God and men which I think none but a madde man wil graunt And I doubt not but Bel would think him self vniustly executed if he were put to death for a thing done against his wil and which he labored al he could to hinder 10. The Assumption I proue because if If Concupiscence be not some tymes inuoluntary nothing is inuoluntary that be not inuoluntary wherof we giue no occasion nor consent vnto yea detest and hinder al we can as it hapneth oftentymes in the motions of Concupiscence I can not see what can be inuoluntary vnto vs. And if they be Papists as Bel tearmeth them pag. 51. who cal such acts of Concupiscence S. Paul S Augustin serm 43. de verb. Dom. See serm 3. 5. and 12. de verb. Apost Bel a Papist by his ovvn iudgment inuoluntary A Papist is S. Paul saying Rom. 7. v. 19. I do the euil which I vvil not And S. Austin when he saith I vvil not that Cōcupiscence couet we wold ther were no Cōcupiscences but wil we nil we we haue them Yea Bel him self no les then they thrice in this Article pag. 50. 51. and 57. in plaine termes calleth these motions inuoluntary 11. But to this argument he answereth Bel pag. 51. That they be voluntary in their origin and therto citeth S. Austin affirming original sinne of S. Austin 1. retract c. 13. tom 1. infants to be voluntary in their origin and calleth this the Gordion knot which Papists can neuer vntie and so clear and euident a solution of the argument as euery child may behold the weaknes falshood and absurditie therof But Bel is ignorant VVhat is to be voluntary in the origen what it is to be voluntary in the origen For this is nothing els but to be willed of him from whom we took our origin and whose wil is accounted ours As original sinne is voluntary to infants in their origin because it was willed of Adam in the eating of the forbidden Aple and his wil was in that fact accounted theirs And this ment S. Austin loc cit But as for actual motions 1. Retract c. 13. to 1. of concupiscence he neuer said they were voluntaty to vs in their origin nether can VVhy inuoluntary motions are not voluntary in their origen S. Gregory they both because Adam had no wil of cōmitting these acts as he had of leesing original iustice in eating the Aple as also because his wil was not accounted ours in any other act then in his keeping or first leesing of original iustice Besides as S. Gregory writeth l. 15. moral c. 22. Original sinne being blotted out children are not held by the iniquity of parents and therfore Adams wil can not make those acts in the regenerate to be sinne which of their nature are none 12. And though the forsaid motiōs were Inuoluntary motions though they vvere voluntary in their origen could be no sinne voluntary in their origen yet could they be nether original nor actual sinne Not original because they are acts and not common alike to al Nor actual because they haue no actual wil of the doer and as voluntary in general is essential to sinne in general so is actual voluntary to actual sinne Yea for an act now done to be formal sinne when it is done sufficeth not that it was actually voluntary in the cause done long ago if now it be against wil. For albeit when I gaue cause of an vnlawful effect which I did see wold after ensue I was guilty of the effect when I did the cause yet if after the cause done I repent be sory before the effect follow I do not sinne a new in the effect As if by some thing yesterday done I gaue occasiō that disordinate motiōs rise to day though I was then guilty of these motions rising yet if I since repented I do not sinne a new when they rise now against my wil. Els I should against my wil leese that grace which I got by repentance Wherfore wel wrote S. Gregory to S. Austin our Apostle S. Gregory epist ad Augustin Cant. c. 10. Oftentymes it is done without fault which cōmeth of fault And much les should inuoluntary motions be sinnes in vs though they were originally voluntary vnto vs only by the wil of an other Thus is this Gordion knot two waies vntyed But him selfe hath with his tong tyed so fast a knot for proofe Bel disproueth him selfe of my conclusion as with his teeth he wil not be able to loose For pag. 48. he affirmeth S. Paul to haue bene most free and innocent 12. Contradict touching actual sinne and he proueth it because he fought mightily against his raging concupiscence and did in no wise yeeld therunto which is both to confesse that S Paul had inuoluntary motions of the flesh which him selfe acknowledgeth Rom. 7. v. 15 17. 19. 23. yet to proue them to be no sinne in him because they were inuoluntary which is both my conclusion and reason 13. As for S. Austin he is so far from S. Augustin 10. 2. See S. Austin lib. 2 cont Iul. c. 3. 10. l. 5. c. 3. 15. thinking that we sinne by inuoluntary motions of the flesh as he saith epist 200. ad Asellicum That if we consent not to them we need not say Forgiue vs our trespasses which he repeateth againe l. de spit lit c. vlt. adding Tom. 3. that if we cōsented not to these act◠we should disproue that saying of S. Ihon If vve say vve haue no sinne vve deceaue our selfs and proueth it l. 1. de ciuit c. 15. thus If concupiscential disobedience Tom. 5. be vvithout fault in the body of one sleeping hovv much more in the body of one not consenting And l. 1. de nupt concupis c. 23. explicateth how it is called sinne vz as vvriting is called a hand or cold sluggish vvhich is figuratiuely improperly Nay he not only excuseth vs from sinne when we consent not vnto inuoluntary motions of the flesh but auoucheth that then we do much good a great Merit in resisting Concupiscence according to S Austin Tom. 7. Tom. 10. matter for vvhich vve shal be crovvned lib. 1. de nupt concupisc c. 29. He doth much good vvho doth that vvhich is vvritten Follovv not thy lusts And serm 5. de verb. Apost c. 6. It is a great matter for me not to be ouercome of concupiscence and cap. 9. who consenteth not doth much it is a great matter he doth And lib. 2. de Gen. cont Manich. c. 14. Somtyme reason Tom. 1. doth manfully refraine and bridle Concupiscence euen stirred vp vvhich vvhen it is done vve fal not into sinne mark Bel but vvith some striuing are crovvned Wherfore if they be Papists as Bel Contradict 13. saith pag. 46. and 49. who say we merit when we resist Concupiscence surely S. Austin is one Yea Bel himself if he account it
calleth it iniquity and lib. 1. de nupt concupisc cap. 27. filthy and vnlavvful Hence Bel pag. 53. inferreth inuoluntary More required to formal sinne then to euil concupiscence to be formal and proper sinne but he is far deceaued For formal sinne beside euil and vnlawfulnes requiteth voluntarines as I shal hereafter proue and is euident in fooles and beasts who though they haue these inuoluntary acts are no formal sinners 5. Fourth Conclusion whensoeuer it is any way voluntary ether in it self or in any needles cause therof it is formally sinne This is euident because then it hath the whole essence or definition of sinne for it is a voluntary act against Gods law or right reason I say needles cause because if the cause be necessary or honest it excuseth the actual concupiscence following therof from fault 6. Fift Conclusion Habitual and actual Al Concupiscence may be called sinne vvhy Concupiscence whatsoeuer euen in the regenerate may be called sinne This is manifest out of that which hath bene said in the 2 and ◠conclusion For ether it is voluntary and then it is formal sinne properly so called or though it be vn voluntary it is the cause effect punishment or material part of sinne and any of these reasons suffice to make it figuratiuely be called sinne And they al are taken out of S. Austin For 1. de nupt concup c. 23. he saith Concupiscence may be called sinne because it is the effect of sinne as writing is called a hand And in the same place because it is the cause of sinne as coldnes is called sluggish because it maketh sluggish Likwise 1. Retract c. 15. he calleth it sinne because it is the punishment therof So Zachar vlt. v. 19. punishment of sinne is called sinne And finally lib. 5. cont Iulian. c. 3. he calleth actual concupiscence sinne because it is a disorderly act and it wanteth nothing of sinne but voluntarines and therfore may as wel be called sinne as a dead body is called a man And who wel remembreth what is said in these fiue Conclusions need no more to answer al Bels arguments For as we shal see he proueth no more then they containe 7. Sixt Conclusion Actual concupiscence Actual Cōcupiscence if inuoluntary is no formal sinne whensoeuer it is inuoluntary is no formal or proper sinne or offence to God This is against Bel in this whole Article But I proue it First because some acts of Concupiscence be but temptatiōs to sinne and are before sinne be brought forth Ergo such are no formal sinne The consequence is euident For what is but tentation to sinne and goeth before sinne be is no proper sinne The Antecedent I proue out of S. Iames saying Euery one is tempted by his Concupiscence S. Iames c. 1. v. 14. 15. See S. Austin lib. 6. cont Iul. cap. 15. to 7. behold an act but a tempting of vs to sinne aftervvard vvhen concupiscence hath conceaued it bringeth forth sinne behold also an act of Concupiscence going before sinne be brought forth Willet saith nothing to VVillet controuers 17. q. 1. p. 558. the first part of tentation but to the second of bringing forth he answereth That it follovveth not Concupiscence to be no sinne because it bringeeh forth sinne because one viper may bring forth an other But we infer not Concupiscence to be no sinne because it bringeth forth sinne for we wel know that one sinne may bring forth an other but we gather that that act of Cōcupiscence which S. Iames tearmeth conceauing of sinne is no sinne because he affirmeth it to go before the bringing forth of sinne in saying Aftervvard vvhen Concupiscence hath conceaued it bringeth forth sinne and this could not be if it were sinne it self Caluin answereth this Caluin lib. 3. instit c. 3. paragr 13. Bellarm. l. 5. de amiss grat stat peccat c. 7. argument otherwaies whom Bellarmin confureth 8. Secondly because whiles a man with the minde serueth the law of God he can not by sinne serue the dyuel But S. Paul euen when he had inuoluntary motions of concupiscence serued with the minde the law of God Therfore then he sinned not The Proposition is euident by the saying S. Math. 6. v. 24. S. Paul of Christ None can at once serue tvvo maisters The assumption S. Paul testifieth Roman 7. v. 25. saying I my self vvith the minde serue the lavv of God but vvith the flesh the lavv of sinne 9. Thirdly nothing inuoluntary or done against our wil is sinne diuers acts of Concupiscence be such Ergo no sinne Bel Bel pag. 50. Perkins refor Cath. tit Of original sinne wold gladly as some of his fellowes do deny the proposition and therfore streight after he had propounded the argument telleth vs though falsly that S. Austin proueth inuoluntary motions to be sinne indeed and towards the end of this Article auoucheth a man to be guilty of sinne in that pag. 57. vvhich he doth against his vvil and can not auoid yet at last resolueth rather to deny the Assumption pag. 51. wherfore I proue them both The proposition I proue out of that very place of S. Austin which Bel citeth to the S. Augustin to 1. contrary Sin saith he 1. Retract c. 13. is so far forth voluntary euil as it is no vvay sinne if it be not voluntary And this saith he lib. de vera relig c. 14. is so manifest as nether the fevvnes of learned no◠the multitude of vnlearned doth deny it And wil Bel now deny that which in S. Austins tyme nether learned nor vnlearned would deny Now let the 46. vntruth Reader iudge with what face Bel affirmed that S. Austin in the foresaid place 1. Retract proueth inuoluntary Concupiscence to be sinne where he most manifestly affirmeth nothing to be any way sinne if it be not voluntary and therupon laboreth to shew original sinne in infants to be some way voluntary And in an other place he S. Augustin lib. de duab animab c. 1◠tom 6. 1. Retract c. 23. to 1. S. Hierom. auoucheth it to be high iniustice and madnes that a man shold be guilty of sinne because he did not that which he could not do And S. Hierom. epist ad Damas de exposit fid Accurseth their blasphemy vvho say that God hath commanded any impossible thing as no doubt he hath if we sinne in that which we can not auoid See him dialog cont Pelag. S. Chrisostom S. Chrysost tom 4. S. Prosper S. Augustin tom 10. Tom. 7. hom 13 ad Rom. Prosper de vita contempl c. 4. S. Austin serm 61. de temp de nat grat c. 69. in psal 56. and others By reason also it is manifest For if inuoluntary acts done against our wil be true sins much more the acts of fooles and mad men yea of beasts which are not done against wil but only without wil and they true malefactors and sinners before
in no wise consented vnto it which is in plaine tearms to confesse that inuoluntary motions of the flesh are no sinne because they are not voluntary O force of truth which breakest out of thy professed aduersaries mouth Surely Protestants may haue great ioy of such a challenger And no maruel if he be desirous of an aduersary to fight withal who for want of one falleth thus to fight with him self and maketh his aduersaries sport to laugh moueth his friends to compassion and shame But let vs see more of his pastime 9. S. Paul had not known lust to be sinne except Bel pag. 49. Rom. 7. v. 7. the law had said Thou shalt not lust But he could not be ignorant that Concupiscence with consent was sinne seeing the very heathens did know and confesse it Againe voluntary lust is forbidden Math. 5. v. 22. in the sixt seuenth and eighth cōmandement as Christ him selfe expoundeth them Therfore the tenth forbiddeth the very habitual desire and inclination and fruits therof though not consented vnto Ansvver S. Paul was so far from knowing by the law that natural inclination to sinne is formal sinne as nether he nor any man of iudgment could imagine it til Bel See S. Austin serm 4. de verb. Apost c. 4. 5. to 10. with a new kinde of philosophy taught vs that habits are acts and inclinations actiōs But to the argument I deny the assumption For he might be ignorant that lust which Concupiscence indirectly voluntary knovvne of S Paul by the lavv to be sinne is only indirectly voluntary and in the cause because it is not preuented is sinne and this he might know by the law nether can Bel shew that euer any heathen knew this Yea he might be ignorant that Concupiscence directly voluntary when it is not put in execution is true sinne learne this by the law For if Iosephus and Kimhi Iosephus l. 12. Antiquit. c. 12. Kimhi in psal 66. though they had the law and were great Rabbins in it yet thought such concupiscence no sinne and Iosephus reprehended Polybius for condemning it as a sinne why might not the Apostle haue bene ignorant of this if the law had not taught it him Neither doth Bels reason cōuince the contrary For though some Heathen by great study in moral philosophy came to know this truth yet perhaps S. Paul could not or rather as he saieth did not And Bel as we shal see hereafter citeth a place out of S. Ambros where he writeth that the Apostle S. Ambros in cap. 7. ad Rom. thought Concupiscence no sinne because it delighted and seemed a harmles thing to couet yet better it is to say as I haue already that S. Paul meaneth that by the law he came to know al voluntary concupiscence though it be but indirectly voluntary to be sinne and this nether he nor any Heathen could haue known but by the law or by Gods reuelation 10. Bels second reason maketh against him self For if inuoluntary motions be as true sinnes as voluntary why are not they forbidden as wel in the sixt seuenth and eighth cōmandement as these And albeit voluntary motions were implicitly forbidden when the external acts were prohibited yet it was necessary to forbid them expresly in the last commandement for to inculcat it into the hard hartes of the Iewes nether yet with this expresse forbiddance wold some of them beleeue voluntary concupiscence without the fact to be sinne as appeareth by the example of Iosephus Kimhi and diuers Iewes Math. 5. v. 29. After this Bel alleadgeth a place of S. Austin wher he calleth desires of Concupiscence il filthy and not lawful which haue bene explicated before and are verifyed of Chapt. 1. parag 2. 3. inuoluntary Concupiscence because it is materially sinne wanting nothing to be Chapt. 1. parag 2. 3. formally so but voluntarines which Bel here goeth about to proue that they want Chapt. 1. parag 11. not but his proofe hath bene refuted before 11. After the said ptoofe he auoucheth Bel pag. 51. Bellarmin to confesse that S. Austin acknowledgeth Bellarm. lib. 5. de amiss grat stat pec c. 10. vntruth euen inuoluntary motions to be properly sinne and flatly condemned by the tenth Commandement and in the margent biddeth vs see S. Austin lib. de spirit lit c. vlt. because Bellarm in writeth that S. Austin teacheth al kind of motions of Concupiscence to be aliquo modo in some sort prohibited by that lavv Thou shalt not couet Wheras Bellarmin professeth That S. Austin not only Bellar. sup c. 8. no where in plaine words saith al Concupiscence is properly sinne but also affirmeth the contrary in al the tomes of his works and in the words cited by Bel is so far from saying that S. Austin thinketh al motions to be flatly condemned as he wold not absolutly say they were condemned but only with this limitation in some sort vz as far as they lye in our powre which limitation though Bel without proofe cal deceitful and contrary to S. Austins meaning yet haue we before shewed Sup. parag 6. it out of S. Austin to be his true meaning And I wold Bel had seene that place of S. Austin to which he sendeth vs for there should he haue heard S. Austin teaching him that inuoluntary Concupiscence is so far from sinne as if we consent not to it we need not say in our lords prayer Forgiue vs our trespasses And thus much of his proofs out of S. Austin CHAP. IIII. Bels arguments out of S. Ambros S. Bede S. Thomas touching Concupiscence ansvvered AFTER his proofs out of S. Austin Bel pag. 52. Bel very methodically forsooth returneth to Scripture citing a sentence of S. Ihon in greek pas ho poion hamartian cai ten ano mian poiei cai he hamartia estin anomia and translateth it thus Euery one that sinneth transgresseth the lavv and sinne is the transgression of the law This place he citeth againe art 6. to proue al sinne of it selfe to be mortal and for that purpose it hath some shew of Be◠forgetteth his matter proofe but how it proueth al kind of Concupiscence to be proper sinne passeth my intelligence For suppose that al sinne were transgression of the law which he laboreth much to proue wil neuer performe what is this to proue That al Concupiscence is sinne And lest of al it concerneth habitual cōcupiscence For S. Ihon speaketh only of actual sinne as appeareth by those words poiei amartian poiei anomian committeth sinne committeth iniquity And yet spendeth he fowre leaues in nothing but in prouing anomia to signify transgression of the law and euery sinne to be transgression of the law saith that Papists are put to a non plus about the pag. 58. doctrin of concupiscence in the regenerate for both anomia and adicia is truly and fitly tearmed iniquity But what shal a man say to such vanity Be
together whereby the indifferent Reader may by Bels euil and corrupt dealing in the very beginning of his chalenge take a taste of the rest of his proceedings for as Tertullian saith well vvhat truth doe they Tertull. l. do praescript defend vvho begin it vvith lyes 3. I demand therfore of Bel who they are whome he chalengeth to whome he speaketh and whome he vnderstandeth by You Papists Surely I suppose he writeth in English to none but such as vnderstand English whome in his preface he termeth English Iesuyts Seminary Priests Iesuyted Papists Yf these Maister Bel be they whome ye meane I tel you in their name that as your propositioÌ„ hath two parts viz. the Popes Superiority ouer al Princes and of his power to depose them so it conteineth three to vse your owne tearme flatte leasinges For though concerning Christians they beleeue the Pope to be spiritually superiour aboue al whatsoeuer accordinge to Christs words spoken to the first Pope S. Peter Matth. 16. viz. Thou art Peter and vpon this rocke vvil I buylde my Church and Io. 21. v. 17. Feede my sheepe which sheepe conteine and include as wel Christian Princes and potentates as subiects and vnderlings And concerning infidels they also beleeue that the Pope ought to be spiritually aboue them and they vnder him in that they be bound to be Christians neuerthelesse vntil these be Christened he is not actually their superiour vntil they be made members of Christs Church he is not de facto their head vntil they be in Christs fould he is not their sheape hearde For as Bellarmin writeth Bellarm. lib. 5. de Rom. Pont. c. 7. Bel p. 29. 125. whose testimonie saith Bel is most sufficient in al Popisshe affaires Christ vvas aboue as vvel infidels as faithful But to S. Peter he committed onely his sheepe that is the faithful Wherefore S. Paul as not acknowledging that he had any superiority or iurisdiction ouer infidels said vvhat belongeth it to me to iudge of them that are vvithout 1. Cor. 5. And although the Pope may preach him selfe or send others to preache to infidels without their licence yet this argueth no more but that the commission which he hath from God to preach the Ghospel vnto al nations is independent of the infidels and that they ought to be vnder his iurisdictioÌ„ Wherefore vntil Bel doe prooue that there are no powers or poteÌ„â—ates on earth which are infidels I must needs tel him that he vntruly auoucheth vs to say that the Pope is spiritually aboue al powers and potentates on earth 4. And much lesse did we euer tel you that the Pope hath temporal superiority ouer al Princes on earth but teach the quite contrary with VValden Bellarmin and VValden tom 1. lib. 2. art 3. c. 78. Bellarm. lib. 5. de Rom. Pont. c. 4. Gelas 1. de vincul Anathematis Nicol. 1. de 96. Can. cum ad verum others For as two most auncient Popes Gelasius 1. and Nicolaus 1. taught vs the Pope by his Pontifical dignity chalengeth neither royal soueraignity nor imperial name But what royalties he hath either in the Popedome or els where he chalengeth by the guift of Christian Princes whereof Some as your selfe confesse haue yeelded Pag. 17. vp their soueraigne rights vnto him And what superiority we thinke him to haue ouer Christian Princes he should haue though he were not Lord of one foote of land but as poore as he that said Math. 19. v. 27 Behould vve haue forsaken al. For his S. Mathevv Papal superiority and authority is not temporal or of this world nor the weapones of his warfare carnal but as S. Paul speaketh S. Paul 2. Cor. 10. mighty to God vnto the distruction of munitious destroying Counsels and al loftines extolling it selfe against the knowledge of God and hauing in readines to reuenge al disobedience Wherupon P. Innocent Cap. per venerab extra qui filij suâ—â— legitimi 3. professeth that the Pope hath ful power in temporal matters only in the Popedome and that Kings acknowledge no superior in temporal affaires And this also teach S. Ambros de Apol. Dauid c. 4. 10 Gloss S. Ambros tom 4. Lyra in psalm 50. and others By which it appeareth how much he is abused who is made to beleue That the Pope present challengeth an imperial ciuil power ouer Kings Emperors or that English Papists do attribute vnto him any such power For neither doth Paulus 5. challeng more authority then Innocent 3 did not English Papists attribute vnto him other authority ouer Kings then spiritual But do with tong and hart and with the Popes good liking professe That our Souereigne Lord King Iames hath no superior on earth in temporal matters If Bel reply that some Canonists haue affirmed the Pope to be temporal Lord ouer the world let him challeng them not like a wise man strike his next sellows the English Papists who mantayne no such opinion 5. The second parte of his Proposition touching the Popes deposition of Princes pag. 1. 4. 17. at his pleasure though he repeat it thrise is most vntrue For no Catholiques English or strangers teach that the Pope can depose Princes but for iust causes yea ordinarily saith Bellarmin not for iust causes but when Bellarm. lib. 5. de Rom. Pontif. c. 6. it is necessary for the sauing of souls And surely otherwise Princes shold be but his tenants at wil and he haue more power ouer them then they haue ouer their subiects which is far from al Catholiques imaginations let vs see therfore how Bel proueth vs to teach Bel p. 1. this doctrin 6. Because saith he Bellarmin setteth it downe Bellarm. de Rom. Pontif lib. 5. c. 7. in these words If therfore any Prince of a sheep or a ram become a wolfe that is to say of a Christian be made an heretike then the Pastor of the Church 4. vntruth may driue him away ly excommunication and withal command the people not to obey him and therfore depriue him of his dominion ouer his subiects Behold good Reader the forsaid vntruthes proued with an other Because Bellarmin calleth the Pope Pastor of the Church Bel auoucheth him to think the Pope to be aboue al Princes Potentates on earth as if there were no Princes infidels or out of the Church and because he teacheth that the Pope may excommunicate and depose Princes for Heresy that he may depose them at his pleasure as if matters of Heresy which is one of the greatest sinns that is were the Popes pleasure An indifferent reader would rather haue inferred that because the Pope is Pastor of the Church he is not aboue any infidel Prince or subiect which Bellarmin teacheth in Bellarmin expresse words in the same booke c. 2. c. 4. And because he can not excoÌ„municate so neither depose Princes for his pleasure which Bellarmin euery where supposeth yea in the same book c. 6.
affirmeth ptoueth that we do not what we wil not And the A man rather doth not then doth vvhat his vvil doth not See S. Thomas 1. 2. q. 74. art 3. ad 3. reason is euident For as the commonwelth is principally the Prince Pieres and Magistrats which gouerne the rest so a man is principally his wil which commandeth the rest And therfore as the cōmonwealth doth not that which they do not though some of the commonalty do it so a man doth not what his wil doth not though some of his inferior powres do it If therfore S. Paul did but improperly say he doth what he wil not Bel can therof inferre but improper sinne Besides though it were a proper speech therof can be inferred no proper sinne for want of voluntarines And here by the way Bel straweth his Bel pag. 43. flowers of leasing saying That the cause why S. Austin epist 105. vvrote that God crovvned 52. vntruth nothing but his ovvne gifts vvhen he crovvneth our merits is because the regenerate by inuoluntary asts of Concupiscence sinne and become guilty of damnation For nether doth S. Austin speake there of inuoluntary acts nether any where S. August 2. de Cenes contr Manich c. 14. tom 1. doth he say they exclude merit or deserue damnation yea plainly auoucheth that vve are crovvned vvhen vve haue them against our vvil And the true cause of his speech shal be giuen in the next Article of merit and his very words conuince that our merits are no sinnes and much les deserue damnation VVhy merits are no sinne out of S. Austin for he calleth them Gods owne gifts and saith he crowneth them but God nether giueth nor crowneth sinne 5. Fourthly Bel alleadged the Apostle pag. 43. Cap. 1. parag 3. 4. 6. 13. 18. calling Concupiscence sinne Rom. 7. v. 14. and 20. But this we answered before Bel replyeth that it wil not suffice to say with Bellarmin 53. vntruth that it is called sinne only because it prouoketh to sinne as a mans vvriting is called his hand because 54. vntruth it is vvritten vvith his hand Here be two vntruths fathered vpon Bellarmin For nether doth he say Concupiscence is called sinne only because it prouoketh to sinne yea lib. 5. de amiss grat stat pec c. 8. he Bellarm. giueth an other reason out of S. Austin because it is the effect of sinne Nether doth he say that it may be called sinne because it prouoketh to sinne as writing is called a hand because it is made by a hand for so it is a cause and writing an effect but as cold is called sluggish because it maketh sluggards But let vs hear why S. Paul may not be vnderstood of improper sinne First because Bel pag. 43. the Maister of Sentences graunted Concupiscence to be sinne This is twise sod colworts set again before his reader for want of other meat but reiected before Secondly because it maketh a man to serue the lavv of sinne vvhich Sup. parag 1. seruice can neuer be but sinne Here the question it self is begged For the question it self is Bel assumeth vvhat he vvas to proue and yet concludeth nothing whither the seruice to the law of sinne done by the flesh not by the mynd as S. Paul speaketh Rom. 7. vers 23. be proper sinne or no and that Bel beggeth of vs to graunt But he must win it ere he get it And though we did graūt it to him yet could he no more infer therof that habitual Concupiscence which causeth it is sinne then he can infer the powre of our wil which is a gift of God to be sinne when it causeth sinne Thirdly saith Bel because the euil vvherof S. Paul speaketh he hateth and vvil not Bel hath wold not do it which must needs be meant of sinne True but of material and improper sinne For such also is to be hated and not to be willed 6. Bel hauing thus sillily proued his heresy Bel pag. 43. 44. out of S. Paul endeuoreth to proue it out of our doctrin thus Al reprobataes are reprobated both negatiuely and positiuely for original sinne Ergo Concupiscence is sinne euen after baptisme The Antecedent saith he is a maine vntruth 55. point and settled ground of Papists religion and he vvillingly graunteth it The consequence he proueth because some reprobates are baptized Answer First I deny the Antecedent For 1. Ansvver nether doth any Catholique affirme it to be any point at al of Popish faith much lesse a maine point or ground therof nether though some beleeue it as a school opinion is it true because original sinne being as truly forgiuen in baptisme to many reprobates as it is to predestinates they can be no more positiuely sent to hel for it then predestinates For as S. Paul saith Rom. 11. S. Paul v. 29. Gods gifts are vvithout repentance so that what sinne he truly forgiueth he neuer afterward punisheth in hel wherfore S Prosper S. Prosper in resp ad obiect 2. Gallor writeth that vvho goeth from Christ and endeth this life out of grace vvhat goeth he but into perdition yet he falleth not againe into that vvhich is forgiuen nor shal be damned in original sinne Only as al sinns are sayd to returne by Hovv reprobats may be sayd to be reprobated for original sinne ingratitude according to the parable of the vngrateful seruant Math. 18. because a sinne after others haue bene pardoned becometh greater by the ingratitude then otherwise it were so original sinne pardoned to some reprobats in baptisme may be said to returne to them through their ingratitude in sinning after the said pardon and they being positiuely damned for such sinne may in some sort be said to be positiuely damned for original sinne Secōdly though 2. Ansvver the Antecedent were true it could not follow therof that Concupiscence in reprobates is formal sinne but only that original sinne is not truly forgiuen in baptisme to any reprobat which though it be false perteineth not to this question For as for habitual Cap. 1. parag 2. 3. Concupiscence it nether before baptisme nor after is formal sinne but before only materially sinne and after only languor and weaknes as is before explicated But how Bel admitting al reprobates to be reprobated positiuely for sinne agreeth with his Maisters Caluin Beza and others Caluin Beza Rom. 9. teaching that they are reprobated for Gods pleasure and that he made them to damne and reprobate them let his breethren in Bel contradicteth his sellovv Ministers Bel pag. 45. the lord enquire Now to his places taken out of S. Austin whom he promiseth to shew to be so plaine for his doctrin as none can stand in doubt therof But who wel remembreth S. Austins words and Caluins Chap. 1. parag 13. 18. confession before cited can neuer stand in doubt but that Bel most braggeth wher he hath lest cause and
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
against the Councels in their tymes al hereticks may except against the Councels of their tymes and so none shal See l. Marciani C. de sum Trinit be condemned as Hereticks no Councel certaine but al things remaine as vncertaine as if there had neuer been any Councel at al which is to take away the end of calling Councels For if they can not make things certaine to what purpose are they gathered Finally Bel can giue no sufficient reason whie general Councels be not as certaine now as euer as shal appeare by the answer to this his obiection 3. He obiecteth that Bellarmin lib. 2. de Concil cap. 11. writeth that is the true decree of the counsel which is made of the greater part But Canus saith lib. 5. de locis Canus cap. 4. q. 2. That voices preuaile not with vs as in humane assemblies Againe these matters of faith are iudged not by number but by waight And the grauity and authority of the Pope is it which giueth waight to Councels Ergo saith Bel there can be no certainty in Bel p. 121. 122. Councels A goodly reason sutely Two Catholique writers agree not whether should be accompted the decree of a councel if the greater number of Bishops should define against the Pope and the lesser number of Bishops Ergo no councel in our dayes is certaine As if nothing were certaine if two Catholiques disagree about it Wil Bel allowe mee to argue soe against Protestants I beleeue I should finde scarce any one pointe of faith certaine amongst them But he should rather hane inferred Bellarmin Canus and al Catholique writers agree that it is the decree of the Councel and certaine truth which the greater part of Bishops defineth and the Pope confirmeth Ergo general councels in our dayes are certaine Namely that of Trent in which the most yea al as appeareth by their subscriptions defyned the Pope confirmed 4. I might omit a friuolcus obiection which he maketh against Bellarmin of contradiction Because Bellarmin saith that Bellarm. lib. 2. de concil c. 18. the assemblie of Bishops in lawful councels is an assembly of Iudges and their decrees lâ—ws necessarily to be followed And yet affirmeth that it is al one for Councels to be reproued by the Pope and Cap. 11. to doe against his sentence For though Bellarmin affirme Bishops to be Iudges and their iudgement to be necessarily followed as law Yet as himselfe explicateth cap. 11. it is not necessarily to be followed antequam accedat sententia Summi Pontificis before it be confirmed by the Pope As the Peeres in parliament are Iudges and their acts necessary to be followed but not before they be confirmed by the Prince who in not confirming them disannulleth them 5. And because Bellarmin writeth that Bellarm. lib. 2. de concil c. 19. one cause whie the Pope was neuer personally in any Councel of the East was least he being then the Emperours temporal subiect should be placed vnder the Emperour Bel inferreth both that the Pope is prowd pag. 122. and that the East Church neuer acknowledged his supremacy But as for pride it is none to honour as S. Paule did his ministery Rom. 11. v. 14. to challendge the place due to his dignity and authority For as S. Gregory a S. Gregor lib. 4. epist 36. ad Eulagium most humble man said Let vs keep humility in mynde and yet conserue the dignity of our order in honour No maruaile then if Popes being head and presidents of Councels where matters of Church and faith are handled and Emperours as S. Gregory Nazianzâ— S. Gregor Nazianz. orat 14. ad sub speaketh but sheep of his flocke and subiect to his power and tribunal did looke to sit there aboue Emperours Yet the great Emperour Theodosius highly commended Theodoret. lib. 5. c. 18. S. Ambrose for putting him out of the Chauncel And in the Nicene Counsel Euseb lib. 3. de vit Constant Constantine that worthie Emperour entred last and after al the Bishops were sett nor did not sit in a great throne beseeming his estate but in a low chaire and that not before he had craued pardon and asked leaue of the Bishops as Theodoret whom Bel Theodoret. lib. 1. c 7. Nicephor l. 1. c. 19. calleth a Saint Nicephorus and others doe testify Albeit the Nouatian hereticke Sozomene who lyeth much as writeth S. Sozome lib. 1. c. 19. â—regor l. 6. epist 31. Nouel 9. C. de summ Trinit lib. vltImo Concil Calced act 1. Athanas apol 2. Socrates lib. 2. cap. 13. Sext. Sinod act 18. Theodoret. lib. 5. c. 9. Euap lib. 1. c. 4. Martian ep ad Leonem Gelas ep ad Episcopum Dordon Concil Nicen epist ad â—â—â—â—est Gregory doe seeme to say that he sate at the toppe of the Councel in a most great throane 6. As for the Easterne churches acknowledging the Popes primacy it is so manifest as Iustinian Emperour of the East writeth No man doubteth but that at Rome is Summi Pontificatus apex the toppe of the priesthood And if more witnesses need in so euident a matter certaine it is that the general councels in the East were called and their decrees confirmed by the Pope And the Councel of Calcedon professeth in plaine tearms that omnis primatus al primacy belonged to the Archbishoppe of Rome the same acknowledge the Grecians in the seauenth synode in the Councels of Lateran Lyons and Florence Likewise some Patriarches Leo epist 59. 60. 61. Conc. Constant ep ad Damas Concil Calced act 16. 7. Sinod act 2. Conc. Lateran 13. c. 15. Concil Florent in lit vnionis Concil Lugdun in 6. tit de election cap. vbi periculum Baron 536. Concil Calced act 3. Gelas ep ad Faustum Sozom. lib. 3. c. 7. Baron Ann. 372. Baron 342. Chrysost epist ad Innocent Ex lit Leon. Valent. ad Theodos Athanas ep ad Felicem Basil ep 52. ad Athan. Chrisost ep ad Innocen Theodoret. epist ad Renatum Gregor l. 7. epist 63. of the East to omit Bishops were by the Popes authority created as Anatholius of Constantinople by Pope Leo epist 53. ad Pulcheriam others deposed as Anthimus of Constant Dioscorus and Timothie of Alexandria and Peeter of Antioche Other being deposed or vexed appealed to Popes as S. Athanasius and Peter of Alexandria S. Paul S. Chrisostom and S. Flauian of Constantinople Paulin of Antioch which euidently proueth the Popes Primacy ouer them Finally to omit the testimony of S. Athanasius S Basil S. Chrisostom Theodoret and other Doctors and saints of the East church both the Emperour and Patriarche of Constantinople did in S. Gregories time as he witnesseth daily professe the church of Constantinople to be vnder the Romane Sea 7. Now to his reason Bellarmin saith The Emperour of the East would haue sate in Councel aboue the Pope Ergo the East church neuer acknowledged his primacy Who seeth not the manifolde weaknes