue heard already out of the scriptures, None liuing is without sinne. Againe, The faithfull are saide to keepe Gods Commandements, and to serue him with all their heart; Because to such as serue God vnfainedly and chearefully, whatsoeuer is left vndone, is of mercy pardoned and forgiuen. It is the flat doctrine both of S. Austen and of S. Hierom, as I haue already proued. And heere I may not forget, to put our Iesuite in mind, that concerning the circumcising of the Iewish hearts, it may please him to read the verses following, for there shall he find his sillie obiection fully answered, euen in the text it selfe. These are the words:Deu. 30, 8, 10 Return thou therefore and obey the voyce of the Lord, and doe all his Commaundements, which I commaund thee this day. Loe, the Iewes, whose hearts God promiseth to circumcise, haue gone from him and disobeyed his voice, and therfore must haue their harts circumcised, that they [Page 215] may returne to him againe, & serue him with their whole heart, that is to say, chearefully and vnfeignedly. Whoso­euer can and will read S. Hierome (in the place quoted in the Margent) seriously and at large,Hier. lib. 2. ad­verse. Pelag. fol. 133. tom. 3 shall finde this con­trouersie so fully decided, as hee can no longer stande in doubt thereof. For euer must this Apostolicall Doctrine,Iames 3, 2. be holden for a most constant position:3. Reg. 8. 46 In multis offendi­mus omnes. We all offend in many things.2. Par, 6, 36 And this like­wise for a receiued Axiome, 1. Iohn 1, 8 in the Schoole of all right Christians; Non est homo, qui non peccauit. 2. Par. 15, 17 & cap. 16. ver 7. & 12. There is no Man that sinneth not. If therefore our Iesuite sinne not, hee is no man, if his pope sinne not, he is not man, but either God or the Deuill. GOD (I am sure) he is not, if the Deuill, God blesse vs from him. In like manner, it is saide of King Assa that his hart was perfect al his dayes, and yet is he repro­ued both for resting vpon the king of Aram, and for not seeking God in his disease. The speech is Sinedochicall, be­cause he was vpright in many things.

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

I answer; first, that the Symbole or Creed (from whence our Iesuite will needs borrow a curse,A. Aug. serm. 61 de temp. 1. and father it vpon S. Hierom) is not his, as the censure vpon the same doth declare. The like I may say of S. Aistens sermons de Tem­pore Secondly, Saint Hieroms meaning, & S. Austens also, is nothing else indeed, but that Gods commaundements are possible to be kept of man as man, though not of cor­rupt man after the fall of Adam. This point is handled more at large, in the Downefall of Popery. That this is Saint Hieroms opinion indeede, I haue already proued at large touching S. Austen, these are his owne expresse wordes; Certe iustus Deus, negari non potest. Imputat autm Deus homini [Page 216] omne peccatum. Et hoc quo (que) confitendum puto, quìa ne (que) pecca­tumest, quicquid non imputabitur in peccatū. Et si est aliquod pec­catum quod vitari non potest, quomodo iustus deus dicitur, si im­putare cuiquam creditur quod vitari non possit? Respondemus, iam domini contra superbos esse clamatū;Psalme 32, 1.beatus cui nō imputa­vit dominus peccatum. Non. n. imputat his qui sideliter ei dicunt; dimitte nobis debita nostra,Aug. de persect iustit. ratiocin, 15. pa. 968. tom. 7.sicut & nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris. Et iuste non imputat, quia instum est, quod ait; in qua mensura mensi fueritis, in eadem remetietur vobis. Peccatum est autem, cum vel non est charitas quae esse debet, vel minor est quā debet, siue hoc voluntate vitari possit, siue non possit; quia si potest, presens voluntas hoc facit; si autem non potest, praeterita volun­tas hoc fecit; & tamen vitari potest, non quando voluntas su­perbalaudatur, sed quando humilis adiuvatur God doubtlesse is iust, it cannot be denyed. He also imputeth euery sinne vnto man. I also thinke that this must be granted, because it is no sinne, whatsoeuer is not imputed for sinne: and if there be any sinne which cannot be auoyded, how is God called iust, if hee impute to any man, that which cannot be auoyded? We answere, that of olde it was proclaimed against the proud; Happy is the man, to whom the Lord hath not imputed sin. For he imputeth not sin to thē, which faith­fully say to him, forgue vs our debts, as we forgiue our debtors. And iustly he doth it not, because it is iust which he saith; In what measure your selues shall measure, in the same shall it bee measured to you againe. And it is sin when either there is not that Charity, which ought to be, or when it is lesse then it ought to be; whether this can bee avoyded with will, or it cannot: for if it can be auoyded, then present wil hath done it; if it cannot be avoyded, then wil past did it.

Againe, the same Saint Austen hath these words; An­te omniainquit, interrogandus est, Vbi supra ra­ciocin. 1. p. 965 qui negat hommē sine peccato esse posse, quid sit quodcun (que) 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, [Page 217] vitariposse peccatum, si natura vitiata sanetur gratia Dei per Ie­sum C. D. N. In tantum. n. sana non est, in quantum id quod faciendum est, aut caecitate non videt, aut infirmitate non implet, dum caro concupiscit aduersus spiritum, & spiritus aduersus car­nem, vt ea quae non vult homo, faciat. He (saith Celestine) that saith man cannot liue without sinne, must first of all bee demaunded, what he will haue sinne to be; whether that which can be auoyded, or which cannot be auoyded. If that which can be auoided; man may be without that sin, which can bee auoyded. For neither reason, nor Iu­stice suffereth that to bee called sinne, which no way can be auoyded. We answer, that sinne may bee auoyded, if corrupt Nature bee healed by Gods grace through Iesus Christ our Lord. For infomuch it is not healed, by hovv much it either through blindnes sees not, or through in­firmity fulfils not, what ought to bee doone; while the flesh lufteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh, so as man doth the things he would not. Thus dis­courseth this holy and learned Father, the most Noble Champion of Christes Church. Out of whose Doctrine, these excellent obseruations may be gathered.

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

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

Thirdly, that our mercifull God imputeth no sinnes to his faithfull Children, who in the Lords Prayer humbly desire pardon for the same. This is a point of great mo­ment; it must bee well remembred, and neuer forgotten. The Papistes most desperately and damnably affirme, that some sinnes are Veniall of their owne Nature; whereas the truth is this indeede, (viz:) that albeit all sinnes bee [Page 218] mortall and deadly of their owne Nature, (as I haue pro­ued in the Downefall) yet are all sinnes (as Saint Austen grauely and Christianly in this place vnfoldeth) Veniall to Gods Children; who in true Faith inuocate his holy Name, and humbly craue pardon for the same. So as it may truely be said; that some sinnes are Mortall, & some Veniall, though not in Popish sence and meaning. For, though sinnes be mortall in their owne Nature, and not at all Veniall, yet are all sinnes Veniall to the Faithfull, by the great mercy of GOD, who imputeth no sinnes to his elect Children,1. Cor. 1, 30. whē he beholdeth their Robes wash­ed & made white, in the bloud of the immaculate Lamb.2. Cor 5. 21. These (I say) must bee well marked,Rom 10. 4. and firmely imprin­ted in our remembrance, (viz:) Non [...]n, Phil 3. 9. imputat his qui fi­deliter ei dicunt, dimitte nobis debita nostra. Ephe. 1. 4. For hee doth not impute their sinnes to them,Tit. 3. 7. who faithfully desire par­don for their sinnes.Apoc. 7. 14. Sinnes therefore are Veniall, but to whom? Not to Atheists denying God; not to Pharisees boasting of their Condigne workes; not to Infidels deny­ing Christes merits; not to impenitent persons, who ey­ther dispaire, or take delight in sinne; but to the faith­ful, who euer haue a feruent desire to do Gods holy will, and to keepe his Commaundements. And though of ig­norance or frailty they often fall into sinne, yet do they foorthwith bewayle their sinnes, humbly craue pardon for the same, and apply themselues wholly to woorthy fruites of repentance.

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

Fiftly, that we sinne euen in doing that, which we can no way auoyd. Hereof Saint Austen yeeldeth this reason, (viz:) that if we can auoid it, then our present will is cul­pable & in default, if we cannot auoyd it, thē will past was the cause thereof. For (as the same holy father saith elsewhere [Page 219] & is to be seen in the Downefall,) euery such sin of ours is voluntary, eytheir in the worke it selfe, or else in the Originall; that is to say, in the Protoplast Adam; whose will in Gods iust iudgement is reputed ours,Heb. 7. 10. be­cause we were in his loynes as in the beginning,Lib. 3. ethicor. cap. 5. and root of all mankind.§. 27. To which I adde; that though the Deuill cannot auoyde sinne, yet cannot our Papists deny, but he both sinneth heynously, and voluntarily: yea, the Phylo­pher telleth vs, That the drunken man deserueth double punnish­ment. For we must euer haue in minde, that our necessity of sinning, is punishment iustly inflicted vpon vs, as pro­ceeding from our voluntary sinne in Adam. I likewise adde for a complement and consummation of the doctrin which I now deliuer and defend; that Celestine (against whose errours Saint Austen wrote this Booke, Deperfe­ctionciustitiae) defended Mordicus as a resolued & vndoub­ted doctrine; That vvhatsoeuer Man could not auoyde, but doe of necessity, could not truely bee called sinne, nor for sinne be iustly imputed to him. To whom Saint Austen answered; that albeit wee cannot in this corruption of Nature liue wholy without sin, but so farre onely as our nature is hea­led; yet might we haue auoided sin perfectly and wholly before Adams fall, which is enough to make vs truly and formally sinners in Gods sight. Let his wordes bee well marked and remembred, and this controuersie wil soone be at an end. For it is all one, as if S. Austen had sayde; Though we cannot now liue without sinne, but sinne of necessity; yet are our sinnes iustly and truely imputed to vs, because we sin­ned voluntarily in Adam, and by that means most iustly brought this necessity vpon vs. This Doctrine the Papistes, Volentes, Nolentes, must admit; or else accuse God of Iniustice, for condemning Infants eternally, for that sinne which they cannot possibly auoyde. For infants dying without Bap­tisme, they affirme to perish euerlastingly.

As for Bels dilernma, it is easily aunswered, and might [Page 220] haue been better left out (as himselfe writeth in the mar­gent.) For though Infantes after they haue sinned, and eaten the Apple in Adam, cannot avoyde the guilt of O­riginall sinne, but must needs contract it by origine from Adam: Yet becautse as Infants sinned in Adam, so they might haue not sinned in him, but haue auoided the guilt of sinne; falsely dooth Bell say, they could not possibly a­uoyde it. And I wonder, why Bell hauing taught bee­fore, that Concupiscence (the effect of Originall Sinne) is voluntary, hee will now say, that Infants could not pos­sibly auoyde Originall sinne. But it is his custome to gain­say himselfe.

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

Secondly, that our Iesuit killeth himselfe with his own sword. For, I contend against him, that all sinnes are vo­luntary in Adam, and the Law possible to haue bin kept in him, which the Iesuite vnawares, doth heere confesse against himselfe. This is the maine point in Controuersie, (viz:) whether that which we cannot auoyd, may bee sinne in vs or no. I hold the Affirmatiue, out Iesuite the [Page 221] Negatiue. I reply, that infantes are guilty of that sinne, which they could not avoyde; and consequently, that that may be sinne in vs, which wee cannot avoyde. But withall I constantly affirme, that infants sinned volunta­rily in Adam, because they were in his loynes; as also, that we might haue kept the commaundements in inno­cent Adam, Heb. 7, 10 though after corrupt Adam, we cannot pos­sibly performe the same. This notwithstanding, I deny that infantes could any way haue avoyded Originall sin. For I cannot conceiue, how a childe can avoyd that sin,Qui potest ca­pere, capiat. which was committed before he was borne. For though it was once in Adams power, to haue auoyded all sinne, and so to haue freed all his posterity from all sinne, yet was it neuer in any Infants power, to haue caused Adam to keep Gods holy precept; which seeing no Infant was able to performe, neyther could any Infant possibly haue auoyded sin. Our Iesuite therefore must learne to know, that it is one thing to say, that it was in Adams power not to haue transgressed Gods Lawe, another thing to say, that it was in our power before wee were borne, to haue kept Adam from that transgression. Which seeing it was neuer in our power, neyther were wee euer able to haue auoyded the same; and consequently, neither to haue a­uoyded sinne.

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

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

I ansvvere first, that euery sinne is mortall of it ovvne [Page 220] [...] [Page 221] [...] [Page 222] nature (which I haue already proued. Secondly, that all sinnes are Veniall and pardonable (which is all one,) to Gods children and faithful seruants; not of their own nature, but of Gods great mercy and fauour towardes them; who for Christs merites and satisfaction (in whom hee is euer well pleased) pardoneth all their offences, & imputeth no sin vnto them.Mat. 3, 17 This is the constant doctrine of S. Austen, whose words are these; Omnia ergo mandata facta deputantur, quando quicquid non fit, ignoscitur. All the Commaundements are then reputed as done, when what soeuer is not done,Aug. lib. 1. re­tract. cap. 19. is (Of Mercy) forgiuen. The famous Popish Abbot Bernardus, is consonant to S. Austen. These are his wordes; Omne quod natum est ex deo, non peccat: sed hoc dictum est de praedestinatis ad vitam; non quod omnino non peccent, sed quod peccatum ipsis non imputetur. All that is born of God,Bernard, de gra & lib. arbitr. pag. 1189 sinneth not. But this is spoken of the predesti­nate to life; not because they sinne not at al, but for that sinne is not imputed to them.

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

It is an vniust law which is impossible; and to punnish the breakers were against right and equity. As Bell him­selfe would graunt, if vppon paine of death he were bid [Page 223] to flye to heauen, and executed if he did not.

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

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

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

After the fathers, he bringeth two reasons. The one out of the Lords prayer, where we are taught to ask for­giuenes. But (saith he) Where pardon must be demanded, there the Law is not exactly obserued. The other is out of our daily confessions, where we acknowledge our faults, and most great faults. I Answere, as the petition of forgiuing our sins, dooth euidently conuince, that wee do not so exact­ly keepe the Lawe, as that we neuer swarue from it; so the other petition of doing Gods will heer on Earth as it is in Heauen, euidently conuinceth, that wee [Page 222] [...] [Page 223] [...] [Page 224] can do it without deadly breaking it. As for our confessi­ons, wee do not confesse that our daily offences are most great faults, but daily confesse our most great falts, whe­ther done then or before.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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