That no points of Christian faith nor that al can not by some way or other be proued by some similitude congruity or probable illation nor that immediatly by testimony of the Church whose testimony in al doctrine of faith can be immediatly proued out of Scripture But only deny that al can be immediatly proued out of scripture by the very words of Scripture and so sufficiently as it sufficeth to captiuate our vnderstanding Articles 39 decreed by Bishops and Ministers 1562. and 1571. into obedience of faith This is directly against the sixt Article of Protestants faith and against Bel in this whole Article But I prooue it as I did the former conclusion For there is no place of al the Scripture which sufficiently proueth al the test Al thinges can not be taken out of Scripture Epiphan haer 61. to be Canonical our B. Lady to be a perpetual virgin and the Sabbath to be lawfully translated from Saterday to Sunday And it shal be more euident out of that which we shal say of Traditions and in answer to Bels arguments For the present it sufficeth that it is so cleare as our very aduersaries do somtime confesse it As See Couel art 4. p. 31. Hooper vvith him Bel p. 134. 135. Luther See Roffens con Luther verit 4. Bellarm. lib. 4. de verb. Dei c. 4. col 164. Luther certaine of Purgatory Bel pag. 134. and 135. art 7. admitteth one point of faith which is not in the Bible professeth that they meane not of it when they say al things necessary to saluation are contained in Scriptures And Luther art 37. said That purgatory can not be proued out of Scripture and yet in the assertion of the same he said That he was certaine there was Purgatory nor cared much what Hereticks babled to the contrary Now let vs come to Bels obiections which albeit for the most part be against Traditions yet because the matters of sufficiency of Scripture and of Traditions are connexed and because we wil keepe his order as much as we can we wil here answer them in that order as they are propunded by him CHAP. II. Bels arguments out of the oulde Testament concerning the sufficiency of Scripture ansvvered Bel citeth dyuers places which make Bel pag. 86. 87. 88. 89. nothing for absolute sufficiency of Scriptures or against Traditions but only bid vs obey and follow the law as Iosue 1. v. 7. and 23. v. 6. Malach. 4. v. 4. omitting therfore these places I answer to other as Deuter. 4. v. 2. and Prouerb 30. v. 6. where God forbiddeth vs to adde to his worde and Deuter. 12. v. 32. where we are bidden to doe to the lorde onely that which he commandeth without adding or taking avvay First that these places make as much against Protestants as Catholicks For they admit one vnwritten Tradition as Bel confesseth and appeareth Bel p. 134. 135. Brent in prolegom Kemnit in examin Conc. Trid. by Brentius Kempnitius the Deane of the chappel and the places cyted by Bel forbid as wel the adding of one thing as of many to Gods worde 2. Secondly I answer that they make nothing against these Traditions which Bel impugneth vz. such as are necessary to Bel pag 86. in praesat Articuli mans saluation for such are indeed Gods worde though vnwritten For the two first places only forbid adding to Gods worde any thing of our owne head or which is mans worde as may be proued First by the reason of the forbiddance prouerb 30. cit vz. least we be disproued and fownde lyers as no doubt we might by adding mans worde which is subiect to lye but not by adding Gods Worde which can neuer proue vntrue though it be not written Secondly because the Iewes did euer adde one thing to Gods written worde as Bel confesseth Conference at Hampton Court p 68. pag. 134. and the Deane of the chappel affirmed they added both signes and words vnto the institution of the Passouer prescribed vnto them by Moyses which addition and Tradition of Ievves added signes and vvords to Gods vvord and their addition confirmed by Christ. theirs saith he was approued by our Sauiour at his last supper And this doctrine was exceeding wel liked in the conference at Hampton Court Thirdly because the Prophets and Euangelists did adde to Moyses law without breaking of the commādement in the aforesaid places 3. Bel answereth That the doctrine of the Bel pag. 89. Prophets is nothing els but an explication of the law But if by the worde explication he vnderstand only such as adde nothing to the sense or meaning of the law but only explicate in other words types or figures the bare meaning of the law he speaketh most absurdly For beside that it is spoken without any reason at al it is against reason and sense to say that al the books of Iosue Iudges Kings and Prophets adde no sense to the law of Moyses For where doth the law of Moyses tel vs of euery worde or action of euery particuler man or woeman recorded in the books of the oulde Testament written since the law was giuen where is euery worde or deede of euery perticuler person in the new Testament And although dyuers actions of Christ especially his death and passion was prefigured in the law yet the like can not be thought of euery action or speech of euery perticuler person so that the words or figures of Moyses law actually tolde whatsoeuer perticuler things ether Prophets or Euangelists euer wrote Wherfore S. Austin S. Austin lib. 1. retract c. 22. recalled what he had said lib. cont Adimant c. 3. That al the precepts and promises in the new Testament are in the oulde For certaine precepts there be saith he not figured but proper which are not found in the oulde Testament but in the new And for this cause Tertullian lib. cont Hermog Tertullian called the Ghospel a supply of the oulde Testament 4. But if Bel by the word explication Hovv traditions are explicatiōs of the lavv comprehend al such additions as though they adde to the sense and meaning of the law yet are ether of their nature or of the intention of the adder referred to the better vnderstanding comprehension and fulfilling of the law as al the reasons similitudes comparisons examples and sentences in an oration are explications of the theame therof because though they adde sense to the sense of the theam yet they al tend to the perfect comprehension of the theame I graunt al the writings of Prophets and Apostles to be explications of the law as hath bene explicated in the second conclusion Chapt. 1. parag 7. 8. but withal adde that the Traditions of the Church are such like explications For what they containe is in like sort referred as a meane to the end to the perfect vnderstanding and fulfilling of the said law and so they are no other additions
â—8 Beda lib. 1. c. 31. l. 2. c. 2. Apud Godvvin in vit August Godvvin sup Stovv An. 603. Cambd. in Britan. p. 104. in diuers places S. Beda other ancient writers and by the Epitaph of S. Augustins tombe but coÌ„fessed also by diuers Protestants Againe in the yeare 601. he sent more Preachers and with them al things necessary for the furniture and seruice of the Church as holie vessels saith S. Beda Aultar Beda lib. 1. c. 29. clothes apparel for priests and Clarcks reliques of holie Apostles and Martirs and many bookes and a Palle to S. Augustin to vse only writeth S. Gregory at Masse Apud Bed sup appointed also him to be ouer al the Bishops and Priests of Britany and gaue him licence to institute 24. Bishopricks whereof 12. should be vnder his prouince and 12. vnder yorke Besides he sent rich presents of Bed lib. 1. c. 32. Gregor lib. 9. epist 59. 60. diuers sorts and letters vnto the King and Queene for to confirme them in their faith and sent order also into Gregor lib. 5. epist 10. France to buy such English youths as were there slaues and to send them vp to Rome there to be brought vp in vertue learning VVherein he gaue the example of the English Seminary which not long after our English Kings founded in Rome This was the exceeding loue of this B. Pope towards our Nation vvhom vve may vvel and must saith S. Beda lib. 2. c. 1. cal our Apostle and may lavvfullie pronounce of him that saying of the Apostle 1. Cor. â— Although he vvere not an Apostle to others yet he vvas vnto vs For the signe of his Apostleship vve are in our Lord. Neither was this great good so happilie begun and planted in our nation by S. Gregorie and his Legates neglected by the Popes his successors but rather diligentlie watered and furdered by them as appeareth by the letters Bed lib. 2. c. 10. 11. Huntingt l. 3. Bed lib. 2. c. 17. Hunting sup Bed lib. 4. c. 18. Hunt l. 4. p. 335. Malmesbur l. 1. Pontif. p. 197. VVestm onast A. 789. Malmesb. l. 2. Reg. p. 47. A. 804. P. Honorlus An. 635. Bed l. 3. c. 7. Gadvv in vit Birini P. Vitalian 668. Bed lib. 4. c. 1. 2. Gadvv in vit Theodori Antonin tit 14. c. 4. paragr 14. Lazius l. 3. de Cimmeriâ—s Ramus Poeta German apud CaÌ„bd in Britan. p. 105. Polid. lib. 5. Messages of diuers of them sent vnto our Princes and Bishops to that purpose as of P. Boniface 5. in the yeare 618. of P. Honorius in 633. of P. Agatho 679. P. Zacharie about 746. P. Adrian 789. P. Formosus 894. and others But most of al it was increased by P. Honorius his sending hither in the yeare 635. that Apostolical man S. Birin who conuerted the west Saxons and by P. Vitalian who in 668. sent hither those holie and great learned men S. Theodor and Adrian by whose teaching Englishmen in short time became the rarest men and best learned of their age and the first founders of the vniuersities in Paris and Pauia and consequentlie the chiefest fountaines of the learning which hath bene since in the west After this time Eardulf King of Northumberland being driuen out of his kingdome countrey P. Leo 3. in the yeare 808. P. Leo 3. An. 808. Amoinus l. 4. c. 94. Regino in chron Baron 808. sent Card Adalph his legate into England who with the helpe of Charles the greats Embassadors restored the King peaceablie vnto his kingdome Not long after P. Leo 4. dispensed P. Leo 4. 855. Gathezelin in vit S. Suithuni apud Sut. Baron 855. with King Ethelwal for to marry which he being a Subdeacon could not do lawfullie at the same kings request crowned his sonne Alfred VVestmonast 855. Baron sup King and adopted him for his sonne who afterward for his worthie deeds both in warre peace was surnamed the great and for al things became the rarest Prince that England and perhaps Christendom euer had Soone after in the yeare 883. at the suite of the King Alfred the great P. Martin P. Martin 1. 883. VVestmonast Baron A. 883. Gadvvin in vit Pleg 1. released the tribute which the English schoole or Seminary then in Rome paide sent to the King many guifts among which was a good piece of the holie Crosse In the yeare 990 when Richard Marques of Normandie had purposed to inuade England and make warre vpon king Ethelred P. Iohn 15. sent P. Ihon. 15. An. 990. Epist apud Malmesb. l. 2. Reg. c. 10. Baron An. 990. his Nuntio and letters to take vp the matter who happilie brought them to agreement and about the yeare 1059. P. Nicolas the second granted to king P. Nicolas 2. 1059. Epist ad Eduard R. apud Sur. in cit Eduardi Edward Conss and his successors aduocationem tuitionem omniuÌ„ totius Angliae Ecclesiarum the aduouzon protection of al the Churches in EnglaÌ„d And in the yeare 1094. P. Vrban 2. in P. Vrban 2. 1094. Malmesbur l. 1. Pontif. p. 223. Gadvvin in vit Anselmi a councel at Bari appointed that S. Anselme Archbishop of Canterburie and his successors should sit in Councels besides the Archdeacon of Rome who sitteth before the P. adding these honourable words Includamus hunc in orbe nostro tanquam alterius orbis Papam wheras before it was vnknowne saith Malmesbury what place belonged to our Archibishop the same place did P. Paschal 2. confirme in a councel at Rome about the yeare 1102. But besids this diuers other dignities haue bene graunted to the Sea of Canturb Malmesbur sup p. 208. 209. by the Popes as that it should be Primate ouer al Britany and the B legatinati Polid. lib. 13. Gadvvin in vit Theobaldi and other like dignities Moreouer in the yeare 1098. the Scottish men saith Genebrard out of Genebrard chron in Vrban 2. Pascali 2. Leone 9. Maior Boethius two Scottish Chroniclers obtained of P. Vrban 2. for their Prince that he might haue the name title and anointment of a king which the Hungarians and Polonians Baron An. 1000. had obtained for their Princes about the yeare 1000. whereupon Edgar was then first anointed King of Scotland And about 1107. P. Pascal P. Pascal 2. 1107. Malmesbur lib. 5. Reg. p. 163. 2. writing to king Henry 1. among other things promiseth so to fauor him and his sonne as vvho saith he hurteth you or him may seeme to haue hurt the Church of Rome And in the yeare 1152. when K. Steephen hauing vsurped the Crowne of England would haue caused the Bishops to Crowne his soÌ„ne Eustace thereby to exclude for euer the right heyre Henry 2. Pope Eugenius P. Eugenius 3. An. 1152. Stovv Aâ— 1152. Gadvvin in vit Theobaldi 3. sent commaundement to the Cleargie not to medle in that matter whereby it was hindered
bene not only your owne friend and particularly your B. mothers friend but of al your Christian forefathers VVho as they haue lefte vnto your grace their Crowne and kingdome so haue they also bequeathed their faith religion friendship with the Sea Apostolick as no smal portion and stay of their inheritance VVe estieme your publique acknowledging of Rome to be the Mother Church and your selfe to be behoulding to P. Clement 8. for his temporal cariadge and kinde offices as sparks of a greater fyer of loue inkindled in your Princely hart towards that Sea which we beseech almighty God so to increase as it may one day burst forth to your owne good and the vniuersal ioy of Christendome Our Lord Iesus long preserue your Maiestie with al grace health and prosperity Your Maiesties duetiful Subiect and daily Oratour S. R. THE EPISTLE TO THE CHRISTIAN READER AS no water Christian Reader waxeth so could as that which hath bene once hot no enemies become so cruel to a common wealth as Rebels who haue bene once subiect So none are so eager aduersaries to Gods Church as Apostataes S. Maximus serm de Apost who heue once bene her members and children Amongst Heretikes none more earnest against the Apostles then the S. Hieron de Scriptor in Petro. first Apostata Simon Magus who dared to encounter hand to hand with the principal Apostle S. Peter and labored to seduce by Baron Annal An. 68. his magik whom he by myracles had conuerted Amongst the Tyrants and persecutors Nazianz. orat 1. in Iulian Theodoret. lib. 3. c. 21. none more cruel then Iulian the Apostata who by blood endeuored to wash away his Christendom and both by sword pen laboured al he could not only to extinguish the religion but also the very name and memory of Christians Amongst Philosophers none more vehement then Porphirius Iulian. rabidi in Christum canes Hieron Porphyry the Apostata who writ fifteen books against Christian religion and for his singuler hatred therof was syrnamed tou Christianon polemios the Christians aduersary And in these our miserable daies none haue bene so spiteful so malicious so vehement against Catholiques ether in persecuting speaking or writing as they who haue bene once Catholiques And in England now none sheweth him selfe so forward or so vehement against Catholiques as the Apostata Bel daring challenging and adiuring al Papists iointly and seuerally to the combat with him being desirous as it seemeth of the tytle of ton catholicon polemios The Catholiques aduersary These Apostataes be like to him who Luc. 11. v. 25. 26. being deliuered of one diuel the house clensed with beesoms and trimmed vp was afterward possessed with seauen diuels See S. Ireney lib. 1. c. 13. worse then the former and his end made worse then his beginning For such is the estate of this miserable caitiue Bel who being once deliuered from the diuel of Heresy clensed with the beesom of confession and Penance and trimmed with patient sufferance for the Catholique faith falling afterward to idlenes and dissolute life wherof him self since hath boasted is possessed again of his old diuel of Heresy accompained with seuen other wicked sprits of blasphemy railing pride slaundering lying dissembling and abusing of Gods and holy Fathers words and his end becomme far worse then his beginning was His spirit of blasphemy he descryeth in many places as p. 149. where he saith that God hath giuen vs those commandements which we can not possibly keep This the holy Father S. Hierom both calleth and accutseth as S. Hieron epist ad Damasc de exposi ione fidei blasphemy in these words VVe curse their blasphemy who say that God hath commanded to man any impossible thing And no maruel For what reason can ther be in God to command Quod rationem non habet dici non debuit S. Eugenius apud Victorem de persecut vandal l. 2. a thing which he knoweth can not be done what fault in vs not to do that which can not be done what iustice in him to punish and that with eternal death the not performance of that which can not be performed If neuer there was man so void of reason as would commaÌ„d a thing which he knew could not be done neuer Tyrant so cruel as wold punish with temporal death the vnperformance of impossible matters shal we think it no blasphemy to God to attribute that to him which we can not imagin that any man who hath any spark of reason or humanity wold attempt Hauing thus blasphemed against God no meruail if he blaspheme against his Church of late daies saying p. 134. that she is no sufficient witnes of his truth p. 41. against our iustification calling it supposed holy wherby he giueth vs to vnderstand that as he is fallen from God and his Church and lost holy iustification so he is an enemy to them al. His railing spirit he could so il maister as in the very first period of his epistle to the Epistle to the King King without respect of his Maiestie he must needs cal vs the cursed brood of traiterous Iesuits and streight after speaking ex abundantia cordis and reuiling especially against the Iesuits who haue bene his maisters he auoucheth them to be traiterous seditious brutish barbarous cruel villanous most bloody treacherous prowd cruel tyrants firebrands of al sedition theeues murderers right Macheuels coosiners malicious and dependers vpon the diuel And of this Rhetorik I expect good store for my part but the more the merrier such reprochful terms in this quarrel shal be to me super millia auri argenti His pride is more notorious then I need shew it For if it were pride in Golias though a Gyant to challenge any of Gods hoste what is it in this puny not only to challenge but to adiure al Papists seuerally and iointly being him selfe not worthy to cary the books after many of them as shal appeare by his manifold ignorance not only in deuinity See the Index but also euen in Latin principlâ—s of Logik Histories and Preaching as shal be made manifest in this answer His slauÌ„ders reach euen from the highest pag 17. to the lowest Kings and Emperours he slaundereth with no les matter then opening the window to al Antichristian tyranny Bels ingratitude Popes who long tyme manteined him at school with challeÌ„ging powre equal p. 16. 40. 106. to God with dispensing with one to marry his ful sister with burning the Scripture and the like And Papists he slaundereth p. 22. with killing Christ a thousand tymes a day with affirming that the Pope can depose Kings and Emperors and translate their p. 1. Linpires and regalities at his good wil and pleasure with attributing to the Pope powre equal to God thinking the breach p. 16. p. 130. of Lent to be a greater sin then adultery periury or murder His other three spirits of
had once deceaued you in a mony matter you wold beware how you trusted them again and wil you beleeue them stil they hauing by their owne confession hitherto deceaued you both in your Church seruice Bible commending the one to you as diuine seruice and the other as Gods pure word and now condemning them both Open your eyes for the passion of Christ and seeing publike conference wil not be graunted where we might lay open vnto you the deceits of your Ministers help your selfs as wel as you may read with indifferency such books as are written for this purpose make earnest intercession to God to see the truth grace to follow it when you haue found it which God of his goodnes graunt Farewel 2. Februar 1605. Thy seruant in Christe IESV S. R. A TABLE OF THE ARTICLES AND CHAPTERS ARTICLE I. Of the Popes Superiority BELS argument against the Popes superiority answered diuers his vntruths and dissimulations therin discouered Chapt. 1. The opinion of Protestants touching Princes supremacy set down Chapt. 2. The opinion of Protestants touching deposition of Princes Chapt. 3. The practise of Protestants touching deposition of Princes Chapt. 4. Bels proofes of his assumption against the Popes superiority answered Chapt. 5. Bels answer to an argument of Catholiks for the Popes superiority confuted Chap. 6. Some of Bels slaunderous vntruths disproued Chapt. 7. Certain fals steps of a ladder which Bel imagineth the Pope had to clime to his superiority disproued Chapt. 8. The rest of Bels fals steps and slaunderous vntruths in this article disproued Chap. 9. ARTICLE 2. Of the Masse Bels reason against the real presence of Christ in the B. Sacrament answered his vntruth and dissimulation therin discouered Chapt. 1. Authorities alleadged by Bel against the real presence answered Chapt. 2. Masse proued Bels argumēt against it answered his manifold vntruths therin disproued Chap. 3. The rest of Bels arguments against the Masse confuted Chap. 4. Berengarius his recantation explicated and S. Austins authority answered Chap. 5. Bels imaginary contradictions in the Masse answered and true contradictions in his communion shewed Chap. 6. ARTICLE III. Of the Popes Dispensations Chapt. 1.  ARTICLE IIII. Of original concupiscence in the regenerate The Catholike doctrin touching concupiscence explicated and proued Chap. 1. Diuers vntruths of Bel disproued his arguments out of S. Paul against the doctrin of the former Chapter answered Chap. 2. Bels arguments out of S. Austin touching concupiscence answered Chap. 3. Bels arguments out of S. Ambros S. Bede S. Thomas touching concupiscence answered Chap. 4. ARTICLE V. Of the merit of good vvorks Of the Protestanis enmity to good works and frendship with euil Chap. 1. Of Bels positions touching good works Chap. 2. The Catholiks doctrin touching merit particulerly set downe and proued Chapt. 3. Bels arguments out of Scripture against condigne merit answered Chap. 4. Bels arguments out of holy Fathers against condigne merit answered Chap. 5. Bels arguments out of late Catholik writers against condigne merit answered Chap. 6. ARTICLE VI. Of the distinction of mortal and venial sins The true distinction proued and Bels obiection answered Chapt. 1. A text of S. Ihon epist 1. explicated Chap. 2. ARTICLE VII The Catholike doctrin touching sufficiency of Scripture propounded proued certaine vntruths of Bel disproued Chap. 1. Bels arguments out of the old testamēt concerning the sufficiency of Scripture answered Chap. 2. Bels arguments out of the new testament touching sufficiency of Scripture answered Chap. 3. Bels arguments out of Fathers touching sufficiency of Scripturs and Traditions answered Chap. 4. Bels arguments out of late Catholik writers touching sufficiency of Traditions and Scripture answered Chap. 5. Of the difficulty or easynes of Scripture Chap. 6. Of the vulgar peoples reading Scripture Chap. 7. Of the translation of Scripture into vulgar tongs Chap. 8. Of Apostolical Traditions whether ther be any or none Chap. 9. Of the certainty of Apostolical Traditiōs Chap. 10. Of the examination of Traditions Chap. 11. Bels arguments out of Fathers about the examination of Traditions answered Chap. 12. Of the authority of late general Coūcels Chap. 13. Of the oath which Bishops vse to make vnto the Pope Chapt. 14. ARTICLE VIII Of keeping Gods commandements The possibility of keeping Gods commandements explicated and proued out of Scripture Chap. 1. The possibility of keeping Gods commandements proued out of Fathers and reason Chap. 2. Bels arguments out of Scripture against the possibility of keeping Gods commandements answered Chapt. 3. Bels arguments out of Fathers against the possibility of keeping Gods commandements answered Chapt. 4. THE FIRST ARTICLE OF THE POPES SVPERIORITY CHAPT I. Bels arguments against the Popes Superiority ansvvered diuers his vntruthes and dissimulations therin discouered BEL like a man in great choler and very desirous to encounter with his enemie beginneth his chalenge very abruptly hastily yet not forgetting his scholerschip or ministerie he geueth the onset with a syllogisme ful charged with vntruthes dissimulacions You Papistes saith 3. Vntruthes 2. dissimulations he tel vs that the Pope is aboue al powers and potentates on earth that he can depose Kinges Emperours from their royal thrones and translate their empires and regalities at his good wil and pleasure But this doctrin is false absurde nothing else but a mere fable And conseqently Romish Religion consisteth of meere falsehoods fables flat leasinges 2. Not without cause gentle Reader hath Bel proposed these bloudy questions of the Popes supremacie and deposition of Princes in his first article and placed them in the forefront of his battel for he hopeth that they wil be his best bulwarke and surest defense in the combate that in such lystes he shal not fight alone but assisted with the Princes sworde wherein he dealeth with Catholiques as Puritanes which Conference at Hampton Court pag. 82. 83. his Maiesty prudently obserueth doe vvith protestants vvho because they could not othervvise make their partes good against protestants appeale to his supremacie And as the old Arians Ambr. epist 32. victor lib. 1. de preste◠vandol did who euermore accused the Catholiques as iniurious to the Prince which they al learne of the Iewes who being vnable to disprooue Christs doctrine endeuoured to bring him into the compasse of treason and Matth. 22. v. 17. at last procured his death as enemy to Cesar Wherfore ymitating the example of our Sauiour when the like question was propounded to seeke his bloud I answere Bel briefelie That what is Cesars we ought to Luc. 20. v. 25. geue to Cesar and what is Gods to God and what is Gods Vicars to Gods Vicar Onely because Bel in his said syllogisme chargeth Catholiques most falsely withal dissembleth the opinion of protestantes touching the supremacie and deposition of Princes I wil disproue his vntruthes and discouer his dissimulations and afterward compare the opinion and practise of Protestants Catholiques touching this matter
auoucheth That ordinarily he can not depose Princes euen for iust causes 7. But let vs heare Bel disproue him self Anatomy of Popish tyrany in the Caueat to the Reader and lib. 2. cap. 4. §. 10. c. 9. 1. Contradiction Secular Priests saith he write plainly and resolutly that the Pope hath no power to depriue Kings of their royal Scepters and regalities nor to giue away their Kingdomes to an other In which opiniō likewise the French Papists do concurre iump with them Item The Seculars although they acknowledge the Popes power supereminent in Spiritualibus yet do they disclaime from it in temporalibus when he taketh vpon him to depose Kinges from their empires and translate their Kingdomes And least we should thinke these few Priests who wrote so were no Papists Bel him self testifieth that they are the Popes deare Vassals and professe the selfe same religion with Epistle to the King other Catholiques 8. The third vntruth conteined in the proposition is that we teach the doctrine of his proposition as a pointe of our faith wherevpon he inferreth in his conclusion our religion and faith to be false Because we teach no such doctrine at al and much lesse as a point of our religion or faith And the grauest best learned amongst Catholiques attribute to rhe Pope onely spiritual superiority ouer Princes and power to depose them in that case wherin our Sauiour said Math. 18. that it were better for a man to be cast into the sea then to liue to wit when they so scandalize others as their deposition is necessary for the saluation of soules as I haue already shewed out af Bellarmin Bel. parag 29. whose testimony in this matter Bel can not refuse seing he calleth him the mouth of Papists and auoucheth his doctrin to be the Popes owne doctrin And this doctrin good Christiā Princes account no more preiudicial or iniurious to their estates then they do the like doctrin of S. Paul 2. Cor. 10. where he professeth him self to haue power to destroy al loftines extolling it self against the knowledge of God to be ready to punish al disobedience 9. Wherfore to requite Bel with a syllogisme like vnto his owne I argue thus you Bel tel vs that we Papists saie the Pope is aboue al powers and potentates on earth that he can depose Kings and Emperours and translate their empiers at his good wil and pleasure But this your tale is a very tale false absurd and nothing else but a mere fable and consequently your late chalenge consisteth of mere falsehoods fables flat leasings The proposition is your owne wordes the truth of the assumption appeereth by my answer to your argument And thus much touching Bels vntruthes vttered in his proposition and proofe therof now let vs come to his dissemblinge CHAP. II. The opinion of protestants touching Princes Supremacie set dovvne LVTHER an Euangelist as he termeth him selfe or as other accompte him Luther lib. cont stat eccles in prologo in glossa cont decreta Caesar Ex Sur. An. 1531. 1539. Pope of Recusamy p. 31. 32. Magdeburg praefat Centur 7. Caluin in c. 7. Amos. an Apostle a prophet a third Elias a beginner of protestantisme in his booke of secular power condemneth those Princes who prescribe laws to their subiects in matter belonging to faith and the Church Magdeburgians his first and cheefest childeren write thus Let not Magistrats be heads of the Church because this Supremacy agreeth not to them Caluin saith they were blasphemers who attributed the supremacy to King Henry 8. And lest we shold think that only forayne Protestāts are of this opinion Antony Gilby in his admonition to England and Scotland Gilby calleth King Henry a monstrous bore for taking the supremacy that he displaced Christ was no better then the Romish Antichrist made him selfe a God And lately VVillet cōtract 791. part 1. and 3. p. 269. 270. Willet auoucheth That Bishops and Pastors haue a spiritual charge ouer Kings that Kings ought to yeeld obedience to those that haue ouersight of their soules That Heathen Princes had the same power and authority in the Church which Christian Princes haue and yet soone after affirmeth That heathen Princes cold not be heads of the Church that is to haue the Souereingty of external gouernment Againe That the King is nether mistical nor ministerial head of the Church that the name of head is vnproperly giuen to the Prince and if any think it to great Kings not so much is ministerial heads of the Church by vvillet a name for any mortal man we wil not saith he greatly contend about it So we see he denyeth both name and authority of the head of the Church to Kings 2. And his Maiesty perceaued that Reanolds and his fellows aymed at a Scottish Presbitry which agreeth with a Monarch Conference p. 82 83. as wel as God and the diuel page 79. and acknowledged his supremacy only to make their partes good with Bishops as Knox his fellow ministers in Scotland made his grandmother head of the Church therby to pul downe the Catholique Bishops Yea that the whole English Clergy is in their harts of the same opiniō appeareth by their open profession to agree in religion with forayne Protestants who plainly deny the supremicy of Princes by their writing and Apologia pag. 28. teaching that Christ alone can behead of the Church by their condemning Catholiques for attributing such authority to man and finally by their Synodical explication of the article of supremacy which they expound thus That Princes should rule al estates Lib. 39. Artic. art 37. and degrees committed to their charge by God whether they be Ecclesiastical or temporal and restrayne with the ciuil sword the stubborne and euil doers wherein we see no power in Ecclesiastical causes granted to Princes but only ouer Ecclesiastical persons And we deny not that Princes haue any power ouer Ecclesiastical persons yea in the very canon of the Masse as priests pray for Papa nostro N. and Antistite nostro N. for our Pope and Byshop so they pray for Rege nostro N. acknowledging the one to be their King as the others to be their Prelates and consequently both to haue power ouer them For as S. Augustin said and it is euident Rex à Augustin in Psalm 44. 67. regendo dicitur a King is so called of power to gouerne And as ecclesiastical persons be ciuil or politique members of the common wealth wherein they liue so haue they See Stapelton relectione Controuersiae 2. q. 1. a. 1. ad 2. Victoria relectione de potesta ecclesiastica sect 7. the same politique or ciuil head which that commonwealth hath for otherwise either ciuil members should haue no ciuil head at al which were monstrous or not be vnder the head of that body whereof they be members but onely vnder a ciuil head of an other body which is
appeareth by his excommunicating the Emperors Thodosius and Maximus beside that Constantin and Valentinian professed them selues to be vnder Bishops And doubtles the human lawes enacted by the Apostles Act 15. v. 18. and 1. Cor 7. v. 12. exempted no more Princes then priuat persons S Hierome Bel affirmeth to teach the same that S. Ambrose but neither alledgeth his wordes nor quoteth ether booke or chapter perhaps because he made lesse shew for him 9. Euthimius he citeth because he writeth Bel p. 3. Euthym. in Psalm 50. Glossa ordin lyra in Psalm 50. S. Thom. 2. â— q. 12. art 2. That Dauid as a King had God onely iudge ouer his sinnes But he meaneth of a temporal iudge as doe also the Glosse and lita cited by him And though S. Thomas proue of set purpose That the Pope may depose Princes yet is not Bel ashamed to cite him because he saith 1. 2. q. 96. art 5. That a King is not subiect to compulsion of his owne lavvs As if therfore he were subiect to no law Hereafter the Reader neede not maruail to see Bel citing Scriptures and Fathers for his purpose seing he abstayneth not from his professed aduersaries For with him al is fish that comes to net and as litle make the one for him as the other Lastly he citeth Hugo Card writing That God alone is aboue al Hugo Card. in psal 50. cap. 1. Kings But this is ment in temporalibus as before we cited out of Innocent 3. 10. After these proofs of his Assumption Bel p. 4. 5. Bel hudleth vp six vntruthes togeather saying The good Kings Iosue Dauid Salomon Vntruthes 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Iosaphat Ezechias and Iosias knew right wel they had authority aboue al Priests and therfore tooke vpon them not onely to command control them but also to depose euen the high Priests them selues For proofe of these vntruthes he referreth vs to his Golden Balance and I refer him for confutation of them to Doctor Stapletons Conterblast against Horns vaine blast his Relection con 2. q 5 ar 1. Onely I say that Iosue was no King nor the Scripture affordeth any colour of saying that any high Priest was deposed by any of the said Kings except Abiathar by SolomoÌ„ 3. reg c. 2 v. 35. et 27. And yet as it is gathered out of the 3. Reg. 4. v. 4. 4. chapter where he is accounted Priest in Salomons raigne Salomon deposed him not but onely for a time confyned him to his howse for his conspiracy with Adonias and so debarred him from executing his Priestly function And though he had deposed him he had not done it as King but as Prophet fulfilling as the Scripture testifyeth the Prophisy against the howse of 3. Reg. 2. v. 27. Hely from whence Abiathar descended And this is al which Bel obiecteth against the Popes superiority ouer Princes Now let vs see how he answereth one obiection of Catholique in answers whereof he spendeth the rest of this article CHAP. VI. Bels answer to an argument of Catholiques for the Popes authority confuted BEL for better satisfaction as he saith Bel p. 5. of the vulgar sorte propoundeth one obiection of Catholiques but yet so nakedly and without al forme or fashion of argument setting downe an Antecedent without any consequent that therby one may ghesse â—e meaneth nothing lesse then to frame as he promisseth a plaine and sincer solution vnto it And yet the obiection though so sillily propounded not onely much trobleth many vulgar people as he saith but pusleth him selfe so as after seuen leaues spent to diuert the Readers minde to make him forget as Heritiks The manner of Protestants in ansvvering Catholiks vse to do the argument which he can not answer he fyndeth no better solution then to graunt what the Antecendent contayneth and to say nothing to the consequent following therof 2. Wherfore because Bel was so trobled with the matter of this obiection as he forgot the forme I wil supply his default and argue thus in forme He by whose authority the Empire was translated the electors of the Emperor appointed and the elected is confirmed and whose superiority ouer them many Emperors haue willingly acknowledged hath some superiority ouer Emperors but the Pope is such as by his authority the Empire c. Ergo the Pope hath some superiority ouer Emperors The forme is syllogistical and good The Proposition is manifest for no power or dignity can be truly translated or confirmed by inferiors or equals but onely by superiors none especially willingly acknowledge as superior whome they thinke is not 3. The Assumption contayneth three parts expressed in the Proposition wherof the first vz. That the Empire was translated by the Popes authority Bellarm l. de transl Bellarmin Imper c. 4 proueth by the testimony of 33. writers c 5. by the confession of 11. Emperors and Princes and c. 6. by assertion of 7. Popes Yea Bel though with much a doe confesseth it page 12. saying That Charles the great to whome the Empire was first translated was made Emperor by Pope Leo 3. for restoring him to his place and dignity being driuen out by the Romans though soone p. 13. after he condemne the Pope of treason for this translation But differing the question of treason til a non which hindreth not the verity of the translation if the translator haue power to transfer as a souldier may by gift or sale truly and yet trayterously translate his armes and munition to the Enemies I ask of Bel whether the Pope did truly translate the Empire or no. If he did then hath the Pope power to translate Empires If he did not then was nether Charles the great nor any of his successors to this day true Emperors And if the Pope be Antichrist as Bel auoucheth for deposing some few Emperors for iust causes Bel may be wel accounted Lucifer for deposing at once and for no fault at al the Emperors of the west which haue bene these 800. yeares But Protestants haue great Protestants can make vnmake Emperors vvhen they list cunning in making and vnmaking Emperors according as it redoundeth in their opinion to the grace or disgrace of Popes For when the Pope deposeth them they be true Emperors but when he maketh them they haue onely as Willet writeth the name VVillet CoÌ„tract 4. q. 10. p. 178. title and image of Emperors But let them answer this dilemma These Emperors whom the Pope deposed since Carolus Magnus Likevvise vvhen vvillet list the imperial authority is in the Pope loc scit But vvhen he list not he is no temporal Prince ib. q. 8. p. 154 155. were true or false Emperors If false he did a good deed in deposing them If true then hath the Pope authority to make true Emperors and translate Empiers 4. The second parte included in my Assumption vz. That the Pope appointed the electors of the Emperor and
chron 96. Euseb chronic 97. he maketh the 14. yeare of Domitian to be about 100. years after Christs ascension which was but about the 97. yeare after Christs natiuity as is euident by al Chronicles or supputators of tymes and so wanted almost 40. of an 100. after his ascension Omitting also an other manifest error in affirming S. Ihon to haue written his Ghospel almost an 100. years after Christs ascension who dyed the 68. yeare after his passion See Baron An. 101. Eusebius in chron S. Hieron in Scriptur Ecclesiast in Ioanne in chron as Eusebius and S. Hierom testify and therfore could not write almost an 110. years after Christs ascension vnles he wrote many years after his owne death 3. But omitting these errors as testimonies of Bels ignorance in histories which I regard not To his argument I answer That See S. Cyril l. 12. in Ioan. c. 61. those words These are written are meant only of signa miracles done by Christ and written by S. Ihon to moue vs to beleeue that Christ was God Reinold thes 1. Reinolds pag. 60. confesseth That they are referred properly to signa myracles yet wil haue them also meant of precepts doctrine written by S. Ihon because myracles are to confirme and persvvade doctrine and precepts But I proue that they are meant only of miracles Because S Ihon hauing recorded diuers miracles of Christ afterward immediatly before those sayd words saith Many other miracles did Iesus in the sight of his disciples vvhich v. 30. are not vvritten in this booke And then addeth but These are written that you may beeleue that Iesus v. 31. is Christ the sonne of God c. Who seeth not here that the demonstratiue pronowne These is referred only to miracles For S. Ihon hauing said that many miracles were vnwritten streight after with the aduersatiue or exceptiue particle But which Bel guilefully leaft out excepteth these which he had written from the condition of others which he had not written saying But these are written c And Reinolds reason is so far from prouing his purpose as it proueth the quite contrary For because Reinolds proof against him self Christs doctrine and faith was the end of S. Ihons writing and myracles the meanes and motiues to bring men to Christs faith as him selfe professeth in the forsaid words euideÌ„t it is that he meaneth both of Christs doctrine and miracles in the foresaid verse but differently and vnder different words For of myracles he meaneth as motiues and meanes vnder the words These are written c. And of doctrine he meaneth as the end of his writing the myracles vnder the other words That you may beleeue c. 4. But suppose that S. Ihon by These vnderstood both myracles doctrine can Bel therfore infer that S. Ihon meant of thâ— whole canon of Scriptures Surely no because he hauing before said That many other myracles of Christ were not written in this booke and immediatly adding But these are written c. can not be vnderstood but of his owne writing and in his owne Ghospel wheruppon if Bel inferre any thing he must inferre that S. Ihons Ghospel alone is absolutly sufficient and conteineth al things necessary Which I hope he wil not doe Reinolds graunteth Io. Reinolds apol p. 216. that S. Ihons Ghospel is sufficient supposing that we heare of no other But this is nothing to the purpose For they out of this place inferre the Scripture to be absolutly sufficieÌ„t so as we may reiect al other things though we heare of them And therfore seeing S. Ihon in this place can not be vnderstood but of his owne Ghospel if hence they proue absolute sufficiency of Scripture against Traditions they must inferre absolute sufficiency of S. Ihons Ghospel against al other what soeuer I omit a place Bel alleadgeth out of S. Cyril with an other S. Cyril lib. 12 in Io. cap. vlt. S. Augustin tract 49. in Ioan. Sup. c. 1. parag 2. Bel pag. 91. out of S. Austin which I cited in the first conclusion For they proue no more then is there affirmed 5. His second place out of the new testament is act 20. v. 27. I haue not spared to shew vnto you the whole counsel of God Therfore saith he the whole counsel of God touching our saluation is conteined in holy Scripture Omitting his needles proofs out of Lâ—â—a and Carthu that S. Paul meaneth of al counsâ—l touching our saluation I answer that this place ether maketh directly against Protestants or not at al against Catholiques For seeing S. Paul speaketh of his owne shewing vnto the Ephesians if he be vnderstood of shewing only by writing it followeth that his epistle to the Ephesians conteineth al Gods counsel and is absolutly sufficient which is against Protestants But if he be vnderstood as he should be of shewing in general ether by worde or writing nothing followeth to Bels purpose or against Catholiques 6. But saith Bel it wil not suffice to ansvver pag. 91. That al Gods counsel was preached but not written because S. Paul was an Apostle of that Rom. 1. Act. 26. Ghospel vvhich was promised by the Prophets taught no other thing then that the Prophets had foretolde But this proueth no more of S. Paul then of al the Apostles For they were al Apostles of the same Gospel and taught the same doctrine which he did and yet some of them wrote neuer a worde Some shew it hath to proue that al which S. Paul preached was written by the Prophets Sup. c. 1. parag 7. 8. which how it is to be vnderstood hath bene before explicated 7. And because Bellarmin saith That the Bellarm. lib. 1. de verbo Dei cap. 1. 2. Scripture is an infallible and most secure rule of faith And That he is mad who reiecting Scripture followeth inward inspirations Bel chargeth Bel pag. 93. vntruth 77 him to contradict him selfe teaching els vvhere the contrary but cyteth no place because none is to be found and to confound vntruth 78 himselfe because he wil not rely vpon Gods vvritten testimonies but seeke after vnvvritten vanities and ground his faith vpon them Here Bel slandereth Bellarmin For when did euer he or any Catholique refuse to rely vpon Gods written testimony when did they not account it a most infallible rule of faith vpon what vanities do they ground their faith we confesse Scripture to be an infallible rule but not the total rule but as Bellarmin Bellarmin saith lib. 4. de verb. dei c. 12. the partial rule Let Bel improue this Hic Rhodus hic Saltus 8. Moreouer he alleadgeth S. Austin Bel pag. 93. S. Augustin cont Adimant cap. 3. to 6. writing That there are no precepts or promises in the doctrine of the Ghospel and Apostles which are not in the old Testament True But as S. Austin afterward in expresse words recalled S. Augustin lib. 1. Retrac c. 22.
bene a meere humane and mistaken tradition he saith Cometh it from our Lord or the Gospels authority Cometh it from the Apostles precepts or epistles For God witnesseth that the things are to be done which are written and proposeth to Iesus Name saying Let not the booke of this law depart from thy mouth but thou shalt meditate therin day and night that thou mayst obserue to doe al things that are written in it If therfore it be commanded in the Ghospel or contayned in epistles of Apostles or acts that who came from any heresy be not baptized but hands imposed vpon them for pennance let this diuine and holy Tradition be kept 6. These words at the first view seeme to make for Bel but if the cause and circumstances of S. Cyprians writing be considered S. Cyprian they make rather against him S. Cyprian neuer reiected al Traditions yea by it l. 2. epist 3. he proued water to be mingled with wyne in the sacrifice and in the epistle cited by Bel biddeth vs recurre to Apostolical Tradition but only the foresaid Tradition because he thought as he saith epist ad Iubaian that it was neuer before commanded or written but as he writeth epist ad Quint mistaken for an other Tradition of not rebaptizing such as fal into heresy Wherfore Bel pag. 118 most falsly affirmeth 79 vntruth S. Cyprian Epist ad Iubaian ad Pompeium ad Quintinum Euseb lib. 7. c. 3. that he sharply reproued P. Steeuen for leaning to Tradition For he reproued him only for leaning to a mistaken as he supposed Tradition And as it is euideÌ„t out of his epistles and the histories of that tyme the question betwixt him and S. Steeuen pope was not whether Tradition were to be obserued or no but whether this were a true Tradition or no. Wherin S. Cyprian erroniously thincking it to be a mistaken tradition argued against it as he did demanding Scripture for proofe therof which he would neuer haue done if he had not thought it to haue bene mistaken The most therfore that Bel hath out of S. Cyprian for him selfe is that what is not true tradition must be proued by Scripture which I willingly graunt but it maketh nothing for his purpose as is euident S. Augustin lib. de vnic bapt c. 13. l. 1. de bapt coÌ„t Donat. c. 18. 39. epist 48. Vincent Lyrin contr â—aeres 7. But many things I obserue in S. Cyprian which make against Bel. 1 He admitteth dyuers Traditions Bel reiecteth al. 2. He impugneth one only Tradition Bel impugneth al. 3. He erred in impugning one and much more Bel in impugning al. 4. He recanted his error before his death as S. S. Augustin l. 6. de bapt c. 2. S. Hieron dial contr Luciferian Austin thincketh and of his fellow bishops S. Hierom testifyeth Bel persisteth obstinatly 5. He erred in a new question and not determined in a ful Councel saith S. Austin Bel erreth in antient matters decyded S. August l. de vinc baptism c. 13. lib. 5. de bapt c. 17. S. Cyprian epist ad Iubaian S. Hieron contr Lucifer August sup S. Cyprian epistol ad Pompei Euseb lib. 7. c. 3. Vincen. coÌ„t haeres S. Cyprian l. 1. epist 3. by many general Councels 6. He although he thought the Pope did erre yet seperated not him selfe as Bel doth from his communion as him selfe and S. Hierom testifyeth 7. He condemned none that followed the Popes opinion against his as Bel doth 8. He thought the Pope to erre in a coÌ„mandment onely of a thing to be done Bel condemneth him of errors in his iudicial sentences of faith where as S. Cyprian professeth that false faith can haue no accesse to S. Peters chayre 9. He disobeyed for a tyme the Popes commandement concerning a new and difficult question Bel disobeyeth obstinatly his definatiue sentence 8. Hereby we see how litle S. Cyprian maketh See S. Austin lib. 2. contr Crescon c. 31. 32. to 7. S. Austin for Bel and though he had made more for him let him know from S. Austin lib. de vnic bapt c. 13. and lib. 1. de bapt cont Donatist c. 18. and epist 18. that this error was in S. Cyprian an humane and venial error and like a blemish in a most vvhite breast because it vvas not then perfectly defyned by the Church But in his followers saith he lib. 1. cit c. 19. it is smoake of hellish filthines and as Vincent Vincent Lyrin Lyrin writeth The author vvas Catholicque his follovvers are iudged heretiks he absolued they condemned he a child of heauen they of hel And let the Reader gather by this example the Example of the force of tradition and the Popes iudgement authority of Tradition and Pope For if one Tradition preuailed then against S. Cyprian and a whole Councel of Bishops alleadging dyuers places of Scripture much more it wil preuaile against Protestants And if the Popes iudgement euen then when it seemed to many holy and learned Bishops to be against Scripture was supported only by Tradition did preuaile and they at last condemned as Heretickes who resisted much more it wil praeuaile against Protestants being vpholden not only by Tradition but by manifest Scripture also And Bel in blaming S. SteeueÌ„ Pope for preteÌ„ding 80 vntruth as he saith false authority sheweth him selfe to bee a malepert minister seeing S. Cyprian neuer reprehended him for any S. Cyprian such matter yea lib. 1. epist 3. acknowledgeth in the Church one Priest and iudge who is Christs Vicar meaning the Pope as is euident because lib 2. epist 10. he saith that the NouatiaÌ„s in making a false Bishop of Rome made a false head of the Church and l. 1. epist 8. and epist ad Iubaian that Christ builded his Church vppon S. Peter And as for S. Steeuen Vincent Lirin highly Vincent Lyrin con haereses S. Augustin lib. de vnie bapt cont Petil. c. 14. Bel pag 97. S. Athanas commendeth him and the very Donatists as S. Austin writeth confessed that he incorruptly gouerned his Bishoprike 9. Next he cyteth S. Athanasius cont Idol saying That Scriptures suffice to shew the truth True But that truth wherof S. Athanasius there disputed against Gentils to wit that Christ was God as he him self explicateth in these words I speake of our beleefe in Christ But saith Bel. He had made a foolish argument and concluded nothing at al if any necessary truth had not bene fully contained in Scripture As though S Athanasius had in these words argued against Gentils in which he only gaue a cause why he wrote that treatise Because saith he Though Scriptures suffice to shevv the truth and dyuers haue written of the same matter which argueth that he spake of some determinate truth yet because their writings are not at hand I thought good to vvrite But suppose he had argued what folly is in this argument Al contained in Scripture is truth Christs godhead is there
home in our houses Grosse absuraity of Bel. and not heare them read in the Churches which note is more absurd then I need refel yet let the Reader remember it But S. Austins speech was not to al kind of men nor at al tymes but to his owne people whome he knew were like to encrease their deuotion in the holy tyme of lent whereof he spake by reading Scripture And the like exhortation may any Catholique Bishop make to his flocke whome he knoweth not to haue itching ears and 2. Timoth. 4. v. 4. not to be soone conuerted to fables yet withal condemne the promiscual licence graunted by Bel to al sorts of people of what sexe state calling or condition soeuer For so the vnlearned and vnstable be licenced yea necessarily ought saith Bel to read Scripture pag. 103. S. Pet. 2. c. 3. v. 16. though as S Peter testifyeth they wil depraue it to their owne perdition 17. And such constant Catholiques were those men and woemen which as S. Hierom S. Hierom. in psalm 133. Epistol ad Gaudent epist ad Celantiam writeth did striue vvho should learne most Scriptures and vvhome he exhorted to learne the Scripture vvithout booke and to haue it alvvaies in their hands and to teach it their children For as him selfe writeth epist ad Gaudent cit vvhat vve speake vve speake not in general but in part nor say of al but of some And epist ad Paulin. reprehendeth greatly That euery one should take Scripture in hand Wherfore if Bel apply S. Hieroms words to al sorts of persons of what condition Bel like a foolish Phisition soeuer he doth not only against the holy Doctors meaning but sheweth him selfe to be a foolish Phisition prescribing the like diet to al kinde of persons not knowing who can eat milk but not solid meat as the Apostle speaketh 1. Corinth 3. v. 2. Hebr. 5. v. 12. For some as he saith Hebr. 5. v. 11. are weake to heare some part of Gods word and much weaker wold be to read it al. Wherfore the Catholique Church like a prudent nurse permitteth such children as she seeth strong and able to read Scripturs to feed them selfs and cut their owne meat but to such as she perceaueth to be weake and not so able she wil not graunt the like liberty but cheweth their meat or cutteth it her selfe by preaching expouÌ„ding Scriptures to them lest if they were their owne caruers they should hurt them selfs And Protestants like careles nurses let al alike carue them selfs and therby cut their owne fingers yea throats kil them selfs by taking oftentymes poison insteed of meat 18. And hereupon I must aduettise the Bel p. 112. Reader of two vntruths which Bel fathereth vpon Catholiques vz. That they deeme vntruth 85 vntruth 86 them most holy who can by hart no Scripture at al but absteine from reading therof as from poison of their souls For ignorance of Scripture in Ignorance of it self no holynes it selfe we account no holynesse at al and much lesse deeme them most holy who know lest of Scripture But great holines we esteeme it to chuse rather harmles ignorance then curious and disobedient skil As great holines it had bene in Eue 10 Donum ipsum vtiliter aliquando ignoratur S. Augustin l. 6. cont Iul. c. 16. haue made choise rather of ignorance of good and euil then of knowledge therof And the like ignorance of Scripture in Catholiques we preferre before Protestants knowledge For to be thus ignorant saith Tertullian is better lest we know that we should Tertull. l. de praescript not Faith saith he shal saue vs not exercise in Scripture Faith is commanded exercise in Scripture consisting in curiosity hath glory only in study of knowledge Let curiosity giue place to faith let glory yeeld to saluation Thus Tertullian a most antient writer whose counsel I wold to God Protestants did follow And as for Scripture we account it no poison but the food of life and the reading therof good and holsome if it be done as it should not vpon curiosity and disobedience to the Churches precept as the Aple was good in it selfe and the eating therof had not bene hurtful if it had not bene against Gods commandement 19. Bel cireth also Theodoret writing Bel p. 113. That the Hebrevv books are turned into al languages Theodoret. lib. 5. de Graecan affection Againe That we may find ditchers and neatheards and planters reasoning of the Trinity and creation of al things Answer That of the Scripturs translation shal be answered in the next chapter The other proueth no more then that simple people knew the said misteries whereof he saith not they read but reasoned And S. Gregory Nazianzen S. Greg. Nazianz orat 1. de Theol. greatly discommendeth such for it And by the like reason might Bel proue euery Catholique to read Scripture Because as Bellarmin Bellarm. lib. 2. de verbo Dei c. 4. saith truly Catholique rusticks and woemen though they vnderstand not the sentences of Scripture yet they vnderstand the misteries of our redemption and can reason of them yea better then many Protestants who dayly read Scripture But saith Bel why are not al permitted Bel p. 115. to read Scripture if al can vnderstand therein the misteries of our redemption And like to one that hath no thing to doe proueth a needles matter that the knowledge of the misteries of our redemption is necessary and sufficient to saluation though in the next page before he noted that al things Contradict 18. conteined in the written worde which no 18. doubt are more then the misteries of our redemption â—re necessary for al people But omitting Bels contradiction To his argument out of Bellarmin I answer that Bellarmin affirmeth not as Bel imposeth vntruth 87 That al can vnderstand the misteries in the Scripture but rather the contrary when he saith That many vnderstand not the sentences of Scripture And though al could vnderstand the misteries in Scriptures yet al were not to be permitted to read them because al haue not as S. Paul writeth their senses exercised Hebr. 5. v. 14. 1. Cor. 2. v. 5. 1. Cor. 3. v. 1. Rom. 12. v. 3. 1. Cor. 3. v. 2. Hebr. 5. v. 12. to the discerning of good and euil al are not perfect to haue wisdome spoken amongst them al are not to be instructed as spiritual but some as carnal Al wil not be wise to sobriety but some more wise then behooueth them Rom. 12. v. 3. Finally al are not capable of solid meat but some of mikle only CHAP. VIII Of the translation of Scripture into vulgar tongues IT is not expedient to haue or vse commonly Scripture not to be vsed commonly in vulgar tongues Scriptures in vulgar languages This is against Bel p. 106. but it followeth of that which hath bene proued in the former Chapter For if it be not expedient
imputed to vs which S. Austin saith he meant S. Augustin lib. 1. retract c. 19. tom 1. when he wrote Then are al the commaundements reputed as done vvhen vvhatsoeuer is not done is forgiuen 9. But this is easily refuted For S. Iohn spake in respect of vs assisted by Gods grace when he said This is the law of God that we keepe his commaundements and his commaundements are not heauie He saith not Christ but we must keepe Gods commaundements to animate vs thereto he addeth that they are not heauy vz. to vs. And cap 2. v. 2. he giueth vs a signe to try if wee know God vz. if we keepe his commaundements Bel either keepeth Gods commaundements or knovveth not God and v. 3. affirmeth that who keepeth not his coÌ„maundements knoweth not God wherfore either Bel keepeth the coÌ„mandements or he knoweth not God Likewise Christ meant his yoake was sweete and his burthen light to vs. For immediatly before he Cap. 11. v. 29. said Take vp my yoake vpon you learne c. and you shal finde rest to your soules For my yoake is sweet and burthen light To whom meaneth he it is light but to vs whom he biddeth take it vp and whom he promiseth shal finde rest by it or what reason had it bene for Christ to exhorte vs to take vp his yoake and tel vs we should finde rest by it because it is sweet to himselfe As for S. Austin he said our defectuous keeping S. Augustin sup to 1. is counted a ful 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 keepe not the commaundements ad vnum apicem as he saith to the last ioat or title But through venial sinnes haue need to say Forgiue vs our trespasses which venial trespasses being pardoned we are accounted to doe al Gods commaundements 10. An other answer Bel putteth in the pag. 152. margent and in latine That Christ meaneth not of the yoake and burthen of the law when he calleth it sweet and easy but of the Ghospel That Christ meant of the law of the Ghospel I graunt with S. Hierom S. Hierom. dialog 2. contr Pelag and is proued out of these wordes my yoake my burthen But what is this to the purpose Is Bel become a libertine thincking as his father Luther did that the tenne commaundements Luther belong not to Christians or that the Ghospel commaundeth only faith Did Math. 5. v. 19. Christ come to dissolue the law of nature and to exempt vs from al law but of belieuing in him If Bel be of this minde let him vtter it plainly and say Christ came not to fulfil the law but to dissolue it that his Rom. 3. v. 31. faith establisheth not the law but destroieth it Or if he thinke that the law of the ghospel Besides the precepts of faith includeth at least the law of nature let him confesse that the tenne commaundements and al that God bindeth vs vnto is not only possible but easy and sweet vz. to such as Psalm 118. v. 32. Omnia facilia sunt charitati cui vni Christi sarcina leuis est Aug. donat grat c. 69. to 7. see the place S. Iohn loue God as was Dauid when he said I haue runne the way of thy coÌ„maundements when thou didst dilate my hart And hovv sweet are thy speeches to my iawes aboue hony to my mouth The law of thie mouth is good to mee aboue thowsands of golde and siluer For as S Iohn saith 1. c. 5. v. 3. this is the loue of God that wee keepe his commaundements If Bel say that it is impossible to loue God as we ought to doe This is reproued because he loueth God as he should doe who loueth him withal his hart al his Deuter. 6. v. 5. soule and power But Iosue so loued God of whome it is written 4. Reg. 23. That he 4. Reg. 23. returned in al his harte in al his soule and al his strength Likewise Dauid sought God Dauid in al his hart Psalm 118. and followed him in al his harte 3. Reg. 14. And God hath vers 8. some seruants that walke before him in al their hart with whome he keepeth his couenant and mercy 2. Paralip 6. v. 14. And Deuter. 30. v. 6. God promiseth to circumcise the Iewes harts that they might loue him in al their harts and al their soule And thus much for proofe out of scripture now let vs goe to the Fathers CHAP. II. The possibility of keeping Gods commaundements proued out of Fathers and reason MANY holy Fathers I might alleadge for this verity but I wil content my selfe with two only whome Bel obiecteth against him selfe and vndertaketh to answer S. Hierom. See S. Hierom in cap. 5. Mathei S. Hierom dialog 1. contr Pelag. we confesse saith he God hath giuen possible commaundements lest he should be author of iniustce Beholde our conclusion both affirmed and proued And Dialog 2. I say a man may be without vice which in greeke is called cacia but not anamartyton that is without sinne which is as much as if he had said He can be without mortal but not without venial sinne Againe God hath not commaunded impossible things but hath ascended vp to such height of patience as for their great difficulty he may seeme to haue commaunded almost impossible things Againe we curse their blasphemie who saie That God hath commaunded to man any impossible thing This Bel alleadgeth out of his 3. fourth booke pag. 153. against Pelagians whereas he wrote but one epistle and three bookes or Dialogues against Pelagians But it is in his epistle to Damasus de exposit fidei And therein S. pag. 149. S. Austin See S. Austin in Psal 56. tom 8. vvhere he saith the Apostles did that charity then the vvhich none can be greater Hierom curseth this blasphemy of Bel God hath giuen vs those commaundements which we can not possibly keepe Likewise S. Austin ser 61. de temp God could not commaund any impossible thinge because he is iust The same he repeateth lib. de natur grat cap. 69. and lib. 2 de pen. mer. remiss and in psal 56. I can not doubt saith he that God hath neither commaunded any impossible thinge to man nor that any thinge is impossible to God to helpe wherby it may be â—one which he commaundeth 2. For auoiding these authorities Bel deuiseth three shiftes First that Gods commaundements were possible to vs before Adams fal Secondly that they were possible to Christ whose keeping them is accounted ours Thirdly that euen to vs they are now possible to be kept imperfectly though not perfectly which is saith he the doctrine of Aquinas yet seeing that S. Thom. 2. 2. quaest 44. art 6. vntruth none of these shiftes would serue he falleth to proue that we may be