Aug. lib. 2. cont Crescon cap. 26. to 7. Apoc. 22. v. 8. c. 19. v 10. S. August q. 61. in Gen. â—â— 4. Genes 29. v. 24. sinneth therin greeuously but the people worshiping erroniously vpon inuincible ignorance offend no more then did S. Ihon when he worshiped an Angel as God thinking as saith S. Austin it had bene God him self or as did Iacob when he lay with Lia who was not his wife thinking verely it had bene his wife Rachel But to say that there is no consecration when the Priest omitteth any word at al or miscalleth any words so as the sense be not altered thereby is not Catholique doctrin but Bels vsual false dealing 9. His last contradiction is that vvhen pag. 34. many Priests are made together in Rome they al pronounce the vvords of consecration This is true but what then Papists saith he can not tel hovv many Gods or hovv many times God is made in a peece of bread O accusator fratrum Where didest thou heare of many Gods amongest Papists Where of making of God we say after S. Hierom and S. S. Hieron eâ—ist ad Helâ—odor S. Pontian epist 1. Decretali Pontian that Priests conficiuni Corpus Christi make Christs body but dreame not of making God These be the slanders malitiously obiected to Catholikes against thine owne knowledge and Conscience But where is the contradiction Forsooth because Inocentius hâ—ldeth that al such Priests do consecrate Durand thinketh that he only who first pronounceth the words and Caietan is of an other opinion I graunt these contradict one an other But what is this to the Massâ— are these contradictions in it You promised to shew vs Bel deceaueth his Reader contradictions in â—he Masse and twise you haue told vs of durand Caietans contradictions as often of other matters which had no shew of Contradiction Besides that the matter in which these three Authors contradict one an other is no point of faith For with Catholiques it is no more matter of faith whether al the said Priests or one only consecrate then it is with Protestants whither al or one should christen a child if many at once should dippe him into the font pronounce the words of Baptisme So the letter be wel sealed it skilleth not whither one or many be thought to make the print when many together put their hands to the seale 10. But if Bel when he looked vpon the Masse booke had looked on his communion booke and with the like eyes and affection Gilby admonition to England and Scotland fol. 70. he should haue found other stuffe in it then he did in the Masse For besyde that it is made out of our breuiary and Missal wherupon Gilby called King Edward the sixt his booke an English mattins patched forth of the Popes Portesse more then a thousand Ministers whome the vniuersity of Oxford acknowledged to be Ansvver to the PetitioÌ„ their brethren and fellow laborers in the Lords haruest in their petition exhibited Exhibited in April 1603. to his Maiesty say that they groan vnder a burden of humaine rites and ceremonies finde enormities in their Church discipline A thousand ministers censure of the communion booke and in their Churches seruice want of vniformity of doctrin Popish opinions and honor prescribed to the name of Iesus with diuers abuses which they are able say they to shew not to be agreable to Scripture Thus Syr haue your owne ministers deminished the credit of your communion booke And Reynolds an excellent ornament saith Ansvver to 8. reasons Confer p. 63. 86. pag. 25. pag. 59. Buckley in the conference at Hampton court 1. proued the communion booke to contradict twise the Byble the Bishops were faine to amend it 2. he argued it to contradict the 25. Article of their faith 3. to conteyne manifest errors directly repugnant to Scripture 4. he requested it to be pag. 23. fitted to more encrease of piety 5. professeth that vrging men to subscribe vnto it pag. 58. is a great impeachment to a learned ministery wherof he giueth diuers reasons as the repugnancy therin to Scripture the corruption of Scripture the interrogatories and ceremonies in baptisme and certayne D. Râ—inolds censure of the communion booke words in matrimony Thus syr the excellent ornament of your Church hath adorned your communion booke and this black verdict hath he giuen therof 11. And if I should but reckon the contradictions Protestants contradictioÌ„s about their communion in Protestants doctrin about the Eucharist I shold neuer make an end only I wil requite Bel with some few 1. how Christs body saith Willet shold be verily 1. VVillet Tetrostyl col 2. part 3. p. 82. present and yet not really Can there be verum and not res or ens vere and not realiter 2. how there can be a real presence 2. Perkins Reform Cath. p. 185. 189. of Christ in the Sacrament as saith Perkins and yet Christ no otherwise present then a thing to it name 3 How God giueth Christ 3. Perkins sup in this Sacrament saith the same Minister as really and truly as any thing can be giuen to man and yet he is giuen by only faith 4. 4. Caluin 4. instit c. 17. paragr 10. How as Caluin teacheth the Eucharist is no empty signe but hath the verity of the thing vnited to it and yet Christ is only in heauen 5. How there is saith Caluin 5. Caluin sup parag 19. 15. a true and substantial communication of Christs body and blood in the Eucharist and yet Christ no more there then he was 6. Sainctes de Euchar. repetit 6. c. 1. p. 208. Mich. Fabrit ep de Beza in the Sacraments of the Iews which were before his body was any substance 6. How Christs body is truely really and substancially in the Eucharist as Beza wrote in his confession exhibited to the Count Palatine and vttered publikly in the disputation at Surius An. 1556. Poysi and yet withal as far from the Eucharist as heauen from earth Surely such fellows as these haue yea no in their religion 2. Cor. 1. v. 17. 2. Cor. 4. v. 2. or els walking in craftines adulterat as the Apostle speaketh Gods worde For if their words be vnderstood as they signify purport they include manifest contradiction and thus much of the second Article VVherfore be myndful Apotal Bel from wheÌ„ce thou are fallen and do penance Apoc. 2. THE THIRD ARTICLE OF THE POPES DISPENSATIONS CHAP. I. BEL beginneth this Article as he did Bel pag. 36. the two former with vntruthes and dissimulatioÌ„s His vntruths appeare in that he chargeth S. Antonin and Austin of Ancona Antonin 3. part tit 22. c. 5. parag 8. vntruth 42. vntruth 43. with teaching the Pope to haue equal powre with God Because S. Antonin writeth That seeing the Pope is Christs vicar none can lawfully withdraw him self from his
lying dissembling and abusing Gods word euery where shew them selues in his books and now and then are noted in my answer No maruel therfore if one possessed of so many and so wicked spirits be so forward so spiteful so malicious against Catholiques as to callenge adiure them al iointly or seuerally to the combat with him Oh that I would please his Maiestie to admit this combat that Bel I the weakest of many thousands of Gods soldiers might try the truth not by writing which blusheth not as Tully said but face to face as the Bishop of Eureux and Plessy did before the French King I doubt not but if there were any blood in Bels body or any shame of men in his minde I shold make it appeare in his face But whiles this combat must be fought a far of only by paper shot and writing and our writings kept from the view of the people no meruail if Bel feare no shame of men whiles they may see him fight florish but must not behold ether defence or blowes of his aduersary If he be so confideÌ„t in his Heresy which he once vomited forth and now like the dog hath lickt vp again as he maketh shew of why hath he not in al this tyme of his Apostasy procured lycence for publike disputation or at lest why neuer repaired he to the Catholique Priests in prison Let him procure but one such safe conducte for Priests as the councel of Trent graunted Sess 13. 15. 18. three or fowre to Protestants when none of our English Ministers durst accept it he shal not need to challenge or adiure but shal be dared at his owne dore For Priests who willingly spend their blood in testimony of the truth which they teach wil far sooner spend their breath in defence therof are ready to make the like offer Epistle to the King as Bel doth in a different matter to iustify it before indifferent iudges against him or what Protestant soeuer vpon peril of their liues if their aduersaries wil aduenture the like peril And vpon this condition Bel I challenge thee and adiure thee accept it if thou darest What more could haue bene done to bring this so weighty a matter wherupon dependeth the eternal saluation of so many millions of soules to tryal face to face then hath bene done of Catholiques by speaking by writing by petition by supplication Puritans vpon one only supplication haue bene admitted to Conference Catholiques can vpon none And this is that which maketh Bel so bold to challeng vs to the open combat when he knoweth we can not appeare in open shew but vpon hazard of our liues And I wold to God that with danger yea with losse of life we might be lyceÌ„ced publikly to try this truth so important to the eternal life of our dearest countrimen But seeing there is no hope of this when I red Bels challenge it seemed to me not only an vnlearned thing patcht vp of obiections gathered out of Bellarmin and learnedly answered by him but a witles challenge of some coward who seeing his enemy commanded vpon pain of death to keep his house callengeth him to the open field and more like to condemne the Author of folly and vanity then the Catholique religion of falsity before any discreet iudicious Reader Neuertheles because as I vnderstood some monthes after the publishing of it some vnaduised Protestants hearing Bels glorious vaunts and challeng had conceaued great hope of this their Champion thought his booke vnaÌ„swerable I took it in hand not knowing as then that any other wold vouchsafe to Author of the Forerunner of Bels dovvnefal medle with it haue left to my knowledg no one point therin vnanswered attending more to solue what he obiecteth then to coÌ„firme what Catholikes mantein though this also I haue done sufficiently as I hope for my intended breuity He termeth this challeng a downfal of VVhat Bel impugneth Popery and yet in the greatest part therof impugneth no point of Popery but ether perticuler opinions of priuat men or which is worse false imputations of his owne being so desirous of quarrelling as he fighteth with his owne shadow And what he impugneth he doth with so good successe as almost in euery Article he ouer throweth VVith vvhat succesâ—e what he meant to establish and confirme So that if he had giuen his booke the right name he shold haue called it the downfal of Bels foolery Of these eight Articles which he hath pickt out as most aduantagious for him self in which there are some things which as S. Austin speaketh l. de vtil cred c. 1. to 6. may be impugned to the common peoples S. Austin capacity but not be defended by reason of their difficulty but of few In the first he impugneth the Popes superiority ouer al Princes on pag 1. earth and his powre to depose them at his good wil and pleasure wherof the first is but the opinion of some few Canonists coÌ„monly reiected of al Catholiks and disproued at large by Bellarmin whose doctrine Bel accounteth the Popes owne doctrin saith it is approued by him The second no Catholik holdeth but it is Bels faulse slaunder of Catholiks In the second omitting p 19. the question of the being of Christs body in the blessed sacrament he impugneth the being of his quantity therein as a thinge saith he held of al papists as an article of their faith which is vntrue as is declared in the answer In the third he inueigheth pag. 37. against the Popes powre to dispense in matrimony before it be consummated which likwise is an opinion of Canonists commonly refuted of Catholik deuines In the fift omittinge true merit which is a point of faith he impugneth condigne merit as a thinge defined by the Councel of Trent p 75. which it is not In the seuenth Article in steede of Traditions conteining things necessary for mans saluation which in the beginning of the article he proposed to impugne he impugneth an erronious opinion p. 131. 132. 133. of Papias about Christs reigne after his iudgement and an other of S. Ireney about Christs age one history about Zachary S. Ihon Baptists father an other concerning ConstaÌ„tins baptisme a probable opinion of Popes priuate teaching the same doctrin with S. Peter and an other concerning our Ladies CoÌ„ception without sin In the eight he oppugneth the keeping of Gods commandments in such a sense as no Catholik dreameth of So that though he had flong down al these matters yet ther had bene no downfal of Popery Is not this fellow think you a iolly challenger of Pâ—pists a goodly downfeller of Popery Is not be one of â—hos 1. Timoth. 1 of whom S. Paul saith willinge to be Doctors of the law know nether what they say nor of what But if we marke the successe which this Champion hath whiles he yet florisheth by him self before â—is
before he answered it to slander both Pope and Papists and to tel the Reader a long tale of steps deuised by him selfe in an imaginary ladder of his owne Many absurd things saith he haue pag. 5. bene affirmed by Popes parasits for aduancement of his primacy Iâ— one aske him what these absurd things are who were these parasits He nameth none For dolosus versatur in generalibus But let vs heare him proue his saying 11. vntruthe Victoria de potestate ecclesiae relect 1. sect 6. As Victoria doth testify in these words Sed glossatores iuris hoc dominion c. The glossors of the law haue giuen this dominion to the Pope they being poore in substance and learning 2. Here in steed of proofs I find an vntruth For nether doth Victoria in these words speâ—ke of many things but onely of this dominion meaning temporal ouer the world nether yet doth he cal it absurd This want therfore Bel thought to supply VVhen he spealeth a lye he speaketh of his ovvne Ioan. 8. v. 44. 12 vntruth of his owne store and therfore Englishing Victorias words he addeth and these lordly titles and then as hauing a sure foundation he rayseth his lie somewhat higher saying That Victoria affirmeth ignorance and pouerty were the beginning of al lordly Popery Wheras Victoria speaketh onely of temporal dominion ouer the whole world and Bel him selfe Bel p. 17. 4. Contradict herafter maketh Kings and Emperors authors of the Popes dominion Bel p. 7. 3. Hauing thus dealt with Victoria he falleth to slander the late Popes saying That they haue challenged more then human and royal power euen that povver vvhich is due proper to God alone True it is that both late ancient 13 vntruth Popes haue challeÌ„ged more then human royal power For such is al spiritual power as shal hereafter be proued But most false it is that any Pope auncieÌ„t or late challengeth any power proper to God or that any Catholique attributeth such power vnto him As his brother willet telleth him in these VVillet coÌ„trad 544. prel 3. p. 210. Caluin 4. instit c. 20. parag 4. Magistratus praediti sunt diuina authoritate Melancthon apud Sur. 1501. Bel p. 6. Gerson de potest eccl confid 12. p. 3. words The Pope by their owne confession can not do al that Christ did But what say you Sir to Caluin attributing duine power to Magistrats And to Protestants arrogating greater more intolerable and les excusable authority and power then euer the Pope did as Melanthon writeth or to other calling Princes Gods as you shal heare a none Now let vs see what proofs he bringeth of his slander Gerson saith he reporteth that some Popish parasits say that Christ hath giuen al that power in heauen and earth to S. Peter and his successors which was giuen to him selfe and that he hath writen in the Popes thighe King of Kings and Lord of Lords And that there is no power Ecclesiastical or temporal but from the Pope 4. Behould good Reader Bels euil dealing with Popes He chargeth al late Popes with challenging power proper to God which is a most heinous and Luciferian crime and for proofe therof bringeth not one word or deede of any one of them but ones report of speeches of some nameles fellows without proouing that any Pope ether allowed or liked yea heard of such speeches were such dealing with any priuat man tolerable And how much les with so great Princes as Popes at least are Suppose parasits had attributed to Popes power Protestants cal Princes Goddes proper to God doth it therfore follow that they challeng it Doe al Princes challeng what their flatterers impose vpon them Did Q Elizabeth challeÌ„g to be a Goddesse because Case Cambden and other Protestants Case in ep suop Policorum Cambden in Berqueria in Natis ad lectorem in Cantic Epist Bel in his epistles to the King to B. of Durhom Act. 14. v. 10. 11. 12. called her a Goddesse She saieth Cambden is the onely Goddesse of Britans Sheâ— shal be my Goddesse the grouÌ„d wher she was borne is rather to be adored then adorned she is Numen to be worshiped of the whole word Or doth his Maiesty challeng to be head of the Church of France or Toby Mathew to be the ornament of learning and religion because Bel so tearmeth them did S. Paul and Barnaby challeÌ„g to be Gods because the Licaonians did so account them doth not the Pope professe him self to be Christs Vicar and seruant of his seruants How standeth this with the challeng of equality 5. But I deny that euer any Catholique attributed to the Pope power proper to God let vs therfore consider Gersons report The first point is that Christ hath giuen al the power in heauen and earth to S. Peter and Bels slander toucheth as vvel S. Peter and the auncient Popes as the late his successors which was giuen to him self But beside that these words concerne no les the Ancient then the late Popes namely S. Peter him self though Bel be ashamed to charg them with this staunder are these woords of Popish parasits doe they giue to men power proper to God alone Then was S. Chrisostome a Popish parasite and S. Chrysost lib. 3. de sacerdot gaue to Priests power proper to God when he said Priests haue al power of heauenly things and the very self same al kind of power which Christ had of his Father S. Basil sayth S. Basil homil de poenitent S. Leo serm 2. de Natali Pet. Pauli that Christ gaue this authority to others S. Leo writeth that S. Peter had those things by participation which Christ had proper by power or doth Bel think that our King in creating a deputy in Ireland and giuing him authority to gouerne that Kingdome giueth him power proper to Kings Are deputies Kings are they no more subiects True it is that the power which Popes haue came from God alone as the authority of deputies cometh from Kings but such power by commission is no more proper to God then the like in deputies is proper to Kings 6. The second point in Gersons report is that the forsaid nameles persons cal the Pope Lord of Lords and King of Kings If these be parasits words and make men equal to God then was Daniel a parasite he made Nabuchodonozor equal to God in calling him King of Kings Vnles Bel allow this Daniel 2. v. 37. title in a heathen Prince and account it blasphemy in a Christian Besyds the Scripture Exod. 7. psal 81. Io. 10. psal 104. Esaiae 45. S. Bernard l. 2. 4. de coÌ„siderat Caluin lib. 4. instit c. 7. paragr 22. it self doth apply the very names of Christ and God vnto men And S. Bernard no parasite but a holy writer in Caluins opinion calleth the Pope Prince of Bishops leader of Christians hammer of tyrants father of Kings
Vicar of Christ Christ of the Lord and God of Pharao And thus spoke S. Bernard euen in those books where according to Caluins Caluin l. 4. c. 11. paragr 11. iudgment he spoke it so as truth it selfe semed to speake And albeit the Pope do not entitle him selfe King of Kings but Seruant of Gods seruants which is a more humble stile then any Prince vseth yet rightly might he because he hath twoe Kingdomes vz. Naples and Sicily Feudatary The Pope gaue IrlaÌ„d to the King of England Stovv ann â—â—71 and temporally subiect vnto him as he had also Ireland before he gaue it vnto the crowne of England in K. Henry 2. time 7. But because Bel is so hard aconstruer of some Catholiques words let vs heare not a parasite but a Protestant Prelat speaking not in absence but in presence of the King and realme Bilson in his late sermon Bilson at the Kings coronation saith Kings be Gods by office they haue the society of his name are in his place their very robes are sanctified euery thing belonging to them is sacred are pertakers with Christ in the power honour and iustice of his Kingdome on earth and partake with Gods homage Behould he calleth Kings Gods and partners with God in his name power honour and homage and yet no Catholique chardgeth Protestants that they attribute to the King or that he challengeth power proper to God alone 8. The third point reprehended by Bel in Gersons reporte is that ecclesiastical and temporal power is said to come from the Pope This saith Bel pag 16. is to make the Pope author of al power a thing proper to God 14. vntruth 15. vntruth This say I is for Bel to vtter two vntruthes at once for neither do they speake of al power but only of power in earth which they deuide into ecclesiastical temporal besides which there is power in heauen of God and Saints neither do they make the Pope author of al power in earth but only saie it commeth from the Pope which is not to make him author therof vnles Bel wil make euery officer author of what he doth in the Princes name euery instrument author of the effect it worketh by vertue of the cause And thus much touching this slaunder of Popes imposed by Bel. Now let vs come to others for no other stuffe we are like to hear hereafter in this article CHAP. VIII Certaine false steps of a ladder vvhich Bel imagineth the Pope had to climbe to his superiority disproued BEL hauing vpon the foresaid words of some nameles Catholiques taken occasion Bel pag. 17. to slaunder Popes goeth on in like sorte for many leaues together setting downe steppes in a ladder which as he imagineth the Popes had to climbe to their superiority The first steppe saith he was the departure of the Emperour Constantine from Rome to Constantinople but if he had better considered he should haue found that as the cittie of Rome decaied by Constantines departure and Constantinople increased So the Sea of Rome rather fel therby in external Euseb Hieron in chron Conc. Constant epist ad Damasc Gelas ad Episcop Dardaniae dignity and the Sea of Constantinople rose then otherwise For wheras before Constantines going to Constantinople which was about the yeare 330. that church was but new and a parish of another church as Gelasius witnesseth soone after in the yeare 381. it was made a Patriarchate Cone Constantin c. 5. Concil Calced act 16. next to Rome and in the yeare 451. the Grecians gaue it equal priuiledges with Rome And not content with this about the yeare 600. that Patriarch arrogated the title of Oecumenical that is ouer the whole worlde And finallie in the yeare 1054. claimed Sigebert in chron the place of the first Patriarch alleadging the Pope to haue lost his primacy by adding filióque to the Nicene Creed 2. But Constantine sayth Bel at his departure pag. 7. did as the Popes parasites tel vs giue lardge guifts to the Pope euen his whole power dominion and territories both in Rome Italy and al the west Behould a man as the Prouerbe is hauing a wolfe by the eare which he dare neither hould nor yet let goe For if he graunt that Constantine gaue the Pope his whole power and dominion ouer Rome Italy and al the west he must needs graunt that the Pope of right hath imperial power ouer al the west If he deny it he sheweth not how ConstaÌ„tins departure was a steppe for the Pope to climbe to higher authority Besides that not Constantins departure but his guifte should haue bene made the steppe Notwithstanding choosing rather to condemne him selfe of not shewing how Constantins departure was a steppe for the Pope to climbe then to graunt that the Pope hath so good right to imperial power ouer the west he inclineth to denial of the guift citeth Valla Volaterran Cathalan Cusan fowre late and obscure writers against it and tearmeth them Popishe parasites who affirme it 3. But against these foure late writers I oppose foure most auncient Isidor Photius or Balsamon Gratian Iuo many late writers besides two Iewes Rabby Abraham and Aben Esra who al auouch Constantins guift whereof Photius and the Iewes were professed enimies of the Pope and Bel him selfe confesseth that some Emperours haue giuen the Pope their soueraigne rights In which kinde no Emperour excelled Constantine yet Bellarmine saith Bellarmin lib. 5. de Roman Pont. â— 9. Bel seemeth to doubt of this and such like donations Wherein Sir In these words saith he there are extant at Rome the authentical euidences of these and the like donations and if there were not prescription of eight hundred yeares would aboundantlie suffice For Kingdomes vniustlie gotten are in proces of time made lawful as he proueth by the Romane Empier gotten Prescription of 30. yeares sufficeth by ciuil lavv by Cesar the Kingdome of England by Saxons and others What shew is in theis words of doubt or rather not of certainty For Bellarmin affirmeth that the Pope hath two iust titles to hould his estate The first is free guift of Princes whereof he can shew authentical euidences the other prescription of time 4. The second steppe saith Bel was the fal pag. 8. of the Empire in the west in the yeare 471. and vacancy therof for almost 330. yeares But how this fal and vacancy of the Empire was a steppe for Popes to climbe neither he sheweth nor any can imagin especially if as he writeth straight after in this vacancie of the Empire Rome was spoiled with fier sword and the verie walles throvvne dovvne to the ground and al Italie possessed of the Barbares vntil Carolus Magnus who was the first Emperour after the vacancie if in this vacancy Rome was destroied and al Italy possessed by Barbares who for the most part were heathens or heretiks how could it bee a steppe for the Pope to climbe and
mens merits which otherwhere he saith are great matters and to be crowned but to the men them selfs because as they haue merits to be crowned so they haue demerits to be punished which if they were punished without mercy woe should be to them Not because they should be sent to hel but to purgatory or as he calleth it sermon in psalm 37. Emendatory fyer and S. Austin there punished without mercy which fyer saith he is more greeuous then any thinge Confess lib. 9. c. 13. cit vvhich man can suffer in this life And to procure Gods mercy in this behalfe to his mothers soule he both prayed him selfe and requested others to pray for her Be myndful therfore Bel from whence thou art fallen and do penance Apocal. 2. THE SIXT ARTICLE OF THE DISTINCTION OF MORTAL AND VENIAL SINNES CHAP. I. The true Distinction proued and Bels obiection ansvvered BEL perceauing that Catholiques do euidently proue that there is a difference betweene mortal and venial sinnes durst not deny it but proceedeth as he did in the former Article allowing in Bel pag. 81. words the distinction of mortal and venial sinnes in a godly sense which though he be ashamed to expresse yet doth he insinuate Bel admitteth venial sinnes in other tearms of regnant not regnant and meaneth as I suppose that voluntary euil acts are mortal inuoluntary venial which doctrine is already disproued in the fourth article Wherfore here he vndertaketh to proue that euery sinne is mortal of it owne nature and some become venial only for free acceptation mercy of God 2. Supposing therfore that some sinnes Mortal and venal sinnes are such of their ovvne nature are mortal and others venial I intend to proue by Scripture Fathers and reason that they are such of their owne nature The Scripture compareth such sinnes as are mortal and venial to things which of their owne nature are different as Math. 23. to a Math. 23. v. 24. Luc. 6. v. 42. Camel and a gnat Luc. 6. to a strawe and a beame Ergo these kinde of sinnes are different of their owne nature Likewise our Sauiour Luc. 12. 58. compareth some Math. 5. v. 27. sinnes to mites or farthings which of their nature are smal debts Moreouer God hath no where reuealed that some kinde of sins become venial only by his mercy Therfore we ought not to say so The Consequence is euident for none knoweth the pleasure of God but by his reuelation The Antecedent I proue for Protestants can neither name the sinnes which God hath made venial nor the place where God hath reuealed any such making of his Bel citeth Math. 12. v. 3. where it is said that VVe shal giue account of euery idle word And 1. Iohn 3. v. 4. where sinne is called iniquity But in neither place it is said that Gods mercy maketh any sinne venial and other like places cited by other Protestants rather proue that al sinnes notwithstaÌ„ding Gods mercy are now mortal then that any which of them selfe were mortal became venial by his mercy Likewise for venial sinne he nameth sinne not regnant wherby he vnderstandeth inuoluntary motions of concupiscence But for such inuoluntary motioÌ„s which Bel rightly calleth Bels beleefe of venial sinnes befydes Gods booke not regnant sinne but wrongly venial nether are they any true sinne as venial sinne is nor is it any where reuealed that they being of their nature mortal sins are made venial only through Gods mercy Therfore Bels beleefe of some sinnes made venial by Gods mercy is wholy besides Gods booke 3. Holy Fathers also in calling some sinnes Fathers litle sinnes light short least daily offences as S. Hierom in c. 5. Math. l. 2. in Iouinian S. Hierom. prope fin S. Austin to 10. 3. S. Chrysost tom 2. Conc. 3. in Lazar. to 2. S. Austin serm 41. de sanctis and in Enchir. c. 71. and S. Chrisostom hom 24. in Math. insinnuate that venial sinnes are such of their owne nature for they were neuer litle nor light if of their nature they were mortal and damnable as a wounde which of it nature is mortal and deadly could neuer be called a litle or light wouÌ„de though God of his mercy did cure it Likewise S. Hierom putteth a difference betweene S. Hieron dial 2. cont Pelag. S. Gregor 21. moral c. 9. S. Austin hom 19. de â—empore cacia and hamartia and S. Gregory and S. Austin betwixt crimen and peccatum yea S. Hierom epist ad Celant accounteth it a paradox of the Stoiks to put no difference betwixt scelus and erratum 4. By reason also this is euident For who seeth not that to steale a pinne is of it nature a smal offence And I would aske of Bel whither a sinne after it is by Gods mercy made venial reteineth the selfe same nature of offending God deseruing Hel and the like which it had before or it changeth it nature If it change it nature then aâ—ter Gods mercy of it nature it is venial and Gods mercy is only the cause of changing the nature of it If it retaine the selfe same nature how is it possible but God if he account of it truly according to truth as al his iudgements are Rom. 2. v. 2. should not account of it as a mortal sinne and deseruing hel Wherfore what Protestants talke of some sinnes becomming venial or no sinnes at al by Gods meere not imputing them for sinnes without any alteration in the sinnes them selfs is meere contradiction and contrary to S. Austin and reason as is shewed in the fourth Article c. 3. parag 4. 5. Againe infidels haue venial sinnes Ergo venial sins become not such only by Gods meere not imputing them for mortal The consequence is cleare out of the Protestants doctrine who put that not imputing only VVillet contrac 17. part 3. p. 560. towards the faithful regenerate The Antecedent I proue because they can doe al the sinnes which the faithful doe If one say that sinnes which in the faithful be but venial are in Infidels mortal This is contrary to reason because knowledge of Gods precept in the faithful rather encreaseth his fault for the seruant which knovveth the Luc. 12. v. 48. vvil of his maister and doth it not shal be beaten vvith many stripes and ignorance in infidels diminisheth their fault wherupon S. Paul said I haue gotten mercy because I did it ignoraÌ„tly 1. Timoth. 1. v. 13. in incredulity And I aske of Bel why God maketh sinne not regnant venial rather then regnant and either he must say that God doth it without any cause or because they are inuoluntary and these voluntary which is to say that by their different nature they are made mortal and venial 6. Finally some sinnes of their nature breake frendship with God and deserue his eternal hatred and punishment others do not Ergo some of their nature are mortal others venial The
parag 13. and arâ— 7. c. 9. parag 19. vntruth 92 made oftentymes of coblers tinkers and taylers who may thanke the Lord as one of them did that they know nothing of the Romish tongue 4. That in the Churches vve read vnto the common people latin sermons In deed we read such in our seruice but read them to the common people no more then we read the Masse to them But read both in honour and seruice to God who vnderstandeth as wel latin as english And thus much touching Scripture now let vs come to Traditions CHAP. IX Of Apostolical Traditions vvhether there be any or none OF the Traditions which the Church manteineth some were instituted by Christ some by his Apostles by the inspiration of the holy Ghost and others by the Church it selfe The question is whether there by any of the two former kinds of Traditions instituted or deliuered by the Apostles and therupon called Apostolical vvhat â—ind of traditioÌ„s Bel impugnâ—th without writing which concerne things as Bel saith in the beginning of this article pag. 86. necessary to mans saluation For though as I said before the Scripture conteine al Chapt. 1. things which are necessary to be knowne actually of euery one yet because euery one is bound to deny no point of christian faith but at lest vertually and implicitly to beleeue al such traditions as concerne matters of faith or manners may as Bel speaketh be said to concerne things necessary to mans saluation This supposed I affirme with the vniforme consent of al holy Fathers that there are such traditions and it followeth of that which we proued in the first chapter that the Scripture conteineth not actually al points of christian faith and otherwise I proue it because S. Paul 2. S. Paul S. Basil de Spirit c. 29. S. Chrysost 2. Thessalon hom 4. S. Epiphan haer 61. S. Damascenus 4. de fid c. 17. Thess 2. v. 15. saith Hold the Traditions which you haue learned whether it be by worde or by our epistle therfore he deliuered some Traditions only by worde as S. Basil S Chrisostom S. Epiphanius S. Damascen out of this place do gather 2. Secondly S. Ihon the last writer of Scripture said Hauing many things to vvrite to 3. Ioan. v. 13. you I vvould not by paper and inke Ergo many things which were to be told to christians S. Shon left vnwritten yea thought it not expedient to write them Bel answereth Bel p. 117. That the Apostles taught no needful doctrin which they did not after commit to vvriting This answer insinuateth that the Apostles taught some needles matter contrary to S. Paul 2. Timoth. 2 Tit. 3. and that which S. Paul commanded the Thessalonicenses to hold S. Ihon said he had to write were needles things which is but to blaspheme the Apostles Thirdly in the law of nature there were traditions as is euident and testifyed Gen. 18. v. 19. Likewise in tyme of the Conference at Hampton Court p. 68. Valer. Max. lib. 3. c. 319. de scauro vario seuero S. Dionis l. 1. eccles hier c. 1. S. Ignat. ep ad Heron. S. Iren. lib. 3. c. 3. S. Ciprian l. 2. epist 3. S. Basil lib. de Spirit 6. 27. 29. law written as English Protestants confesse why not therefore in tyme of the Ghospel 3. Fourthly I wil propose to the Reader a choise som what like to that which a Roman made to his Citizens when being accused of his aduersary in a long oration he stept vp and said my aduersary affirmeth I deny it whether beleeue you citizens And so in few words reiected his aduersaries long accusation For S. Dionisius Areopag S. Ignatius both schollers of the Apostles S. Ireney S. Cyprian S. Basil S. Chrisostom S. Epiphanius S. Hierom. S. S. Chrysost 2. Thessal hom 4. S. Epiphan haer 61. S. Hierom. dial contr Lucif S. Augustin epist 118. l. 10. de Genen ad lit c. 23. Austin and others affirme that there are Apostolical Traditions Bel some few new start vp Heretiks deny it Whether beleeue you Christians This choise is far aboue that of the Roman For there was but one against one yea ones bare denyal against the others proofs But here are many against few Saints against to say the lest ordinary fellows Doctors of Gods Church against vnlearned Ministers Catholiques against Heretiks yea manifest proofs against bare denyals And shal we not especially in a matter of fact as is whether the Apostles left any vnwritten Traditions or no beleeue many most holy most learned most incorrupt most antient witnesses yea wherof some were eye witnesses of the matter before a few vnlearned vnconstant iangling new fellowes S. Hierom. epist 61. c. 9. S. Augustin de Symbolo ad Catechumen Ruffin in Symbol S. Hierom. con Heluid S. Augustin haer 55. S. Epiphan haer 78. Locis supra cit c. 3. 4. Moreouer whence haue we the Apostles Creed but by Tradition as testify S. Hierom S. Austin and Ruffinus whence the perpetual virginity of our B. Lady as appeareth by S. Hierom S. Austin S. Epiphanius whence the lawful transferring the Sabbath day from Saterday to Sonday but by Tradition Whence many other things as testify S. Hierom S. Dionis S. Iren. S. Cyptian Tertull. Origen S. Basil S. Epiphan S. Chrisost S. Hierom S. Austin S. Ambrose 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 worde and no one sentence therin corrupted in al these 1600. years where haue we that the Gospel bearing the name of S. Thomas who was an Apostle and eye witnes of Christs actions is not as wel or better Christs Ghospel then that which carrieth the name of S. Luke and was written only by heare-say Luc. 1. v. 2. S. Hierom. de Scriptur eccles in Luca. Bel bringeth six ansvvers as is professed in the very beginning but by Tradition This reason so courseth Bel vp and downe as like fox many tymes vn-earthed euen for wearines he runneth into the hunters toyle graunting what the argument would 5. His first answer is That there is great difference Bel p. 134. betvvixt the primmatiue Church and the Church of late daies For the Apostles heard Christs doctrine savv his myracles and were replenished with the holy Ghost and consequently must needs be fit vvitnesses of al that Christ did and taught vvhich adiuncts the Church of Rome hath not Here Bel blasphemeth Christs Church of late daies auouching her to be nether replenished with the holy Ghost Symbol Apostol contrary to our Creed professing her to be holy and Christs promise that the holy Ghost should remaine with her for euer Nor to be a Ioan. 14. v. 16. fit witnes of his truth contrary to S. Paul affirming her to be the piller and strength of 1. Timoth. 3. v. 15. truth and to Gods sending her
to make your selfe iudge aboue the highest And if you wil try Gods word by what wil you try the old testament Surely by tradition or by nothing Thus we haue heard Bel twise plainly cōfessing some tradition to be necessary now the third tyme supposing it For magna est vis veritatis praeualet 13. Yet because his stomacke could not pag 135 al. 117. disgest any one tradition at al he flyeth to a Fift solution commonly giuen by Protestants vz. That Canonical Scripture may be discerned Psalm 119. v. 105. 1. Pēt 1. v. 19. 2. Cor. 5. v. 3. 1. Cor. 2. v. 15. 1. Ioan. 2. v. 27. Ioan. 10. v. 3. 4. 1. Reg. 3. from not Canonical by themselues as light is from darknes This he proueth because Gods worde is called a light and a lantherne sayd to shyne to men spiritual men sayd to iudge al things the vnction to teach al things and Christs sheepe sayd to heare and know his voyce But this is easely refelled First because though Samuel were a faithful holy man and God spake thrise to him yet he tooke his worde for mans worde vntil Hely the high Priest tolde him it was Gods worde 1. Reg. 3. Gedeon was faithful and yet knew not at first that it was God that spake vnto him by an Iudic. 6. Angel and therfore demanded a miracle in confirmation of it Iudic. 6. The like may be said of Manues wife Iud. 13. and perhaps of Manue him selfe For though in his prayer he professe that God had sent the Angel whom he tooke to be a man yet doth he not professe that God had sent him especially and perticulerly to do that message and seeing he knew not that it was an Angel vntil he ascended in the flame of the sacrifice yea seemed to doubt whether his words would proue true when he sayd If thy speech be fulfilled likely it is that he was not certaine that it was Gods worde before he was certaine that it was his Angel Likewise S. Peter was faithful and yet at Act. 12. first he knew not that it was an Angel that spake and deliuered him act 12. 14. Secondly the true sense and meaning of Gods worde is not so euident to the faithful for to discerne it from the false sense as light is discerned from darknes Ergo nether Gods true worde is so euidently discerned by them from the false worde The consequence I proue because Gods worde consisteth more in his meaning then in letters Let vs not thincke saith S. Hierom S. Hierom. in Calat 1. dialog con Lucif that the Ghospel is in the words of Scripturs but in the sence Againe Scripturs consist not in reading but in vnderstāding And therfore if it be discerned by it selfe it is rather discerned by the sense then by the letters or words The antecedent I shal proue hereafter and it is euident by the example of the Apostles who though they were faithful oftentymes vnderstood not Christs meaning especially when he spake in parables or of his passion by the example of the faithful Eunuch and by the testimony of S. Peter 2. Pet. 3. v. 16. 15. Thirdly the distinction of Scripturs from not Scriptures is not so euident as the distinction of light from darknes is Ergo they are not so easely discerned The consequence is euident The Antecedent I proue because then no man could erre in it as none can erre in the distinction of light from darknes Bel saith That only faithful can discerne Scriptures But this conuinceth that their distinction is not so euident as that of light from darknes for this al men yea beasts of sight can discerne Nether can Faith can not discerne any thing clearly faith be needful to discerne light or any thing which is so euident because as S. Paul saith Hebr. 11. v. 1. It is an argument of things not appearing and it breadeth certainty not euidency in the beleeuer 16. Beside if faithful could as clearly discerne Scriptures as they can light they should no sooner here a sentence of Scripture then they should discerne it to be Scripture as they no sooner see light then they discerne it from darknes which experience teacheth to be false yea Luther a faithful man in Bels opinion could not discerne yea could not beleeue S. Iames epistle Luther edit Iennen Surius Ann. 1522. to be canonical but called it absolutly a strawish thing as his books first printed and diuers others testify and Whitaker VVhitaker lib. 1. contr Duraeum p. 22. dare not deny yea confesseth that he calleth it strawish in respect of other epistles which is more then to deny it to be Gods worde Wherfore let Bel make his choyse whether Luther was not faithful or S. Iames epistle not so euidently discerned by the faithful to be Gods worde as light is Finally Protestants admit one Tradition as necessary to discerne Scriptures or Bel lyeth pag. 135. Ergo Scriptures are not so euidently discerned by them selues as light is For what neede is there of an other thing to discerne light or any thing so euident 17. Nether haue Bels arguments any difficulty to answer For Gods worde is called a lantherne or light not because it is so euident as light is but because being once beleeued to be Gods worde it sheweth vs the way to heauen as light doth to earthly places and thereupon it is called of the Psalmist a lantherne to our feete And for the Psalm 118. same cause faith is called light though it be an obscure knowledge Hebr. 11. v. 1. and by it we see God only in aenigmate 1. Cor. 13. v. 12. and not clearly And in like sort S. Paul 2. Corinth 4. v. 4. where Bel citeth 2. Corinth 4. v. 4. amisse c. 5. saith the Ghospel shineth not because it is euident and cleare but because it expelleth the ignorance of infidelity which metaphorically is called darknes That of the spiritual man 1. Corinth 2. v. 15. is nothing to the purpose both because al faithful are not spiritual but some carnal 1. Corinth 3. v. 1. 2. 3. and Galath 6. v. 1. and therfore may we better infer that the Ghospel is not euident to al faithful As also because S. Paul explicateth not by what means the spiritual man iudgeth al things whether by the euidency of the things as Bel wold haue him to iudge Scripture or by some outward testimony Moreouer S. Ihon saith the vnction teacheth 3. Ioan. 2. v. 27. vs al things which we deny not but no where that it alone teacheth vs without the testimony of the Church which is that we deny Bel should proue Finally Christs sheep heare and know his voice Ioan. 10. Ioan. 10. v. 3. 4. v. 3 4 which no man doubteth of but the question is whether they heare it of him selfe alone or of the Church and whether they know it by it selfe or by testimony of the Church to which purpose
oy Bel art 4. c. 3. parag 7. P. S. Paul how he vnderstood the worde beside Galat 11. v. 2. a 7 c. 11. parag 5. S Paul loc cit meant of his preaching not of Scripâ—ure art 7 c. 1. parag 6 S. Paul might haue called glory a stipend arâ— 5. â— 4. parag 2. S Paul Rom. 7 explicated a. 4 c. 2 per tot S. Paul Rom 8 explicated a. â— c. 4. par 10. Pelagians thought knowledge of Scripture necessary to euery one art 7. c. 1 par 3. Pelagians licenced wemen to be skilâ—ul in Scripture to sing with them a 7. c. 7. parag 13. Peoples owing no obedâ—eÌ„â—â— to euil Princes no doctrin of Catholiks art 1. c. 9. par 4. S. Policarps account of the Popes sentence art 7. c. 10. parag 4. Popes accounted loyal excommunicated Emperors art 1. c. 5. parag 4. Pope as Pope challengeth no royal right to ether sword art 1. c. 9. parag 22. Pope can not depose Princes ordinarily euen for iust causes art 1. c. 1. par 5. 6. Pope can not depose princes for his pleasure art 1 c. 1. parag 5. Popes and Protestants proceedings in deposing Princes compared a. 1. c. 9. par 26. Pope cold not become Antichrist by the acceptance of the Exarchate a. 1. c. 9. par 4. Pope as Pope hath no temporal iurisdiction at al art 1. c. 1. parag 4. Popes confirmation by Emperors when it began and when it left a. 1. c. 8. par 8. Pope hath censured al that molest our King art 1. c. 4. parag 6. Pope did neuer challeng power proper or equal to God art 1. c. 7. parag 3. Pope how he is said to haue more then humain power art 1. c. 7 parag 3. Pope how he may be called King of Kings art 1. c. 7. parag 6. Pope how he may he King now though he were not in Pepins tyme art 1. c. 9 par 8. Pope highly esteemed by S. Bernard art 1. chap. 7. parag 6. Popes sentence highly esteemed by S. Hierom art 7. c. 12. parag 1. and by others ibid. c. 10. parag 4. Popes definitiue sentence a rule of faith in S. Cyprians tyme art 7. c. 12. parag 1. Pope neuer dispensed to mary a ful sister art 3. c. 1. parag 13. Pope in Councel as King in parlament art 7. c. 13. parag 8. Popes haue giuen three Kingdoms to England art 1. c. 9. parag 17. Popes liberality to Christian Princes art 1. c. 9. parag 37. Popes most cruelly handled by Christian princes art 1. c. 9. parag 27. Popes might haue apostatated from faith yet not taught heresy art 7. c. 10. par 9. Popes name euer from the Apostles tyme art 1. c. 5. parag 6. Popes neuer apostated in hart a. 7. c. 10. par 9. Popes not prowde in mainteining their dignity art 7. c. 13. parag 5. Popes or princes of what nothing they can make somthing art 1 c. 9. parag 29. Popes or princes of what things they can alter the nature art 1. c. 9 parag 28. Popes true step to his primacy a. 1. c. 9. par 32. Pope nether spiritual nor temporal superior to al princes on earth a. 1. c. 1. par â— 4. Popes primacy acknowledged by Gretian Emperors Councels and Patriarchs art 7. c. 13. parag 6. Popes priuate doctrin may be examined but not his iudicial sentence of faith art 7. c. 14. parag 2. Popes present in most Councels of the west art 7. c. 13. parag 8. Popes taught alwaies the doctrin of S. Peter art 7. c. 10. parag 8. Pope translated the Empire and appointed the Electors art 1. c. 6. parag 3. 4. Popery confessed to haue bene with in 200. years after Christ art 7. c. 10. parag 2. Prayers in an vnknowne tong commended by S. Paul art 7. c. 8 parag 2. Princes absolute haue no temporal superior art 1. c. 1. parag 4. Princes deposed by Prophets a. 1. c 5. par 3. Protestants admit Tradition a. 7. c. 9. par 11. Protestants haue no reason to admit one tradition no more art 7. c. 9. par 11. Protestants arrogate more power and authority then the Pope a. 1 c. 7 par 3. Protestants cal Catholiques Papists and Popish of the Pope yet wil not cal him Pope art 1. c. 5. parag 5. Protestants censure of the communion booke art â— c. 6 parag 10. Protestants contradictions about the Eucharist art 2. c. 6. parag 11. Protestants innumerable explication of fower words art 2. c. 6. parag 7. Protestants iudgment of Fathers when they are against them art 5 c. 4 parag 5. Protestants dissentions touched in the late conference art 4. c. 4 parag 7. Protestants enemity to good workes by word and deed art 5. c 1. parag 2. 3. Protestants frendship to euil works Ibid. parag 3. Protestants had the bible from Catholiques and how art 7. c. 9. parag 9. Protestants in 70. years haue attempted to depose to princes art 1. c. 4. parag 6. Protestants haue murdered diuers princes art 1. c. 4. parag 6. Protestants haue burnt two Kings bodies Ibid. Protestants abuse princes art 1. c. 9. par 3â— Protestants make and vnmake Emperors as they list art 1. c. 6 parag 3. Protestants opinion of deposing princes art 1. c. 3 per tot Protestants and the Popes deposing princes compared art 1. c. 4. parag 6. Protestants opinion of princes supremacy art 1. c. 2. parag 1. 2. Protestants and Catholiques opinion about supremacy compared ibid. parag 3. Protestants make their professed enemyes papists art 7. c. 1. parag 13. Protestants manner of answering Catholiques art 1. c. 6. parag 1. Protestants new light art 1. c. 6. parag 9. Protestants ouerthrow their owne arguments against Tradition art 7. c. 9. par 11. Protestants persuade to read Scripture as the serpent to eate the apple art 7. c. 7. parag 2. Protestants good by english bibles art 7. c. 8. parag 1. Protestants promise with Manichees vndoubted truth for to ouerthrow authority art 7. c. 9. parag 23. Protestants teach doctrin of Diuels art 2. c. 1. parag 1. 2. 3. Protestants try deuine truth a. 7. c. 12. par 4. Protestant wemen preached publikly in Germany art 7. c. 13. Puritans subscribe to the communion book only in respect of tyme art 1. c. 2. par 2. Puritans vrge the supremacy only for pollicy art 1. c. 2. parag 2. Q. Q. Elizabeths affiance in Catholiques fidelity art 1. c. 4. parag 4. R. REading of Scripture not debarred from the godly art 7. c. 7. parag 3. Reading or hearing Gods worde without vnderstanding of great effect ibid. Reading of Scripture not necessary nor expedient to al art 7. c. 7. parag 1. 2. Real presence proued out of Scripture and Fathers art 2. c. 1. parag 7. 8. Reason not to be sought in Gods workes art 2. c. 1. parag 11. Remaining of sinne what it is a. 4. c. 1. p. 16. Reprobats not al positiuely damned for original sinne art 4. c. 2. parag 6. Reprobats how may be said to be damned for
original sinne art 4. c. 2 parag 6. Reinolds proofe against him selfe art 7. c. 3. parag 3. Royal power far inferior to Pontifical art 1. c. 9. parag 31. Rome the top of high preisthood art 7. c. 13. parag 6. Romane religion aboue a thowsand years agoe out of Bel art 7. c. 10. parag 9. Romane Church alwaies kept the Apostles Traditions Rule of trying truth prescribed by the Councel of Trent art 7. c. 12. parag 4. S. SAbbath translation not warrented by Scripture art 7. c. â— parag 9. Sabbath translation warrented by Tradition art 7. c. 9. parag 4. Sacrament of Eucharist improperly called Christs body art 2. c. 4. parag 14. B Sacrament boâ—h a sacrifice and a testament art 2 c. 4. parag 6. Sacrifice requireth not killing a. 2. c. 3 par 8. Sacrificing of flesh by Preists hands allowed by Bel art 2 c. 4. parag 13. no Sacriledge to dispute oâ— the Popes power art 1 c 9 parag 34. Sadduces erred for ignorance both of Scripture and Gods power art 7 c. 11. par 3. Salâ—mon deposed not Abiathar art 1. c. 5. parag 10. Samuel cold not discerne Gods word from mans word but by Hely his teachâ—ng arâ— 7. c. 9. parag 13. Saints honor an Apostolical Tradition art 7. c. to parag 11. Satisfaction supposeth remission of sinns art 5. c. 6. parag 5. Search the Scripâ—urs explicated art 7. c. 11. parag 3. Scripturs and the Churches authority differ art 7. c. 9. parag 23. Scripture beleeued both for Gods and the Churches testimony art 7. c. 9. par 18. Scripture how of it selfe worthy of credit art 7. c. 9. parag 18. Scripture the storehouse of truth art 7. c. 5. parag 1. Scripture hath al points actually to be beleeued of euery one art 7. c 1. parag 2. Scripture conteineth virtually not actuâ—lly al points of Christian faith art 7. c. 1. parag 7. 9. Scripture can not sufficiently immediatly proue al points of faith a. 7. c 1. par 10. Scripture how able to make men wise to saluation art 7. â— 3 parag 8. Scripture no poison but food of liâ—e art 7. c. 7. parag 18. Scripture easy in things necessâ—ry to euery ones saluation art 7. c. 6. parag 1. Scripture absolutly hard ibid. Scripture more in sense then in words art 7. c 9. parag 14 Scripture not so clearly discerned as light from darknes art 7. c. 9. parag 15. Scripture why called a lantherne or light art 7. c. 9. parag 17. Scripturs vulgar reading what monsters it hath bred in England art 7. c. 7. parag 2. Seruice of God in the old law some tyme nether heard nor seene of the people art 7. c. 8. parag 3. Seruice in an vnknowne tong discommended only of idiots and infidels art 7. c. 8. parag 2. Sinne habitual what it is art 4 c. â— parag 3. Sinne some of it nature breaketh frendship with God some not art 6. c. 1 par 6. Sinne ordinarily taken only for mortal art 6. c. 2. parag 1. Socrates his error art 7. c. 10 parag 5. S. Steeuen P. defined not the controuersy about rebaptization art 7. c. 12. parag 1. Superior and inferior not contradictions but relatiues and may be verifyed of the same thing art â— c. 6. parag 2. T. S. Thomas how he called our keeping the commandements imperfect art 8. c. 2. parag 3. Traditions of three kinds art 7. chap. 9. parag 1. Traditions which impugned by Bel ibid. which defended in this booke ibid. Traditions ther are conteining things necessary to saluation art 7. c. 9. par 1. Traditions how they are explications of the law art 7. c. 2. parag 4. Tradition admitted by Bel art 7. chap. 9. parag 8. Traditions how they are additions to Scripture how not art 7. c 2. parag 3. 4. Traditions apostolical certain and vndoubted art 7. c. 10. parag 1. Traditions Apostolical not to be examined by Scripture art 7. c. 11. parag 1. Traditions how they may be examined by the Church art 7. c. 11. parag 1. Traditions how to be examined out of Tertullian art 7. c. 11. parag 1. Traditions auouched by the Fathers art 7. c. 4. per tot Traditions defended by S. Paul and S. Ihon art 7. c. 9. parag 1. 2. Traditions in S. Cyprians daies sufficient proofe of doctrin art 7. c. 12. parag 1. Tradition of Easter certein a. 7. c. 10. par 3. Tradition of as equal force to piety as Scripture art 7. c. 4 parag 13. 14. Tradition reiected by old heretiks art 7. c. 4. parag 1. Treason disannulleth not the gift art 1. c. 6 parag 3. Truth euidently knowne to be preferred before authority art 7. c. 9. parag 23. Truth what and how to be tryed art 7. c. 12. parag 4. V. VAlew of the Masse art 2. c. 4. parag 9. Variety of fasting lent rose of ignorance or negligence art 7. c. 10. par 5. Venial sinns admitted by Bel art 6. chap. 1. parag 1. Venial sinne why not against the law art 6. c. 1. parag 8. Venial sinne such of his nature art 6. c. 1. parag 2. Voluntary in the origen what it is art 4. c. 1. parag 11. Voluntary motion of euil why expresly forbidden in the tenth commandement art 4. c. 3. parag 10. Vse and abuse of a thing to be distinguished art 7. c. 10. parag 11. W. VVItnesses sufficient of Gods truth by what made art 7. chap. 9. parag 6. Wemen ought to be instructed of men art 7. c. 7. paragr 5. Wemen may teach in case of necessity or perticuler inspiration art 7. chap. 7. parag 13. Words of consecration when and how they worke their effect a. 2. c. 6. parag 5. Worshipping an vnconsecrated host vpon ignorance no offence art 2. c. 6. par 8. Wiats rebellion defended and praised by Protestants art 1. c. 3. parag 6. X. XArisma wel translated by grace art 5. c. 4. parag 4. FINIS
impossible Wherefore what some say that Clergie men be exempted from the power of Princes is not to be vnderstood vniuersally but of their coactiue power which they haue to punishe the laity And of late Bilson Superintendent of Winton confessed to certeine Catholiques if I be not misinformed that the King is but a ceremonial head that is either a head onely for fasshion sake or onely in matters of ceremonies not in al ecclesiastical causes And albeit they subscribe Supplicat to the King in April 1603. to the supremacie yet perhaps they doe that onely in respect of time as a thousand ministers testifie that diuerse of them did to the communion booke some vpon protestation some vpon exposition some with condicion albeit it conteyned as they say enormities and abuses not agreable to Scriptures rather forsooth then the Church should be depriued of their labours but in deede rather then they shoulde be depriued of the Churches lyuings 3. The true difference therfore betwixt Catholiques and English Protestants if these durst vtter their mindes as strangers doe would not be whether the Prince or Pope but whether the Pope or ministers ought to be head of the Church wherein I appeale to any indifferent mans iudgement whether be more agreable to Gods word that the successour of S. Peter vpon Matth. 16. Ioan. 21. whome Christ built his church and committed his sheepe vnto should be head of the Church or they who are successours to none but beginners of them selues who as S. Ciprian writeth no man creating them Cyprian lib. de simpl praelat Bishopes made them selues Bishopes And wether be more secure to Princes that he should be accounted head of Gods Church Constant in edicto Constant 5. Phocas Iustinian C. de summa Trinit l. vlt. Valentinianus epist ad Theodosisi See cap. 6. parag 6. 7. Conference p. 79. 4. and 20. whom the whole Christian world hath euer acknowledged for such and vnder Whome the mightiest Monarches haue and doe liue as securely as any Protestant Prince whatsoeuer or they who if they were permitted would erect such a Presbitrie as agreeth with a Monarchy no better then the diuel with God who haue kept Kings without state and honor c. and of whom some beardles boies haue braued Kings to their faces and excommunicated them when they came within ther parish CHAP. III. The opinion of Protestants touching deposition of Princes LIKWISE touching the deposition Germany Luther See Surius An. 1525. ProdromuÌ„ Staphil p. 75. of Princes Luther as Sleidan testifieth wrote to Princes That subiects neither cold nor would nor ought any longer to suffer ther gouerment And benig asked his opinion touching the league of Protestans against their Emperor Charles 5. answered Because at this time so Sleidon l. 8. Sur. An. 1531. doubtful perilous many things may hapen that not only right it selfe but necessity of consience may reach vs weapons we may make league for defence whither the Emperor him selfe or any other make war And a litle before his death said VVho Sur. An. 1546. taks not armes whils he may vseth not things giuen him by God And the Protestant Princes in their rebellion against the Emperor set forh Proclamation wherein they write Because the Emperor endeauoreth to dostroy religion Sleidon l. â—â— liberty he giueth vs cause to assaile him with good conscience And againe we renounce ô Emperor lib. 17. the faith and duty vvherwith vve are bound vnto thee This did German Protestants 2. In Swiserland Zwinglius teacheth vs. Svviserland Zvvingl to 1. art 42. That vvhen the King shal deale perfidiously and beside the rule of Christ he may in Gods name be deposed Againe VVhiles naughty Kings are not deposed the vvhole people is punished of God And as for the Protestants of Sweueland their opinion SvveuelaÌ„d is manifest by their excluding the Catholique King of PolaÌ„d from succeding his Mercur. Gallobelg An. 1603. Holland late father And the Holandish Protestants wholy or cheefly defend their long rebellion against their Prince by coolor of religion France Caluin in epist ante lib. institut 3. In France Caluin their Arch-maister teacheth that who reigneth not to serue Gods glory ruleth not but playeth the theefe And in an other place Earthly Princes depose them In cap. 6. Daniel selues whyls they rise against God yea are vnworthy to be accounted men And his scholer Beza accounteth them Martyrs who dyed Beza in Praefat Bibl. 1564. Pantaleon Responsum trium ordinum BurguÌ„diae 1563. Michael Fabritius ep de Beza fal 62. Goodly Canons of Ministers Protestants svvorne to rebel depose Princes in batel against their King for religion and at Cabilon in France 20. Ministers in a Synod decreed to distroy the Church Nobility Magistrats And againe at Berna 1572. set forth Canons of this matter and decreed Can. 3. That in euery City al swore that they their posterity shal obserue firme and inuiolated the points following Can. 40. Vntil it shal please God in whose hands are the harts of Kings to change the hart of the French tyrant and restore the state of the Kingdome to better order raise vp some neighbor Prince whom we may know by his vertue notable marks to be the deliuerer of this miserable people in the meane tyme euery Citty shal choose a maior to gouerne them as wel in warre as peace Can. 40. Let al the Captains leaders haue this axiome as an vndoubted and most certain Oracle neuer to trust to them the King and his who so often and so notoriously haue broken their promise the publike peace and quietnes Nor euer let them lay downe weapons as long as they shal see them persecute the doctrin of saluation and the disciples of the same Item But if the euil be incurable if Gods wil be to roote them natural Princes out then if it please God to raise some Christian Prince to take reuenge of their sinnes and deliuer his people let them subiect them selues to that Prince as to an other Cyrus sent to them from God In the meane space let them gouerne them selues by these rules which we haue prescribed vnto them as laws Behould the verdit of French ministers assembled in Councel O if such rules had bene made in Seminaries what traitors and rebels had the authors bene What exclamations would Bel and his fellow ministers haue made against them 4. In Scotland Knox vttereth his and Scotland his fellow ministers mind herein in his appellation to the nobility people of Scotland Knox. p 36. That I may say bouldly the nobility gouerners iudges and people of England ought not Protestants bond to kil Princes by Knox. only to resist and withstand Mary Iezabel whom they cal their Queene but also put to death her her Priests and al others that ayded her as soone as openly they began to suppresse Christs Gospel And he setteth
downe titles of books which he would after publish whereof the p 78. third is this If the people haue rashly preferred one manifestly wicked or ignoraÌ„tly chosen such a one who afterward sheweth him selfe vnworthy of gouernment ouer Christian people for such are al Idolaters and cruel persecutors the same people may most iustly depose and punish him 5. Finally in England if we had asked England our ministers of what minde they were while the Septer and sword was in Catholique hands Goodman in his booke intituled Goodman c. 9. p. 118. how we ought to obey superior Magistrats telleth vs But if they Prince Magistrats do boldly transgresse Gods lawes and See Couel of Church gouernment cap. 4 p. 35. hovv this doctrin vas Caluins the learne lâ—st Protestants of that tyme. c. 13. p. 180. 181. 184. command the same to others then haue they lost that honor and obedience which otherwise subiects were bound to giue them nor are hereafter to be accounted Magistrats but to be punished as priuat men But who must punish them he answereth the common people If the Prince and al Magistrats do resist Gods law you people haue expresse testimony of Gods vvord for your part and God him selfe wil be your Captaine leader vvho commandeth not only Peers and Magistrats to take euery euil from them selues whither idolatry blasphemy or open iniury but requireth this of the whole multitude to vvhome the svvord of iustice is in part committed VVherfore if al Magistrats together vvil despise iustice and Gods lavves it is your part o coÌ„mon people to defend and conserue them vvith as much violence and strife as you can against Magistrats and al others For this God requireth of you Exod 17. this burden lieth vpon the vvhole people to punish euery idolater vvhatsoeuer none is excepted vvhither Princes must be haÌ„ged according to Goodman King Queene or Emperor And a litle after That fact is recounted number 25 it is a perpetual example for al eternity and a certayne and sure denouncement to the people that in like reuoult from the vvorship of God they do carry to the gallous and hang their gouernors vvho lead them from God 6. And in particular touching Wyats rebellion l. 14 p. 203. he saith None but Papists can accuse VVyat of treason or disobedieÌ„ce it vvas the duty of Protestants duty to rebel according to Goodman VVyat al others that amongst you professe Cbrists Gospel to take in hand that vvarre and they vvere true traytors vvho ether kept not promise to him or ayded not his part O most noble VVyat thou novv liuest vvith God and these noble men vvho dyed vvith thee in that cause Yea noble men and Counsellers Traiters vvho do not rebel according to Goodman did not you condemne your selues as manifest and base minded traytors not only to VVyat but euen to God him selfe O Gospellers is this the loue of Gods vvord you pretend haue you so learned the Gospel 7. And albeit ministers hauing now gotten the Prince on their side do in words coÌ„demne Goodman yet that their minde abhorreth not from this opinion may appeare by the partial vertue and seditions notes to much fauoringe of dangerous and trayterous conceipts Conference p. 47. as of allovving disobedience to Kings and taxing Asa for deposing his mother and not killing her which his Majesty obserued in their English Bybles And thus I hope the Reader seeth that Bel had litle cause to charge Papists alone with deposition of Princes but much better wil he see it if we compare Papists and Protestants opinions herein together 8. Catholiques say Kings may be deposed Knox Good man sup Protestants say they may be deposed and hanged Catholiques say it should be done after due tyme and admonition giuen the Lateran Councel prescribeth a years Lateran â—3 c. 3. de Haerâ— Knox sup respit Proetstants say so soone as they begin to suppresse Christs Gospel Catholikes say it must be done by the Pope the Kings spiritual Pastor and Father who as a Father louingly and as a Prince aduisedly and as a stranger dispassionatly wil proceed in so weighty a matter Protestants say it may Goodman sup be done by coÌ„mon people the Kings owne subiects who as common people rashly and headely and as subiects insolently and passionatly are like to behaue them selues in controuling and correcting their Princeâ— as the lamentable examples herefter touched can testify Besides what Catholiques say of Kings the same they say of the Pope that he may as wel be deposed for heresy or infidelity as Princes and what they say vnder Note this in differency of Catholiques and partiality of Protestants an heretical Prince they defend vnder a Catholique Whereas Protestants change their tune according as the Prince fauoreth or disfauoreth their religion Now let vs see the practise of Protestants CHAP. IIII. The practise of Protestants touching deposition of Princes CONFORMABLE to their doctrin haue bene the practises of Protestants For in Germany vnder pretence of religion Germany first the common people being Protestants Sleidon l. 4. 17. 19. Sur An 1522. 1525. rose against the nobles in which insurrection there were an hundred thousand of the common people slayne many castles and towares spoyled and burnt And soone Sur An 1530. 1534. after the nobles rose against their Emperor gathered an army of eighty thousand foote Apud Sleid. Et sur 1526. ten thousand horse and 130. feeld peces And George Duke of Saxony wrote to Luther that there was neuer more rebellions against Magistrats then through his Gospel Erasmus l. 3. de lib arbit And Erasmus a holy Confessor in Foxes calender giueth this testimony of them Many disciples of Luther are so vnapt to publike quiet as the Turk is said to detest the name of Luthereans for sedition Testimonium hoc verum est 2. In Swiserland Zwinglius togeather Svviserland Sur. An 1531. with Protestantisme sowed sedition and brought his country to three pitcht battels in one moneth and was him selfe slayne in one of them In Denmark Protestantisme Denmark was no sooner settled then the Commons Staphil apol art 3. rose against the nobles the nobles against their King whom they deposed and after Sur. An. 1532. long banishment cast into prison whereas it is reported they poysned him In Sweuland Svveuland Mercur. Gallobelg An. 1603. the Protestants haue lately excluded their natural lawful and crowned Prince the present King of Pole-land and chosen his vncle In Flanders they elected Francis Holland Duke of Alanson for their Prince and haue depriued two of their lawful Princes from a great part of the Low countries made warre against them almost 40. yeares 3. In France Protestants haue rebelled France against three of their natural and anoynted Kings Francis 2 Charles 9. Henry 3. they Genebrard chron Sur. An. 1563. Furores Gallici