they challenge the royal right of both swords throughout the Christian world and haue made thereof a flat decree But first I deny that the Pope as Pope challengeth royal right of either sword For his right to the spiritual sword is not royal but of a different nature as is euident shal be declared hereafter and his royal right to the material sword is neither ouer al christendome as Bel vntruelie auoucheth but only ouer the Popedome nor he challendgeth it by his Papacie yea as Pope Gelasius wrote Popes Gelasius de vincul anathematis Nicol. 1. dec 96. can cum ad vetum pag. 17. Bernard lib. 4. de consideratione haue not challendged royal soueraigntie but by the guifte of Princes who as Bel saith haue giuen their rights to them And albeit the decree doe after S. Bernard giue to the Pope right of the material sword yet neither hath it the word royal nor meaneth of Royal right as is euident because it teacheth that this sword is not to be drawne or vsed by the Popes hand as no doubt it might if he had royal right vnto it but by the hand of the souldier at the commaundement of the Emperour and becke of the Pope Whereby we see that the decree attributeth royal right of the material sword only to the Emperour who is to commaund the souldier to draw and vse it and to the Pope only authority to direct the Emperour in his commaund and vse of his sword 23. But suppose that Popes did challenge royal right of both swords throughout the christian world is this to climbe to the highest heauen and to Christes throne doth the christian world reach to the highest heauen or yet to the bounds of the earth doth Christes throne rule no more then the christian worlde or doth royal authority vnder him reach to his throne surelie Bel hath a base conceipt of Christes kingdome if he imagine that Popes or Princes by their authorities reach to his throne who as S. Paul saith is aboue al powers and princedomes Ad Ephes c. 1. v 21. Bel condemneth that in the Pope for blasphemie vvhich he iudgeth treason to deny to Princes thrones and dominations and aboue euerie name which is named either in this world or in the next but marke good reader how Bel condemneth that for horrible blasphemie in the Pope which him selfe accoumpteth as highe treason to deny to other Princes For what is supremacie in both ecclesiastical ciuil causes but as he speaketh royal right of both swords and to deny this to temporal Princes he deemeth no lesse then highe treason 24. Secondlie he proueth his foresaid pag. 14. Dist 22. can omnes slaunder out of Pope Nicholas 1. his words Christ committed to S. Peter the right both of heauenlie and earthlie empire which Bel seemeth to vnderstand of spiritual and temporal power Answer Suppose the words were meant of spiritual temporal power they make nothing for royal right but may be wel expounded according to the meanig of the foresaid decree That S. Peter had from Christ right to both empires vz. to gouerne the one and to direct the other but of royal right there is no word in P Nicholas Nicol. 1. ep ad Michael Imper. yea he prosesseth that Christ distinguished eclesiastical and imperial power by distinct acts and dignities that in spiritual matters the Emperour should need Bishops in temporal Bishops vse Emperourrs But indeed Pope Nicholas meaneth not of temporal power at al but only of spiritual giuen to S. Peter Which he calleth both earthlie and heauenlie dominion because according to our Sauiours Words Math 16. to which he alludeth what he looseth in earth is loosed in heauen 25. I omit a glose cited by Bel because it Glossa F. Câ—lestis only saith that the Pope hath both swords vz in the sense before explicated But what he bringeth out of an obscure appendix of P. Boniface his making a constitution Appendix Fuldeâ—â—s wherein he affimed him selfe to be spiritual and temporal Lorde in the whole worlde is vntrue as is euident by the constitution and words before cited out of it And Pope Clement 5. declared extrauag Clemens 5. meruit Charissimi de priuilegijâ— that Pope Boniface his constitution did nothing preiudice the kingdome of France But what the appendix saith of Boniface his sending to Phillip King of France to haue him acknowledge he helde the kingdome of him may wel be expounded by that Platina writeth Platin. in Bonifac. 8. vz. That Phillip hauing against the law of nations imprisoned a Bishop whom Boniface sent vnto him to perswade him to make ware against Infidels the Pope sent the Archedeacon of Narbo to procure the Bishops libertie and othervvise to denounce that the kingdome of France vvas fallen to the churches disposition for the offence of the Kinge 26. But let vs goe on with Bel. Since this â—el pag. 16. ladder saith he was thus framed Popes haue tiranized aboue measure deposed Kings and Kingdomes and taken vpon them authority pertaining to God alone Omitting Bels straunge phrase of deposing Kingdomes if to depose Kings for neuer so iust cause be to tiranize Protestants haue tiranized far more in the space of 70. years then the Pope hath in these 300. years since that decree was made For in al these 300. yeares besids one or two Kings of Naples who were his liege men I finde deposed by the Hovv many deposed by Popes in 300. years Clemens 5. extrauag ad Certitudinem Pope one Schismatical and heretical Emperour of Greece Andronicus Paleologus and one other doubtful Emperour Ludouick the Bauarian two French Kings Philip 4. and Ludouick 12. and one King of Bemeland George and one King of Nauarre besides King Henry 8. and Queene Elizabeth and these al for heynous crimes whereas Protestants in 70. years setting Hovvmany by Protestants in 70. years aside the iniustice of their quarrel haue as much as laie them deposed one Emperour six or seauen Kings two absolute Queenes slaine two Kings one Queene and one Queenes husband as before hath bene tolde c. 4. paragr 6. 27. And Bel who so much obserueth Sacerdotes nunquam tyranni fuerunt sed tyrannos saepe sunt passi Amb. ep 33. the deposition of Emperours and Kings by the Pope and omitteth both their iniuries to him and his benefits done to them sheweth him selfe to be no indifferent man For omitting almost 33. Popes put to death by heathen Emperours Christian Emperours vid. Platinam in vit Pont. Six Popes murdered Princes and others haue murdered six Popes vz. Felix 2. Iohannes 11. Iohannes 15. Benedictus 6. Clement 2. Victor 3. besides Gregory 2. and diuers other whome they haue attempted to murder They haue banished foure vz. Liberius Sieuerius Vigilius Martin I Foure banished besides many others whom for feare of their liues they droue into banishment they haue imprisoned six vz. Iohannes 1.
the Churches authority S. Austin there saith no word at al. 13. Finally Bel concludeth this Article with an egregious slaunder of the Pope and false dealing with S. Antonin For he auoucheth that P. Martin 5. dispensed with one Bel pag. 40. who had contracted and consummated matrimony with his owne natural and ful sister of the 45. vntruth same father and mother This he proueth out of S Antonin saying That P. Martin dispen Antonin 3. part tit 1. c. 11. sed with one who had contrasted and consummated matrimony cum quadam eius germana Here Bel maketh a ful point and addeth no more But S. Antonin addeth quam cognouerat Fornicarie with a sister of hers with whom he had committed fornication And before the words cited by Bel he saith that seeing affinity is contracted by fornication as by coniugal act he that hath committed fornication with any vvoman can not mary cum filia eius vel germana eius vvith her daughter or her sister And affirmeth that Paludan thinketh the Pope can not dispense in this matter yet saith he Martin 5. dispensed with one who had contracted and consummated cum quadam eius germana quam cognouer at fornicarie with a certain sister of hers with whom he had committed fornication What now more euident then that S. Antonin speaketh not of a man marying his owne sister but his harlots sister wherin though the Pope as he saith made great difficulty yet perhaps Protestants wold make smale or no scruple at al. Behould therfore gentle Reader not the excellency of holy Popery as Bel scornfully exclameth but excellency of wholy ministery which hath as I say said of some made lying Isai c. 28. v. 15. their hope Is this M. Bel your promise pag. 22. of auouching no vntruth vpon any man Is this the sincerity you make shew of pag. 5. and 221 Is this your protestation made in your preface to yeeld if any can conuince Bel bound to recant the 3 tyme you to haue alleadged any writer corruptly quoted any place guilfully or charged any author falsly Let now the Reader be iudge by this your dealing with S. Antonin whether you be not bound to recant the third tyme. Be mindful therfore Bel from whence thou art Apocalip fallen and do penance Apocal. 2. THE FOVRTH ARTICLE OF ORIGINAL CONCVPISCENCE IN THE REGENERATE CHAP. I. The Catholique doctrin touching concupiscence explicated and proued BECAVSE Bel in this Article doth after his accustomed manner proceed confusedly and deceitfully before I answer his obiections I wil particulerly by Conclusions set downe the Catholique doctrin vpon this matter wherby the Reader may clearly see both what Catholiques defend and what Bel ought to impugne Supposing therfore a distinction of Concupiscence which Bel him self vseth pag. 49. into Habitual which is the pronesse and inclination in the inferior portion or powers of our corrupt nature vnto disorderly actions and Actual which is the disordinate Acts them selfs 2. The first conclusion is That habitual coÌ„cupiscence in men not yet regenerat See S. Tho. 2. d. 30. q. 1. art 3. S. Thomas Bellarmin is materially original sinne This teacheth S. Thomas 1. 2. q. 82. ar 3. and Bellarmin l. 5. de amiss grat c. 5. whose testimony I the oftener more willingly vse because Bel accounteth it most sufficient in al Popish affaires Bel p. 125. and the Protestants deny it not and I proue it Because as original iustice did formally consist in the conuersion of the wil to God and did materially connotate the due subiection of the inferior powers So original sinne doth formally coÌ„sist in the auersion of the wil from God materially connotateth the rebellion of the sayd powers And because concupiscence is thus materially original sinne S. Aust somtymes calleth it original sinne and saith it is remitted in baptisme when the guilt of Adams sinne annexed vnto it which maketh Cap. 2. parag 2. it formally sinne is taken from it as herafter shal be shewed 3. Second conclusion Habitual concupiscence euen in the regenerate is euil This teach S. Thomas 3. p q. 15. ar 2. and q. 27. S. Thomas ar 3. Bellarmin l. de grat primi hom c. 7. and l. 5. de amiss grat c. 10. and al Catholiques And the contrary is Pâ—lagianisme as is euident out of S. Austin l. 6. cont Iulian. S. Austin c. 5. l. 5. c. 3. tom 7. and l. 1. de nupt concupis c. 35. And the Conclusion is manifest because Habitual concupiscence includeth Habitual Concupiscence both positiue priuatiue euil not only prones to euil but also difficulty to do good and want of habitual order in the inferior powers and therfore is both positiue and priuatiue euil Hereupon S. Paul Rom. v. 7. 18. calleth concupiscence S. Paul in him selfe not good And v. 21. euil and v. 16. he saith that he hateth it And S. Austin lib. 6. cont Iulian c. 15. said who is so impudent or mad as to graunt sinne to be euil and to deny concupiscence of sinne to be euil And because concupiscence allureth to euil it is somtyme called of the Apostle Sinne lavv of sinne Rom. 7. of Deuines fomes peccati the fomet of sinne and tyrant of S. Austin iniquity S. Austin see him lib. 2. de nupt concup c. 9. S. Ambrose tom 3. serm 12. de verb. Apost c. 5. Vice l. 2. cont Iulian. c. 3. to 7. Vitious and culpable l. de perfec iustit c. 6. S. Ambrose de apolog Dauid c. 13. Root and seminary of sinne And because it causeth difficulty to do good it is otherwhile called of S. Austin l. 6. contr S. Austin tom 7. Iulian. c. 19. 1. Retract c. 15. serm 12. de verb. Apost l. de continent c. 4. others languor sicknes defect infirmity As because it is in our inferior portion it is called of the Apostle Rom. 7. v. 23. lavv of our members and of others lavv of the flesh And finally because it is inflicted vpon vs for Adams sinne S. Austin 1. Retract c. 15. calleth it punishment of sinne and also Sinne because it is the effect therof l. 1. contr duas epist S. Augustin to 7. Pelag. c. 13. and l. de spirit lit c. vltimo tom 3. 4 Third conclusion Actual concupiscence though inuoluntary is euil This teach al Catholiques with Bellarmin loc cit against the Pelagians and it is maniâ—est by S. Paul Rom. 7. v. 19. The euil which I wil not that I do by S. Austin lib. 1. de nupt S. Augustin to 7. Tom. 8. concup c. 27. and 29. and l. 6. cont Iulian. c. 16. l. 5. c. 3. in psal 118. conc 8 and otherwhere often and by the reason which he giueth l. 5. cont Iulian c. 3. because it is a disordinate act contrary to the rule of reason Hereupon men are ashamed of it and S. Austin lib. 2. cont Iulian. c. 5. and lib. 6. c. 19.
downe titles of books which he would after publish whereof the p 78. third is this If the people haue rashly preferred one manifestly wicked or ignoraÌ„tly chosen such a one who afterward sheweth him selfe vnworthy of gouernment ouer Christian people for such are al Idolaters and cruel persecutors the same people may most iustly depose and punish him 5. Finally in England if we had asked England our ministers of what minde they were while the Septer and sword was in Catholique hands Goodman in his booke intituled Goodman c. 9. p. 118. how we ought to obey superior Magistrats telleth vs But if they Prince Magistrats do boldly transgresse Gods lawes and See Couel of Church gouernment cap. 4 p. 35. hovv this doctrin vas Caluins the learne lâ—st Protestants of that tyme. c. 13. p. 180. 181. 184. command the same to others then haue they lost that honor and obedience which otherwise subiects were bound to giue them nor are hereafter to be accounted Magistrats but to be punished as priuat men But who must punish them he answereth the common people If the Prince and al Magistrats do resist Gods law you people haue expresse testimony of Gods vvord for your part and God him selfe wil be your Captaine leader vvho commandeth not only Peers and Magistrats to take euery euil from them selues whither idolatry blasphemy or open iniury but requireth this of the whole multitude to vvhome the svvord of iustice is in part committed VVherfore if al Magistrats together vvil despise iustice and Gods lavves it is your part o coÌ„mon people to defend and conserue them vvith as much violence and strife as you can against Magistrats and al others For this God requireth of you Exod 17. this burden lieth vpon the vvhole people to punish euery idolater vvhatsoeuer none is excepted vvhither Princes must be haÌ„ged according to Goodman King Queene or Emperor And a litle after That fact is recounted number 25 it is a perpetual example for al eternity and a certayne and sure denouncement to the people that in like reuoult from the vvorship of God they do carry to the gallous and hang their gouernors vvho lead them from God 6. And in particular touching Wyats rebellion l. 14 p. 203. he saith None but Papists can accuse VVyat of treason or disobedieÌ„ce it vvas the duty of Protestants duty to rebel according to Goodman VVyat al others that amongst you professe Cbrists Gospel to take in hand that vvarre and they vvere true traytors vvho ether kept not promise to him or ayded not his part O most noble VVyat thou novv liuest vvith God and these noble men vvho dyed vvith thee in that cause Yea noble men and Counsellers Traiters vvho do not rebel according to Goodman did not you condemne your selues as manifest and base minded traytors not only to VVyat but euen to God him selfe O Gospellers is this the loue of Gods vvord you pretend haue you so learned the Gospel 7. And albeit ministers hauing now gotten the Prince on their side do in words coÌ„demne Goodman yet that their minde abhorreth not from this opinion may appeare by the partial vertue and seditions notes to much fauoringe of dangerous and trayterous conceipts Conference p. 47. as of allovving disobedience to Kings and taxing Asa for deposing his mother and not killing her which his Majesty obserued in their English Bybles And thus I hope the Reader seeth that Bel had litle cause to charge Papists alone with deposition of Princes but much better wil he see it if we compare Papists and Protestants opinions herein together 8. Catholiques say Kings may be deposed Knox Good man sup Protestants say they may be deposed and hanged Catholiques say it should be done after due tyme and admonition giuen the Lateran Councel prescribeth a years Lateran â—3 c. 3. de Haerâ— Knox sup respit Proetstants say so soone as they begin to suppresse Christs Gospel Catholikes say it must be done by the Pope the Kings spiritual Pastor and Father who as a Father louingly and as a Prince aduisedly and as a stranger dispassionatly wil proceed in so weighty a matter Protestants say it may Goodman sup be done by coÌ„mon people the Kings owne subiects who as common people rashly and headely and as subiects insolently and passionatly are like to behaue them selues in controuling and correcting their Princeâ— as the lamentable examples herefter touched can testify Besides what Catholiques say of Kings the same they say of the Pope that he may as wel be deposed for heresy or infidelity as Princes and what they say vnder Note this in differency of Catholiques and partiality of Protestants an heretical Prince they defend vnder a Catholique Whereas Protestants change their tune according as the Prince fauoreth or disfauoreth their religion Now let vs see the practise of Protestants CHAP. IIII. The practise of Protestants touching deposition of Princes CONFORMABLE to their doctrin haue bene the practises of Protestants For in Germany vnder pretence of religion Germany first the common people being Protestants Sleidon l. 4. 17. 19. Sur An 1522. 1525. rose against the nobles in which insurrection there were an hundred thousand of the common people slayne many castles and towares spoyled and burnt And soone Sur An 1530. 1534. after the nobles rose against their Emperor gathered an army of eighty thousand foote Apud Sleid. Et sur 1526. ten thousand horse and 130. feeld peces And George Duke of Saxony wrote to Luther that there was neuer more rebellions against Magistrats then through his Gospel Erasmus l. 3. de lib arbit And Erasmus a holy Confessor in Foxes calender giueth this testimony of them Many disciples of Luther are so vnapt to publike quiet as the Turk is said to detest the name of Luthereans for sedition Testimonium hoc verum est 2. In Swiserland Zwinglius togeather Svviserland Sur. An 1531. with Protestantisme sowed sedition and brought his country to three pitcht battels in one moneth and was him selfe slayne in one of them In Denmark Protestantisme Denmark was no sooner settled then the Commons Staphil apol art 3. rose against the nobles the nobles against their King whom they deposed and after Sur. An. 1532. long banishment cast into prison whereas it is reported they poysned him In Sweuland Svveuland Mercur. Gallobelg An. 1603. the Protestants haue lately excluded their natural lawful and crowned Prince the present King of Pole-land and chosen his vncle In Flanders they elected Francis Holland Duke of Alanson for their Prince and haue depriued two of their lawful Princes from a great part of the Low countries made warre against them almost 40. yeares 3. In France Protestants haue rebelled France against three of their natural and anoynted Kings Francis 2 Charles 9. Henry 3. they Genebrard chron Sur. An. 1563. Furores Gallici
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
like aâ—prating petty-fogger cryeth lowdest when he hath lest proofs CHAP. III. Bels arguments out of S. Austin touching Concupiscence ansvvered THE first place he alleadgeth out of S. Bel pag. 45. Austin is tom 7. l. 6. contr Iulian. c. 3. where he writeth As blindnes of hart is sinne punishment of sinne and cause of sinne So coÌ„cupiscence of the flesh is sinne punishment and cause of sinne Answer S. Austin compareth concupiscence with blindnes of hart in the material disorder of sinne For as sinne is against the rule of reason so disordinate lust not in formality of sinne Nether say I this only but can proue it And omitting that other where he Lib. de Spir. â—it c. vlt. l. 1. de nupt concup c. 23. l. 1. con duas epist Pelag. c. 13. plainly auoucheth it to be no formal sinne as is before shewed I proue it first by his reason where with he proueth it to be sinne vz because it is disobedient to the rule of reason which conuinceth it to be material sinne and a disorderly and euil thing but not to be formally sinne for want of voluntarines which him selfe necessarily requireth to formal sinne as is before shewed Secondly because it sufficed to S. Austin to â—ap 1. parag 9. proue concupiscence to be material sinne for to disproue Iulian the Pelagian against whom he there disputed who taught as S. Austin there and other where testifyeth Lib. de nupt concup c. 34. to 7. l. 6. cont Iul. â— â—â— that it was laudable good against whom he there proueth by the example of blindnes of hart that it was not only punishment and cause of sinne but also sinne that is naught euil and disorderly because it is against the rule of reason which is to be sinne materially though it want the forme of sinne which is voluntarines 2. Next he bringeth these words Some Bel pag. 46. iniquity is in man when the inferior parts do stubbernly S. Augustin tom 7. striue against the superior albeit they be not suffered to ouercome And quoteth for them l. 6. contr Iulian c. 8. as he found it through the Printers error falsly quoted in Bellarm Bellarm. l. 3. de amiss grat stat pec c. 9. Bels chaleÌ„g nothing but Bellarmins obiections Sup. c. 1. parag 3. 4. but they are l. 6. c. 19 which added to that that almost al he saith is found in Bellarmin conuinceth that he made this boasting challenge out of his obiections As for S. Austin his meaning when he calleth concupisceÌ„ce iniquity is sufficiently explicated before And the very word Some argueth that he thinketh it not to be formal sinne but in some sort vz materially Besides that him selfe l. 2. contr Iulian c. 5. expoundeth the like words out of S. Ambrose of no sinful iniquity 3. The third place cited by Bel is l. 1. de pag. 46. nupt concupis c. 25. where S. Austin S. Augustin tom 7. writeth If concupiscence can both be in the baptized parent and be no sinne vvhy is the selfe same no sinne in the child To this I ansvver saith S. Austin That concupiscence is not so forgiuen in baptisme that it is no more but that it is no more imputed to sinne Item There remaineth not any thing vvhich is not remitted Wherupon Bel inferreth both that concupiscence is formal sinne els it need not be forgiuen that it is true sinne as wel after baptisme as before though it be not imputed to sinne after baptisme and biddeth vs mark that S. Austin said not Nothing is sinne that remaineth or no sinne remaineth but not any thing remaineth vvhich is not remitted Answer The forme VVhat is the essence of habitual sinne Cap. â—â— essence of habitual sinne is the guilt of actual sinne before done according to S. Austin in the same book and next chapter as the forme of habitual sinne of adultery is the guilt of actual adultery before committed the forme of that habitual sinne which we haue by origin is the guilt of Adams actual eating the Aple which guilt Hovv Concupiscence needeth for giuenes being annexed to Concupiscence maketh it formal sinne and to require forgiuenes but that guilt being taken away by Gods forgiuing the sinne as the same holy Doctor teacheth in the same place and lib. 6. S. Austin contr Iulian. c. 17. and lib. 1. Retract c 13 Concupiscence need no more forgiuenes as the same B. Saint writeth lib. de spirit To. 3. 1. lib. 1. contr duas epist Pelag. c. 13. lit c. vlt. and epist 200. Nor remaineth any more true sinne more then the body remaineth a man after the soule is departed And in this very place which Bel citeth when he asketh why Concupiscence is sinne in the childe if it be in the parent baptized and be no sinne in him euidently supposeth that it is no true sinne in the baptized 4. As for that of not imputing sinne what S. Austin meant therby we wil rather VVhat noâ— imputing of sinne is vvith S. Austin learne of himself then of Bel he therfore in the very words which Bel citeth hauing asked why Concupiscence is not sinne mark Bel in the parent baptized as wel as in the childe vnbaptized answered that by baptisme non imputatur None but an infidel vvil say sinne is not taâ—eÌ„ avvay in baptisme S. August l. 1. cont duas epist Pelag. c. 13. to 7. in peccatum it is not imputed for sinne In which answer vnles he did by not imputing for sinne meane making no sinne he had not answered the question why Concupiscence was no sinne in the baptized parent Therfore with him Concupiscence not to be imputed to or for sinne is to be made no sinne And cap. 32. he saith that Concupiscence to be imputed is to haue the guilt vz of Adams actual sinne which it hath with it and consequently to be not imputed is to haue this guilt taken away but to haue no guilt is to haue no sinne as him self saith c. 26. therfore with him Concupiscence to be not imputed is to be made no sinne Nether indeed can God otherwise not impute sinne but by taking it away For his iudgment is according to truth Rom. 2. v. 2. and therfore if ther be sinne S. Paul in vs he must needs impure it to vs and account vs sinners els he shold not accouÌ„t vs as we are and according to truth And albeit S. Austin did not in this place say in plaine tearms Nothing is sinne that remaineth or No sinne remaineth yet he manifestly supposed the first when he asked why concupiscence is not sinne mark Bel as wel in parents baptized as in the child affirmed them both in equiualent tearms when he answered that by not imputation concupiscence became no sinne in the baptized as is already shewed And otherwhere plainly affirmeth That al sinnes are forgiuen in baptisme and S. Austin
v. 17. immediatly before said that we shal be coheirs with Christ if we suffer with him lest we should be vnwilling to attaine to such glory by sufferance he addeth in the verse cited that sufferances are not condigne that is not comparable in greatnes or continuance to future glory which meaning of his he vttereth in plainer tearms 2. Corinth 4. v. 17. saying our tribulation which presently S. Paul is momentary and light worketh aboue measure exceedingly an eternal weight of glory in vs. Where he saith our tribulations are momentary and light and the glory is eternal and weighty which he meant when he said here they are not condigne to future glory And hereby are explicated the words both of Theodoret and S. Anselme vpon this place For Theodoret saying the Crovvns exceed the conflicts and the labour is not comparable to the revvard compareth them not in the respect of desert and reward but in greatnes of paine and pleasure for saith he the labour is litle and the gaine great And the same comparison in bitternes of paine and greatnes of pleasure made S. Anselm when he S. Ansolm Rom. 8. said Al the bitternesses of al the paines of this life should not be a digne merit to future glory For doubtles the bitternes of al the paines of this life is not so great as the pleasure of heauēly ioyes But this worthy Champion who challengeth al Papists to combat sheweth him selfe ignorāt in translating Theodorets words Superant certamina coronae thus Bel vvanteth latin The conflicts of the crovvne remaine taking the nominatiue case for the accusatiue and the genitiue for the nominatiue and perhaps superant for supersunt both contrary to the latine and to sense For who heard of conflicts of a crowne or that conflicts remaine in heauen Surely this challenger should rather be set to schoole to learne latine then to challenge Deuines to disputation rather taught to construe the Fathers then to dispute out of them But as S. Hierome wrote S. Hieron epist ad Euagr. Imperitia confidentiam parit None so bold as blinde Bayard 11. The third text he cyteth is out of S. Bel pag. 65. Paul Tit. 3. v. 5. Not by vvorks of iustice which we haue done but according to his mercy he hath saued vs by the lauer of regeneration and renouation of the holy Ghost By which vvords saith Bel it is most cleare that we are not only iustifyed but also saued by meere mercy and consequently eternal life hath no merit vpon the behalfe of man Omitting that before our good works were merit in a godly sense now there is no merit on mans behalfe I answer that the Apostle meaneth only of sauing from sinne vz iustification First because speaking of him selfe and others then aliue he saith God hath saued vs Secondly because hauing said in the third verse VVe vvere somtymes vnwise incredulous c. he addeth v. 5. and God according to his mercy hath saued vs vz. from the foresaid sinnes Thirdly because explicating by what means God had saued them he saith it was by the lauer of regeneration and renouation of the holy Ghost which most plainly expresseth iustification And no doubt but saluation from sinne proceedeth of Gods meere mercy but this is not to the purpose And of this saluation speaketh S. Anselme vpon this place whose words Bel curtailed leauing out these words By the lauer of regeneration and renouation of the holy Ghost that is by baptisme because they clearly shew of what saluation this holy Saint did meane And of the same meant Dionis Carthus vpon rhis Carthus place as is plaine by his explicating what the saluation was vz. from povvre of the Dyuel and guilt of eternal torment And thus much of Bels first reason out of Scripture now to his arguments out of Fathers CHAP. V. Bels arguments out of holy Fathers against condigne merit ansvvered S. Austin he alleadgeth epist 29. ad Hieron Bel pag. 66. whose words I wil set downe at S. Augustin tom 2. large that the Reader thereby may see how falsly Bel auoucheth him to confirme his doctrine Charity saith he is a vertue with which we loue that which is to be loued This is great in some in others les in others none at al but mostful charity which can be no more encreased is in none whiles a mā lyueth here but whiles it may be encreased surely that vvhich is les then it should be is ex vitio of vice Bel translateth sinne by reason of vvhich vice thereis no iust on earth which doth good and sinneth not by reason of which vice no liuing man shal be iustifyed in Gods sight For vvhich vice if vve say we haue no sinne we sedute our selfes and there is no truth in vs. For which also though vve haue profited neuer so much we must of necessity say Forgiue vs our trespasses euen when our vvords deeds thoughts are already forgiuen in baptisme 2. Hence Bel gathereth 1. That S. Austin pag. 67. vntruth 61 saith that no man can haue charity in that perfect degree which the lavv requireth This is vntrue for he only saith that no man hath in this life that most ful charity which can not be encreased 2. That the want therof proceedeth of vice This is true but of what kinde of vice he meant him selfe had explicated a litle before in the same place saying VVho therfore is without some vice that is without some fomite or as a roote of sinne Wherfore he meant not that the want of most ful charity proceedeth of formal sinne but of that which is cause and roote of sinne to wit concupiscence And by this are answered al the rest of Bels notes out of this place As that by reason of this vice euery man is a sinner none iustified before God if we say we haue no sinne we be lyers we haue need to aske God forgiuenes euen after baptisme For al these things are verifyed of Concupiscence not formally but effectiuely that is Concupiscence which S. Austin calleth vice because it is the roote and cause of formal vice causeth sinne in vs which sinne maketh vs formally sinners not iustifyed before God and to neede forgiuenes euen after baptisme And hereby are explicated Bel pag. 68. the like words of S. Ambrose which S. Ambros epist 84. to 4. prope finem hereafter he citeth That by reason of the rebellion of the flesh that is vnderstood of euery one which S. Ihon saith If we say we haue no sinne we seduce our selfs 3. But suppose that S. Austin had said al Bel forgetteth his matter that Bel inferreth though it would proue Concupiscence to be formal sinne yet would it not proue that our workes are no condigne merit which is the question now in hand For though Concupiscence were as Bel rhinketh venial sinne which he art 9. calleth sinne not regnant yet might other supernatural works of
August l. 1. de pecc mer. remiss c. 30. Infants to be meant of baptisme Hereupon the Anabaptists who deny baptisme Balthasar Pacimontan apud Coclâ—um in ostis Lutheri See Posseâ—in de athâ—ismis Haerâ—ticorum of children professe that they learnt their doctrine from Luther and the new Arrians in Transiluania who deny the Trinity and consubstantiality of Christ in their disputation with Protestants appealed to Caluins iudgement professed they receaued their doctrine from him And Smidelin a Smidelin in refutat blasphemae apolog Danaei 1583. great Protestant writeth That it is no maruel that very many Caluinists in Transiluany Poleland and Hungary became Arrians and of Arrians soone after Mahometans 6. But sport it is to heare Bel answer an Bel p. 140. obiection which is the grouÌ„de of the Anabaptists Infants haue no faith Ergo they are not to be baptized First he saith they haue faith that their faith profession is to be baptised of faithful parents in vnity of the Catholique Church After he denyeth them to haue faith in act but to haue faith fundamentally and by inclination How these answers agree let the Reader iudge I would know of him First whence he hath this new point of faith that baptized infants haue to be borne of faithful parents Are none borne of heretiks or Infidels Secondly How they make profession of it by words or deeds and whether Bel by their profession could discerne a baptised infant from one vnbaptized Thirdly how infants can be iustified by faith alone and haue no Inclination to faith iustifyeth Infants according to Bel. Scripture containeth virtually al points of Christian faith See Staplet Relect. controu 5. q. 5. art 1. S Austin l. 1. cont Crescon c. 33. Nullum mihi sacrameÌ„tum aut sermo aliquis admodum obscurior de sacris literis aperitur vbi non eadem praecepta reperio August epist 119. Propter duo praecepta charitatis sensisse Maist quicquid in illis libris sensit nisi crediderimus mendacem facimus Deum August 12. confess c. 25. tom 1. faith in act but only an inclination therto Surely they can haue instification no otherwise then they haue faith and therfore if they haue not faith in act they can haue no iustification in act but only be inclined to it as they are inclined to faith 7. Second conclusion Al points of Christian faith are vertually conteyned in Scripture First because it teacheth vs to belieue the Church which teacheth actually al points of Christian faith and therfore Scripture vertually teacheth vs al. Hereupon wrote S. Austin That in doing what the Church teacheth we holde the truth of Scriptures albeit they afforde no example thereof because we therin follow the Church which the Scripture vndoubtedly sheweth Secondly because the end of al Gods worde whether written or vnwritten is loue of him selfe aboue al things and of our neighbour as our selfe as appeareth by that 1. Timoth. 1. v. 5. The end of the precept is charity and Rom. 13. v. 8. who loueth his neighbour hath fulfilled the law and to the better comprehending and obtayning of this end he referreth al whatsoeuer he reuealed and this end being contayned in Scripture it followeth that the Scripture doth vertually contayne as a cause doth the effect al points of faith 8. And hereupon also it followeth that al the rest of Gods worde whether written or vnwritten may be called an explication of the foresaid coÌ„mandements because it contayneth nothing but which is vertually contayned in these commandements thereto referred by God as to their end which our Sauiour meant when he said In Matth. 22. v. 40. these tvvo commandements al the lavv and Prophets hange because of them depend as of their end al the rest which the law and Prophets contayne And hereupon said S. S. Epiphan Epiphan haer 65. That we may tel the inuention of euery question out of the consequeÌ„ce of Scriptures He said not out of scripture For al can not be taken thence as him selfe writeth haer 61. but of the consequence of them because al questions are resolued out of the Scriptures or out of that which followeth of them as the effect of rhe cause And according to these two conclusions we may expound other Fathers when they say al things are contained in Scripture For either they meane not absolutely of al points of Christian faith nor of actual containing as appeareth by that other where they manifestely defend Traditions but either only of points necessary to be knowne of euery Christian or of vertual containing 9. Third conclusion Al points of Christian faith are not actually coÌ„tained in scripture Al points of Christian faith are not actually in the Scripture neither clearly nor obscurely neither in plaine words nor in meaning This conclusioÌ„ Bel seemeth to graunt pag. 118. where he admitteth of a thing although not expresly written yet vertually saith he and effectually contained in Scripture And the whole English Article 6. Cleargy defyne That what may be proued out of Scripture is necessary to be beleeued though it be not read But what can be proued what not they alone wil be iudges But whatsoeuer Protestants say I proue the conclusion For no where in Scripture it is sayd either in plaine words or in meaning That al the books chapters verses and sentences which in the Bible are admitted for Canonical are truly Canonical and Gods pure worde without the mixture of mans worde If Bel can finde any such place from the first of Genesis to the last of the Apocal let him name it And yet this is a point of Christian faith yea thereupon depende al the Articles we gather out of Scripture S. Austin For as S. Austin said epist 9. and 19. If any vntruth be founde in Scriptures vvhat authority S. Hierom. con Heluid S. Augustin haeres 84. 82. S. Epiphan haer 78. S. Hilar. in 1. Math. Can. 1. can they haue So if any part or parcel of the Bible be doubtful what certainty can the rest haue Secondly the perpetual virginity of our B. Lady is a matter of faith as appeareth by S. Hierom and S. Austin who accounted Heluidius and Iouinian heretiks for denying it and Protestants VVillet Tetract 2. piller part 3. p. 76. 77. confesse it And yet it is no where testifyed in Scripture Thirdly that the seauenth day coÌ„manded by God to be kepte holy is transferred lawfully from Saterday to Sunday is a matter of faith and yet no where actually warranted by Scripture For albeit S. Ihon Apoc. 1. 10. speake of our lords day yet he no where warranteth the said transferring See more in Bellarmin tom 1. lib. 4. de verbo Dei 10. Fourth Conclusion Al points of Al points of Christian faith can not be proued sufficiently and immediatly out of Scripture Christian faith can not be sufficiently and immediatly proued out of Scripture In this conclusion I say not
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
but authority of Scriptures and command of God teaching Answer In the first place S. Hierom speaketh of a perticuler opinion vz That Zacharias who was slaine betwene the Temple and the Altar was S. Ihon Baptists father which he supposeth to haue bene no Apostolical Tradition and therfore of it saith because it is not proued out of Scripture it is as easely reiected as affirmed But what S. Hierom writeth of a particuler opinion helde without tradition Bel can not iustly extend to certaine Traditions The second place maketh nothing against vs. Because the Traditions of the Church were taught by the Apostles and not by any other afterward And S. Hieroms meaning is to deny that any man may teach of his owne worde and authority any new doctrine as Montanus and such like Hereticks did but only that which they receaued from the Apostles who were as S. Paul saith Eph. 2. v. 20 our foundation The thirde place maketh les to the purpose For tradition is no error of Ancestors And Scripture we graunt to be followed but not it alone but as S. Hierom saith the commandment of God teaching whether it be by writing or tradition As for traditions S. Hierom plainly alloweth them Dialog cont Lucif where he confesseth it to be the custome of the S. Hierome Church to obserue many things by tradition as if they were written laws And epist ad Marcel receaueth lent and lib. cont Heluid defendeth our Ladies perpetual virginity only by tradition 16. Many more Fathers I might alleadge for traditions But I content my selfe with the testimonies of them whom Bel brought for the contrary Let the indifferent Reader weigh the places cited by him and me and vprightly iudge as he tendreth his saluation Whether the holy Fathers reiected or imbraced ecclesiastical traditions Perhaps Bel wil answer That the Fathers contradict them selfes and say as the false mother did Let them be nether myne nor thine but be deuided 3. Reg. 3. v. 26. But who remembreth Salomons iudgment wil by this alone perceaue to whom of right the Fathers belong I haue answered al that Bel hath brought out of them and most of the authorities alleadged by me especially those of S. Dionis S. Epipha S. Chrisost S. Basil admit no answer at al Now let vs come to Bels arguments out of Catholique writers CHAP. V. Bels arguments out of late Catholique vvriters touching sufficiency of Scriptures and Traditions ansvvered THE first he alleadgeth is the learned Bel p. 100. Roffensis artic 37. Luther and holy Bishop Fisher whom he vntruly tearmeth a canonized Saint with vs Because in one place he calleth Scripture the storehouse of al truthes necessary to be known of Christians And in an other saith when heretiks Veritate 4. cont art Lutheri contend with vs we ought to defend our cause with other help then Scripture Because saith Bel Popery can not be defended by Scripture and auoucheth vntruth 81. Papists to confesse That they can not manteine their faith by Gods written word Answer How Scripture may be called a Store-house of al truths necessary to Christians appeareth out of the first and second Conclusion And Sup. c. 1. parag 2. 7. in the said place B. Fisher writeth of Purgatory That though it could not be proued out of Scriture yet it ought to be beleeued for Tradition And in the secōd place he nether saith absolutly That we ought not to proue our faith out of Scripture at al nether to Catholiks nor to Heretiks Nor that we ought not to proue it out of Scripture euen against Heretiks For him selfe so proueth it against Luther And much lesse saith That we can not proue it out of Scripture as Bel falsly forgeth But his meaning is That when we dispute with Heretiks we ought to haue aliud subsidium quam scripturae other proofs beside Scripture hereof he geueth foure reasons 2. First because Luther professed to beleeue Purgatory though it were not in Scripture 2. Because Scripturs in some points at the first sight and in words seeme to fauor Heretiks more then Catholiques as appeareth in the controuersy between S. Hierom Heluidius about our Ladies perpetual virginity 3. Because Heretiks deny many parts of Scripture 4. Because though they admit the words yet they peruert the sense and meaning of Scripture which is as much saith Tertullian as if they denied the words And oftentimes the true sense is not so euident that it alone sufficeth to conuince an Heretik when to contend about it wearyeth as the same Tertullian writeth the constant ouer turneth the weak and scandalizeth the midle sort Wherupon he aduiseth Sup. cap. 19. vs wisely That in disputing vvith Heretiks before vve come to proofs out of Scripture vve try vvhose the Scriptures are to whose possession of right they belonge For that being cleared it vvil soone appeare saith he vvho hath the true Christian faith the true vnderstanding of Scripture and al Christian Traditions And the same meant B. Fisher who also citeth Tertul. his words make rather for Traditiōs then against them And if this course were taken with Protestants they wold be quickly confounded For they as Doue confesseth and it is euident Doue of Recusancy p. 13. had the Scripture from vs not by gift or loan For we nether gaue nor lent them to Protestants but by theaft and stealth as Turks and Infidels may haue them and therfore are wrong vsurpers of our goods and possessions and iustly may we say to them with Tertullian VVhen whence came Supra c. 37. you vvhat do you in my possession being none of myne By vvhat right Marcion Luther doest thousel my vvood vvith vvhat lycence Valentine Caluin doest thou turne a vvay my fovvntains VVith vvhat authoryty Apelles Beza doest thou moue my limits It is my possession vvhat do you others sovve and feed at your pleasure It is my possession I possesse it of ould I possesse it first I haue strong originals from the Authors vvhose the thing vvas Thus Tertullian And here I omit that Bel citeth an apocriphal sentence out of Esdr 3. 4. vnder the name of the wise man as if it were Salomons 3. Next he alleadgeth Canus his words Bel p. 101. Seeing the Canon of Scripture is perfect and most Canus de locis lib. 7. c. 3. sufficient to al things what need the vnderstanding and authority of Saints be adioined therto But Bel forgot to tel that Canus proposeth this only as an obiection which he answereth by denying the illatiō therin included Because saith he the Fathers are needful to right vnderstand the Scripture Nether denying nor graunting the Antecedent concerning the perfection and sufficiency of Scripture But how sufficient he thought Scripture to Canus be appeareth l. 3. c. 6. where after S. Ignatius epist ad Heronem he calleth them wolues Heretiks which refuse the Churches Traditions and c. 7. solueth the best arguments Protestans bring
shold that font be conserued so long but as a monument of so memorable a christning How can Constantin be worthely surnamed great of Christians if at his death he communicated with Arians and was baptized of them at Nicomedia as their fellow heretik Eusebius first reported to purchase credit to his heresy If this had bene so he shold rather haue bene syrnamed of Catholiques the Apostata or Heretike 11. The last tradition of honoring Saints Bel p. 133. Bel saith made some to honor Heretiks for Saints as Platina saith he writeth of the Platina in Bonif. 8. corps of Herman an heretike honored as Saints reliques at Ferrara for 20. years together Answer vntruth 97 How Apostolical a thing the honoring of Saints is Bellarmin sheweth lib. de Sanct. beatit c. 19. Where besids Scripturs and Councels he proueth it by the testimony of 30. Fathers wherof 25 liued aboue a thowsand years ago But is not this a strange metamorphosis to make the error of common people a popish Tradition Beside Platina affirmeth no such thing him selfe but only that some others write so But nether he nor any other write that it rose of popish Tradition That is Bels accustomed vse of addition And therfore where he noteth danger in beleeuing Tradition he might haue noted danger in crediting his owne relation Yea what danger is in not beleeuing Roman Tradition appeareth both by the testimony of Fathers before cited and by the example of Policrates and his fellows the Quartadecimans and by S. Cyprian Quartadecimans are Heretiks ex Epiphan haer 50. 70. Nicephor l. 4. c. 39. August haer 29. Socrates lib. 5. c. 22. Tripartita hist Vincent Lytin and his followers the Donatists reproued only by Roman Tradition As testifyeth Tripartit lib. 9. c. 38. and Vincent Lyrinen But suppose that they of Ferrara had vpon Tradition taken occasion to commit Idolatry Shal we reiect al things wherof men take occasion to offend So we might reiect Christ who was set vnto the ruine of many Luc. 2. v. 34. and by whom the Iewes took occasion of scandal So we might reiect Scripturs by which heretiks haue taken occasion he heresy Sunne and Moone because Gentils haue by them fallen into Idolatry Cannot Bel distinguish between vse abuse of Traditions betwixt scandal giuen taken Thus much of the certainty of Tradtions Now let vs come to the examination of them CHAP. XI Of the examination of Traditions APostolical Traditions are not to be examined by Scripture This is against Bel pag. 117. but euident Because Apostolical â—el p. 117 Tradition is the Apostles word their S. Paul â— Luke word is Gods word 1. Thess 2. v. 16. But Gods word is not to be examined at al Ergo nether is Apostolical Tradition Wel might the Church at first examine a Tradition whether it were Apostolical or no as she did examine diuers parts of the Bible whither they were Scripture or no but finding it to be Apostolical she could no more examine it by the Bible then she can examin one part of the Bible by an other And Bel in saying That the new testament may Bel p. 135. al. 117. be examined by the old sheweth him selfe rather to be a Iew then a Christian For how dare he examin that which is certaine to be deuine truth Or how can he examin the new testament by the old if he be not more certain of the old then of the new But how Traditions ought to be proued heare Tertullian Tertullian lib. de Corona It can not seeme none or a doubtful fault against Custome which is to be defended for it name sake and is sufficiently authorized by protection of consent Plainly reason is to be enquired but so as the Custome be reteined not to destroy it but to vphold it That thou maist obserue it more when thou art sure of the reason of it But what a thing is it that one shal cal Custome in question when he hath fallen from it 2. But saith Bel Scriptures are called canonical Bel p. 117. because they be the rule of faith Therfore al things are to be examined by them And for this cause saith he Esay sent vs to the Law and testimony Esaiae 8. to try the truth Malachias bid vs be myndful Malach. 4. Psalm 119. 2. Pet. 1. Ioan. 5. Math. 22. Act. 17. 1. Ioan. 4. Gal. 1. of Moises lavv Dauid said Gods word is a lathern S. Peter a shyning light For this cause Christ exhorted the Iewes to read Scripturs and said the Pharises erred because they knew not the Scripturs The Berheans examined S. Paules doctrin S. Ihon bid try the spirits S. Paul pronounced him accursed That preached any doctrin not conteined in Scripture as S. Austin and S. Basil expound him S. August l. 3. cont Petil. c. 6. S. Basil sum 72 c. 1. Bible onely Canonical Scripture but not it alone Canonical Sup. c. 2. parag 1. 7. c. 9. paragr 17. 3. Answer The Bible alone is called Canonical Scripture because it alone of al Scripturs the Church followeth as an infallible rule in beleeuing or defyning any thing But it nether is nor is called the only Canon of faith In the rest Bel affirmeth but proueth not that that was the cause why the Scripture said so As for the places of Esay Malachy Dauid and S. Peter they haue bene answered before As for exhortation of Christ I might deny that he there exhorted the Iewes to read Scripture but Scrutamini Scripturas See S. Gyrill l. 3. in Ioan. c. 4. affirmed that they did read them because they thought they conteined life But suppose he did exhort them to read Scripturs for to finde whether he were the Messias or no wheroâ— as he saith there they giue testimony what is this for trying of al matters by them Can Bel inferre an vniuersal propositioÌ„ of one singuler That of the Pharises Corrupt of Script conteineth two corruptions of Scripturs For neither did Christ say The Pharases but the Saduces erred about the resurrection nether doth he say the cause of their error therin was only ignorance of Scripture as Bel insinuateth leauing out the words povvre of God but ignorance both Math. 22. v. 29. of Scripture and of Gods powre you erre saith he knovving nether Scripturs nor the powre of God So if they had known Gods powre though it had not bene by Scripture but by Tradition or reuelation as Iob and Iob 19. v. 25. the faithful vncircumcised did they had not erred about the resurrection Beside the resurrection is a perticuler matter and euidently testifyed in Scripture what proueth this concerning al points of faith 4. As for the Berhaeans whom Bel wil haue to haue examined the truth of S. Pauls Act. 17. doctrin I ask of him whither they were faithful whilst they examined it or faithles If faithles why proposeth he them to vs as an example to imitat
their worke though they could not glory in them But that S. Paule spake absolutly and not vpon any impossible supposal is euident First because in the first part of the sentence he spake absolutly of hearers and not vpon any impossible supposal when he said they are not iust Ergo in the second parte he spake so of Doers when he said they shal be iustified Wherfore as wel may Bel say there are no hearers as no doers of the law Secondly because in the next verse before he vers 12. had said absolutly VVhosoeuer haue sinned in the lavv shal be iudged by the lavv Which he proueth saying For not the hearers c. Wherfore as the proposition which he proued is absolute and vpon no impossible supposal so is that by which he proueth it And in vers 14. the verse next after he bringeth a proofe that the Doers of the law shal be iustified though they heard it not because Gentils who haue no lavv naturally that is without See S. Austin lib. 4 contra Iulian. cap. 3. tom 7. instruction of the law Doe those things which are of the lavv Behould the Apostle auouching that Gentils doe the law by their example prouing the Doers thereof to be iustified 5. And soe frequent it is in scripture to Psalm affirme that there are Doers and keepers of Gods lawes as it is auouched more then twenty times in one Psalme 118. I wil keepe thy iustifications v. 8. I haue sought thee in my whole hart v. 10. I haue cleaued to thie testimonies Lorde v. 31. I haue runne the way of thie commaundements v. 32. I wil keepe thy law in my whole hart v. 34. I wil keepe thy law alwaies v. 44. I haue not declined from thy law v. 51. I haue kept thy law v. 55. I haue not forgotten thy law v. 61. I am partaker of al that keepe thy commaundements v. 63. I haue not forsaken thy commaundements v. 87. I wil keepe the testimonies of thy mouth v. 88. I haue forbidden my feete from euel way that I may keepe thy words v. 101. I haue not declined from thy iudgements v. 102. I haue sworne and determined to keepe the iudgements of thy iustice v. 106. I haue not erred from thy commaundements v. 110. Deliuer mee because I haue not forgotten thy lavv v. 153. I haue not declined from thy testimonies v. 157. My soule hath kept thy testimonies v. 167. I haue kept thy commaundements and testimonies v. 168. Seeke thy seruant for I haue not forgotten thy commaundements v. 176. What now is it to say that there are no doers of Gods law and it is impossible to keepe his commaundements but to sett his mouth against heauen Psalm 72. and to giue God the lye Psalm 98. 3. Reg. 14. Act. 13. Iosue 11. v. 15. I omit Moyses Aaron Samuel Dauid Iosue Zacharie Elizabeth and the Apostles who are said to haue kept Gods law and some of them in al their hart Only S. Paule Luc. 1. Ioh 17. v. 6. Contradict 19. I can not omit because Bel artic 4. pag. 48. graunteth that he was most free and innocent from actual sinne therefore surely he kept Gods law perfectly for if he brake it he sinned actually 6. Thirdly Christ said if thou wilt enter Math. 19. v. 17. into life keepe the commaundements but entring into life is possible Ergo keeping the commaundements Bel answereth that Christ shewed not here how one may attaine to eternal life but how perfectly they who looke to be iustified by good works must keepe the commaundements For Christ saith he being asked what good a man Gods vvorde shamefully vvrâ—sted should doe to attaine eternal life ansvvered If thou wilt haue eternal life by doing good works then must thou keepe the commaundemeÌ„ts but this is impossible saith Bel. Here is most shameful abuse of Gods worde and this sheweth Bel to haue a seared conscience For neither 1. Timoth. 4. v. 3. in the mans question nor in Christs answer is there any worde about what perfection of keeping Gods commaundements is requisit to come to heauen by this way or that way vz. by beleeuing or by working or by both But only about the meane in general to come to heauen what that was which the man supposing to bee good asked what good he should doe to come thither which question of his is common either to faith or works or both for al include doing good And our Sauiour answered him If thou wilt enter not this way nor that way but absolutly into life keepe the commaundements As Dauid demaunding Psalm 14. v. 1. 2. absolutly who shal dwel in Gods tabernacle answereth him selfe He that walketh vvithout spot and vvorketh iustice And as him selfe otherwere absolutly saith Math. 7. v. 21. Not euery one that said Lord Lorde shal enter into the Kingdome of heauen but be that doth the vvil of my father And surely if this man asking simply and of a desier to learne as Caluin Caluin graunteth had asked the way to heauen by an impossible meane as Bel imagineth Christ the author of truth and who loued him as S. Marke saith would rather haue Marc. 10. bidden him giue ouer that impossible way and taught him the true then how he should proceede in his erronious and impossible way 7. And though the man had asked Christ particularly how he should come to heauen by good works whence hath Bel that his meanes to come to heauen is impossible wil not Christ say in his last sentence Come you blessed of my father possesse the Kingdome prouided for you from the constitution of the world because I was Hungrie and you gaue mee to eat c. Math. S. Math. 25. v. 34. 35. as wel as he wil say Goe you from mee you cursed into euerlasting fyer c. because I was Hungry and you gaue mee not to eate v. 41. Are not good workes accounted the meanes and cause of comming to heauen as the want of them the meane and cause of going to hel Yea doth not Bel say artic 5. pag. 73. that good vvorkes are so necessary to attaine eternal life as Contradict 20. the vsual ordinary and vndoubted meanes marke the worde by vvhich God decreed from eternity freely for his ovvne name sake to bring his elect to saluation And that vvithout them none haue bene are or shal be saued How are they now become an impossible meane to come to heauen how did the man enquire of an impossible way to heauen by good workes what neede this challenger any aduersary who thus ouerthroweth him selfe 8. Fourthlie I proue the conclusion because Math. 11. v. 30. 1. Ioh. 5. v. 3. Christ saith my yoake is svveete and my burthen light And S. Ihon saith his commaundements are not heauy Ergo they are possible Bel answereth that these wordes are meant Bel p. 152. not in respect of vs but of Christ whose keeping the commaundements is
father Luther imitaâ—ing Luther lib. de vit coniugali 1522. See S. Iren. lib. 1. c. 1. Raro haereticus diligit castitatem Hieron in c. 7. Oseae pag. 38. the beastly Valentinians writeth that it is as necessary to haue a wife as to eat drinke or sleepe and how wel ministers practice this doctrin let al England be iudge 8. His third reply is that Papists thinck matrimony contracted to be a Sacrament ergo saith he perfect before copulatioÌ„ indispensable by man For as Canus saith The holy Ghost and grace of Canus lib. 8. de locis c. 5. Sacrament is not giuen by copulation Answer graunting the Antecedent I deny the consequence For though it haue the essence yet hath it not the perfection of the Sacrament before copulation Because before it signifyeth only the spiritual coniunction of Christ with a soule by grace as S. Thomas S. Thom. 4. d. 27. q. 1. art 3. q. 1. Innocent 3. c. delictum de digamis and Innoc. 3. teach which as it may by man be dissolued so also may matrimony before consummation but after it signifieth also the coniunction of Christ to the Church by flesh which as man can not dissolue so nether can he dissolue matrimony after consummation And as a seal is the parfection of a bargain making it more hard to be broken then otherwise it shold be so copulation is as it were the seal of the couenant of wedlock made betwixt man woman maketh it more indissoluble then otherwise it should be 9. As for Canus he meaneth of sinful copulation betwixt persons only affianced when they saith he after spousals company together But as for coniugal copulation after matrimony is contracted if it be done in that manner and for that end it should be it giueth grace and is meritorius as appeareth by S. Austin l. de bon coniug c. 21. 22. See S. Austin l. 1. de nupt concup c. 12. 13. 14. 15. tom 7. tom 6. where though he prefer the chastity of single life before the chastity of mariage yet he compareth Abrahams merit in his holy vsage of mariage with S. Ihons merit in liuing single Besides lawful copulation is a good worke as I hope Bel wil not deny but according to his owne doctrin art 5. Artic. 5. p. 61. euery good worke is meritorius or impetratorius of Gods fauor reward His fourh reply vz that matrimony should not be fully perfected in the Church if copulation do perfect it containeth no new difficulty 10. Fiftly he argueth it to be absurd That matrimony beginneth to be a Sacramant by pag. 39. copulation and was not by the Priests action 44 vntruth But more absurd it is to vtter vntruths For Catholiques say not that it beginneth to be See Bellar. l. 2. de Monachis c. 38. The contrary is a particuler opinion of Canus l. 8. de loc c. 5. Conc. Trid. sess 24. c. 1. de Reform pag. 39. a Sacrament by copulatioÌ„ or by the Priests action but that it beginneth by the mutual consent of the parties and is perfected by their copulation though that it be lawfully contracted the Priests ptesence be required His sixt obiection is that Matrimony was perfect in Paradise betwixt Adam and Eue. But this is to assume that which he was to proue His seuenth reply is If contracted matrimony were not de iure diuino both parties agreeing they might dissolue it them selues as they can dissolue spousals because as the lavv saith euery one may yeeld vp his right Answer Contracted matrimony is a Sacrament instituted by God and therfore can not be dissolued but by such as succeeding the Apostles are dispensers of Gods misteries 1. Corinth 4. S. Paul v. 1. The like reason is not of spousals nor of any other contract instituted by man 11. Eighthly he replyeth That mariage betwene the B. virgin and Ioseph was perfect where doubtles wanted copulation That it was perfect he proueth because the Math. 1. angel called her Iosephs wife And S. Ambrose saith That not deflowring of virginity S. Ambros de institut virg ca. 6. tom 1. S. August l. 2. de consens Euang. c. 1. tom 4. Lib. 1. de nupt concup c. 11. to 7. but coniugal couenant maketh wedlock And S. Austin writeth That we rightly vnderstand Ioseph to be maries husband by very copulation of wedlock without commixtion of flesh Againe God forbid that the bond of wedloock rumpatur be broken betwixt them who are content vpon mutual consent to abstein for euer from vse of carnal concupiscence For it was not falsly said of the Angel vnto Ioseph Fear not to take thy wife mary Answer Al these proofs conuince no more then that contracted matrimony is true mariage as we willingly confesse was betwixt Ioseph and our B. Lady For the Angel calleth her not Iosephs perfect wife but absolutly his wife Wherupon S. Hierom l. S. Hierom. pr. fin cont Heluid saith S. Ioseph was rather a keeper then a husband and in c. 1. Math. When thou hearest an husband do not suspect mariage but remember the custome of Scripture that spouses are called husbands and spousesses wises And S. Basil hom de human Chris gener calleth S. Basil that dispousation wherwith S. Ioseph and our Lady were maried beginning of Mariage As for S. Ambrose he denyeth not that deflowring perfecteth mariage but that it maketh it And S. Austin in the first place affirmeth that we truly vnderstand Ioseph to be Maries husband without copulation but addeth not that he is so perfectly 12. To the secoÌ„d place I answer that S. Austin speaketh there only of coÌ„summated mariage both because his intention in those Lib. 1. c. 1. books was as he professeth in the beginning to shew against the Pelagians That though childreÌ„ infected with original sinne do proceed from mariage it selfe is no sinne which difficulty hath no place but in coÌ„summated mariage As also because after he had proued in the forsaid 11. chapter that the bond of wedlock is not broken by purpose of absteining from vse as he speaketh of concupiscence or exercise of marigeable acts in the next chapter he concludeth thus VVherfore Cap. 22. then may not they remain man and vvife vvho of consent leaue of companying together if Ioseph and mary remayned man and vvife vvho not so much as began to company together By which Conclusion of his it is euident that before he had spoken only of consummated mariage and only meant to proue that it is not broken by priuate determination or purpose of the parties to absteine from exercise of copulation Which he proued by an argument a fortiori because vnconsummated matrimony of our B. Lady and Ioseph was not broken by their purpose of absteining from al carnal knowledge But whither vnconsummated matrimony which is not broken by such priuate purposes of the parties maried may vpon iust and vrgent cause be dissolued by