Michael Fabritius in epist de Beza tooke by treason or force many of their cheefest cities Roane Orleans Lyons and others made league with the enimies of France and giuen townes into their hands they haue leuied great armies of subiects brought in great bands of Strangers and fought foure mayne battels against their King they deposed their King and chose an other and coyned money in his name with title of the first Christian King of France They Sur. An 1560. opened the tombs of two of their Kings burnt their bones They conspired to murder the King two Queenes his wife and his mother with his brethren nobility and had executed their designments if they had not bene preuented by their massacre They slew the King of Nauar Father to the Fabritius sup fol. 61. 66. French King now regnant And their horrible outrages in al kinde of dishonesties cruâ—â—ties and Sacrileges are vnspeakable 4. In Scotland the Protestants first took Scotland arme against the Queene dawager Grand Sur. An. 1560. mother to his Majesty then regent of Scotland and by their rebellions and tumults hastened her death which his Majesty great Conference p. 81. ly lamented in the conference Likwise after infinit indignities and perils they driue Queene Mary of blessed memory his Majesties Mother their natural and lawful Prince oâ—â— of her kingdome and country forced her to surrender her crowne and Scepter to a bastard murthered her husband his Maiestes Father and therof infamed her wrongfully as was proued at her iudgment in England had murdred both her selfe and his Maiestie then in her womb if a charged pistole put to her womb would haue giuen fyer And at last by Protestants she was put to death against law of nations And his Maiesty coÌ„fesseth of him selfe that in Scotland he vvas a King vvithout state vvithout Conser p. 4. and 20. honor vvithout order vvhere beardles boyes vvould braue him to his face and keept for the most part as a vvard And in what present danger he was of being murdered by the Protestant Earle Gowry and his brethren no man is ignorant And otherwhere gratiously acknowlegeth Basilicon doron That he found none more faithfil to him selfe then such as had bene faithful to his mother who were Papists and them he foâ—nd faithles to him selfe vvho had bene such to his mother and an honorable person yet liuinâ— and Q. Elizab. vvoords confidence of Catholiks worthy of credit and hard it can testify that Queene Eelizabeth did oftenâ—ymes say to my Lord MouÌ„tague a famous Catholique of worthy memory That if she â—el into danger she vvould sooner put her life into his hands and others of his profession theâ— of any other subiect she had And if Queene Elizabeth though she were far more seuere towards her Catholique subiects thâ—n al Protestant Princes together haue hiâ—erto bene towards theirs did neuertheles put more affiance and trust in them euen after she had bene deposed of the Pope then in any Protestant what assurance may that Prince His Maiesties speech to the Parlament 19 Mart. 1603. England haue of the loyalty and fidelity of Catholiques who hath vsed great lenity towards them and nether is nor like to be deposed of the Pope 5. Finally in England Protestants rebelled twise that in one yeare against their Queene Mary once vnder the conduct of the Dukes of Northumberland Suffolk erecting a false Queene so excluding as much as lay in them the Succession of his Maiesty And againe vnder wyat and at both times she was defended by Catholiks The things I rather touch then relate because they are fresh in memory of many or to be found in many histories 6. Now let vs compare the practise of Protestants and Catholiques practise compared 1 Carolus 5. 2 Francis 2. 3 Carolus 9. 4 Henricus 3. 5 Philippus 2. 6 Philippus 3. 7 Christiernus 8 Sigismundus 9 Maria Ang. 10 Maria Scot. Protestants touching the deposition of Princes with the practise of the Pope since the tyme that Protestants began They haue within this 70. yeares partely deposed partly attempted as far as lay in thir power one Emperor three French Kings two Kings of Spaine one of Denmarke one of Pole-land one Queene of England and one of Scotland They haue slayne one King of Nauar one of Denmarke one Queene of Scotland one Queenes husband and burnt the bodies of two other Kings atteÌ„pted to murder one French King two French Queenes one King of Scotland Whereas the Popes neuer slew any Prince at al but haue saued the liues kingdomes of many since ProtestaÌ„ts began haue deposed one onely King Henry 8. and one Queene Elizabeth and spared both King Edward the 6 many Kings of DeÌ„mark Sweâ—land besids a great number of German Princes And his Maiestie is so far from danger of being deposed by him as he hath already censueed See D. Giffords commission and Mons Bethunes letters Proclamation 22. Februar anno 1. Note this al those that moleste or disturbe his maiesty and his maiesty gratefully acknowledgeth him selfe beholden to the Pope for his temporal cariage and diuers kind offices towards him euen then when ther was lesse cause of such kindnes then now is Yea which is a point worthy of consideration Neuer did any Pope depose any King or Prince merely for not professing the Catholique religion if he had not before embraced it If any obiect that the Pope hath beside King Henry and Queene Elizabeth deposed the present French King I answer that it was before he had the Crowne of France and was onely titulo tenus King of Nauar besids that the Pope vpon his amendment hath both restored him to his dignity and shewed him many great and extraordinary fouors And thus much of Bels dissembling the opinion and practise of Protestants touching the Supremacy or deposition of Princes Now let vs come to his proofs of his Assumption CHAP. V. Bells proofes of his Assumption answered BELLS proofs of his Assumption I might let passe as nothing pertayning to vs seeing we teach no such doctrin as he therin affirmeth to be false Neuertheles because the Reader may iudge whither he be a more fond disputor or false reportor I wil set them downe and answer them seuerally His first proofe is out of their famous Bel p. 2. saith he Pope Gregory the great lib 2. epist 61. where writing to the Emperor Mauritius he calleth him Soueraigne Lord and professeth him selfe subiect to his command and to owe him obedience Whereupon Bel inferreth that for 600. years after Christ Popes liued vnder Emperors in al dutiful obedience that is as he vnderstandeth in al causes Ecclesiastical and ciuil 2. Marke good Reader how many and how grosse errors he committeth in this one silly proofe First he sheweth smal skil in chusing Authors for his purpose because none make more against him in this matter then S. Gregory For he
Iohannes Six emprisoned 9. Paschorlis 2. Boniface 8. Vrbanus 6. Clement 7. besyd Sergius 1. others whom they attempted to imprison They haue deposed as much as they could sixteene vz. Iohannes 12. al. 13. Benedict 5 Gregory 5. Benedict Sixteene deposed 8. and 9. Alexander 2. Gregory 6. and 7. Gelasius 2. Innocent 2. Alexander 3 Iohn 22. Vrban 6. Martin 5. by Alphons King of Arragon Platin. in Alexand. 3. Liberality of Popes tovvards England Stovve an 1171. Polidorus lib. 16. Comin ventura in relation de Napoli VVhen vvould Luther and Caluin haue giuen three Kingdomes to England Eugen. 4. by procurement of Philip Duke of Millen Iulius 2. whereas on the contrary side to omit spiritual benefits Popes haue bestowed the Empire vpon almost al them Emperours whom they deposed and haue refused to take the Empire from the Germans though they haue bene much sollicited thereto by the Grecians and to let passe their liberality to other Princes they haue bestowed the Kingdome of Ireland vpon Henry the second and of Naples and Sicily vpon Henry 3. and the most honourable title of defender of the faith vpon Henry 8. Kings of England hereby may the indifferent reader euen setting aside the iustice of the cause and considering only the fact clearly perceaue whether Christian Emperours and Princes haue more tiranized ouer Popes then Popes ouer them now let vs come to Bels proofe of his ould slaunder here againe renued of the Popes taking vpon them power proper to God alone 28. A Closse saith he affirmeth the Pope Bel pag. 14. Gloss lib. 1. tit 7. c. 3. to haue celestial arbitrement to be able to alter the nature of things applying the substance of one to an other and to make something of nothing and the Pope saith Bel is wel pleased there with Answer As for the Pope being pleased with the foresaid words it is more then Bel knoweth but sure I am he detesteth them if they be meant of power to create or proper to God alone But wel I see that which doth not displease Bel if it be giuen to Princes he condemneth as intolerable blasphemie if it be attributed to Popes For the foresaid words are al in the ciuil lawe and by the Emperours applied either to them selues or to the Pope as the Emperours Gratian Valentinian and Theodosius de sum Three Emperours say the P. hath celestial arbitrement Trin. lib. 1. affirme the Popes to haue celestial arbitrement and condemne them as infamous hereticks who follow not the religion of Pope Damasus and his arbitrement in spiritual matters may be called heauenlie because his authority therein came from heauen That of altering the nature of things and applying the substance of one to an other the Emperour Iustinian C. communia de leg lib. 2. applieth to him selfe Of vvhat things Popes or Princes can alter the nature and meaneth of ciuil contracts as legacis and feoffees in trust which by his imperial power he can alter and change and the like power saith the glosse hath the Pope in contracts pertayning to spiritual matters But of altering the nature of natural things neither the Emperour nor the glosse dreamed 29. But the words which Bel most vrgeth are that the Pope can make de nihilo aliquid something of nothing For saith he it is a thing proper to God to make something of nothing in al cases and at al tymes But besides that the glosse neither saith that the Pope can make de nihilo aliquid but de nullo aliquid neither yet in al cases and al times as Bel addeth the foresaid words are taken out of Iustinian C. de rei vxor act lib. 1. where the Emperour Of vvhat nothing Popes or Princes can make something saith that because he can make to be accompted a stipulation where none is much more he can an insufficient stipulatiō to be sufficient the like authority in humane contracts touching spiritual matters the glosse attributeth to the Pope this he meant when he said the Pope can de nullo fecere aliquid of no contract make one which Bel would applie to creatiō making creatures of nothing as God made the world 30. Secondlie he proueth his slaunder out of Gersons rep ort before answered and thirdlie out of Gregory 9. saying Ad firmamentum Gregor 9. lib. 1. de cre◠tit 33. c. 6. Caeli c. to the firmament of heauen that is of the vniuersal church God made two lights Pontifical authority and power Roial that we may knowe there is as much difference betweene Pope Kings as bet wixt sunne moone Is here any word of authority belonging to God or yet of deposing Kings but only a cōparison of Pontifical Royal power with the sunne moone allowed by the publique letters VVritten 1279. and one extāt in Baron tom 10. an 996. Matth. 16. vers 19. 18. Iob. 21. v. 15. 16. Act. 20. v. 18. Matth. 28. v. 19. of three Princes electors and a preferring of the Pontifical before the Royal which if Bel had any feeling of Christianity in him he would not deny Is not the loosing and binding of sinns in heauen earth of preaching the ghospel admnistring the sacraments of feeding Christs sheepe and the like which belongeth to Bishops as is euident out of scripture far more excellent then Royal power which as wel woemen and children as men infidels as Christians may haue 31. The sunne moone are of the same Royal povver far inferour to Pontifical nature and quality differing only in more or lesse light but Royal power is both of nature and quality far inferiour to Pontifical thas is more humane and begun by Constantin called Bishops Gods and professed him self vnder them Ruffin lib. 1. hist c. 2. men this supernatural and instituted by God that common to Infidels this proper to christians that passeth not earth this reacheth to heauen that concerneth only the body this the soule that helpeth men to worldhe and transitorie quietnes this to heauenlie and euerlasting rest Bel could not abide Pope Gregory saying Pontifical authority excelled Royal as far as the sunne excelleth the moone nor the glosse saying it excelled it 47. times how then wil he abide S. Chrisostom saying it excelleth the kingdome Chrisost l. 3. de sacerd Ambros lib. de dignit sacerd c. 2. as much as the soule douth the body or S. Ambrose saying that nothing can be equal to Pontifical dignity and that Royal glorie and Princes crownes are far more inferiour to it then lead is to glistering gould And againe nothing in this world is more Ibid. cap. 3. excellent then priests nothing higher then Bishops or S. Ignatius saying that nothing is more honourable Ignat. epist ad Smirnenscs in the church then Bishops and that we owe the first honour to God the second to Bishops the third to Kings he exclamed against the glosse for affirming the Pope
confirmed the elected touching the apointing of electors is confessed by Bel pag. 14. and touching the confirmation is contested by many histriographers and practized by as many as are crowned Emperors The last parte vz that Emperors haue acknowledged the Popes superiority Bel him self confesseth page 17. where he sayth That some Cbristian Kings and Emperors haue vpon a blynd Zeale humbled them selues to the Pope yea which is more haue yeldeed vp their soueraigne rights to him And shal not the Pope be superior to them who haue humbled them selues yeelded their soueraingties vnto him 5. But what shift hath Bel to auoide this pag. 17. O dolor fraudata sunt tali magisterio tempora antiqua August lib. 1. cont Gaudens c. 19. forsooth that those Christian Princes were blynd O most blynd answerer not seing that he graunteth more then his aduersary requireth Catholiques argue that Kings and Emperors haue acknowledged Popes their superiors this Bel graunteth in confessing their humiliation to Popes which is neuer done but to Superiors and addeth that they haue yeelded vp their Souereigne rights which is more then the obiection contayneth And what he addeth of blynd zeale maketh nothing to the purpose Because the question is not vpon what cause Kings and Emperors humbled them selues to the Popes but whither they did or no. And because they haue so done as Bel confesseth Catholiques infer the Pope to be their Superior Vnles perhaps Bel think blynd zeale to disanul euery fact or gift and so say the Iewes persecuted not the Church because they did it vpon blynd zeale Ro. 10. v. 2. nor our Catholike auÌ„cetors gaue any liuings to Churches because they did it vpon blynd zeale as Bel must think for maintenance of Papistry Neuertheles because the Reader may see whither is more likly to be blind a dooble turne coate Minister or so many Princes as haue humbled them selues to Popes I wil name onely a few Emperors omitting for breuity sake both Christian Kings and the Cassiodor Miscell vid. Baron anno 452. Euseb lib. 6. c. 25. Nicephor lib. 13. c. 34. Bel p. 1â—3 EdictuÌ„ Constantini heathen Attilas miraculously made to reuerence Pope Leo. 6. Philippe the first Christian Emperor about the yeare 246. reuerenced Pope Fabian Constantin worthely faith Bel syrnamed the great held the stirrop to Pope Siluester about the yeare 323. Soone after in S. Ambr. de dignit sacerd c. 2. Chrisosto hom 4. 5. in illud Isaiae vidi Dominum The lâ—ke S. Hilary l. cont Constant Gelas 1. ep ad Anastas S. Greg. in 4. Psal paenit Baron anno 536. ex Anastas Miscell zonora Naucler General 18. Platina in CoÌ„stantino Naucler general 24. Concil Florent per Iouerium Platina in Adrian 1. Naucler general 26. Centur. 8. c. 10. col 724. Platida in Stephan 4. Naucler general 28. Platina in Nicolao 1. Platâ—na in Gregor 7. Naucler general 36. S. Ambrose and S. Chrisostomes tyme as them selues witnes Emperors bowed their necks euen to Priests knees and layd their heads vnder their hands the same testifieth Pope Gelasius of Anastase Emperor of his tyme and S. Gregory of Emperors before his tyme. Iustin about the yeare 525. humbled him self to the ground to Pope Ihon 1. Iustinian 534. humbled him self to Pope Agapet and worshiped him Iustinian the second about the yeare 710. kissed the feet of Pope Constantin Ihon Paleologus wold haue kneeled to Pope Eugenius 4. in the yeare 1438. And thus did the Emperors of the East 7. Of the western Emperors Charles the great about the yeare 773. cold not be held by Pope Adrian I. from kissing his feete Lewis his sone sent the honorablest of his court to meet Pope Steuen 4. him self went a myle and as soone as he saw him lighting from his horse with great veneration brought him into the city in the yeare 817. Lewis 2. went a myle to meet Pope Nicolas 1. and putting his hand to his horses bâ—ydle brought him into his Camp about the year 860 Henry 3. 1077. baresooted in the depth of winter attended vpon Gregory 7 Henry 4. IIII. kissed the feet of Pope Pascal 2. Frederick 1. about the year 1155. held the stirrop to Pope Adrian 4. and Platina in Pascali 2. Naucler general 38. Platin. in Adrian 4. Alexand 3. Naucler gener 40. Onuphrius in chron Plat. in IoaÌ„ â—2 Naucler general 48. Surius in coÌ„mentar 1177. kissed the feere of Pope Alexander 3. Sigismund 1418. prostrate on the ground with most great veneration kissed the feete of Pope Martin 5. Charles the 5. 1530. 1538. kissed the feete of P. P. Clement 7. Paul 3. and wold haue held the stirrop of Pope Clement 7. of al these Christian Emperors it is recorded in publik histories how they humbled them selues to Popes and of no Catholique Christian Emperor is written that he refused to do the like 8. Let now any indifferent Reader be iudge whither the Pope haue reason to think him self to be Superior to Christian Emperors seing so many and they the most wise most valiant and most famous of al euen the very first and last of them haue acknowledged him their Superior And whither it be likly that Bel shold see and al these Christian Emperors together with their Counsellors Nobles Prelats Diuins Commons be blind yea so blind as they shold not see that their humiliation to the Pope opened the window sayth Bel p. 17. to al Antichristian tyrany 9. Vsual it is for Heretiks to condemne See S. Austin lib. 2. cont Iul. c. 10. to 7. not onely former Catholiques but euen Heritiks of blindnes if they disagree from them So the Caluinist condemneth the Lutherian the Puritan saith the same of the Protestant the Brounist of the Puritan And King Edward sixtimes coÌ„demned K. Henries religion of blindnes and those found the like measure in Queene Elizabeths Petition exhibited to his Maiesty in April 1603. time and she had fared a like if more then a thousand ministers who condemne her proceding of Enormities Superstitions and abuses contrary to Scripture had obtayned their petition But of them al we may say as Tertullian said of Heritiks in his time Tertull. lib. de praescrip To these alone and to these first was the truth reuealed forsooth they obtayned greater fauor and fuller grace of the diuil For light they haue but 2. Cor. 11. v. 14. Conference p. 71. such as cometh from him who transfigureth him selfe into an angel of light and brag of it til as the Kings maiesty said of the Scottish ministers they goe made with their owne light And thus much of the Catholiques obiection and Bels answer therto Now let vs come to his sleunderous vntruthes CHAP. VII Some of Bels slaunderous vntruthes disproued BEL perceauing that the slightnes of his forsaid answer would haue easely appeared if it had bene set down immediatly after the Catholiques obiection without dazeling the Readers eyes before with some other matter though best
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.
though Q. Elizabeth had vtterly cast of the Popes friendship yet he forsooke not hir For Pius 4. supposing P. Pius 4. A. 1560. that she had reuolted from that Sea rather for feare lest her title to the crowne might be called in question because one P. had before declared her birth to be vnlawful then for dislike of the religion which in her father and sisters daies she had professed sent a Nuntio to promise her al fauor touching her title to the crowne And soone after an other to request her to send her diuines to the Councel of Trent with promise of al security and liberty Neither may I leaue your Maiestie out of the number of the Princes of this land who haue tasted the loue frindship of the Sea Apostolike Because P. Clement 8. 1603. out of your owne grateful mind you haue publiquely professed your Proclamat â—â— 1. â—egni selfe behoulding vnto P. Clement 8. for his temporal carriadge and diuers kinde offices towards your Maiestie Besides he hath as it is reported censured al such as shal molest your grace and hath often times professed that he would willinglie giue his life for the eternal good of our countrey VVhich is the greatest loue that one can beare as our Sauiour testifieth vnto his friend Oh how great enimies are they vnto England who seeke by false slaunders to make such friends odious vnto vs. By this which hath bene said omitting much more for breuity your Maiestie clearlie seeth how greatlie and how continally the Sea Apostolique hath euer fauored the Christian Princes of this land how many and how great benefits both spiritual and temporal Popes haue bestowed vpon them and in their dangers and distresses according to their power assisted them VVeigh I beseech your grace in the ballance of your Princely wisdome the forsaid benefits with such as your selfe or Auncitors haue receaued from the rest of Christendom and Popes haue benefited Engl. more then al Christendome besyds you shal finde that the Sea Apostolicke alone hath more benifyted England then al Christendom besides and consequentlie that the forsaking of the Popes friendship hath more endammaged your Realme then if it had forsaken the rest of Christendom But especiallie I humblie beseech your Maiestie weigh them with such as Bel or any minister can shew you to haue receaued from their two seats of pestilence in witenberge and Geneua VVhat kingdomes haue they bestowed vpon you vnto what imperial or Royal dignity haue they exalted you from what Paganisme haue they conuerted your land what enimies haue they appeased what assistance haue they afforded you in any need what good litle or great haue they brought to this land Now what mischeefe haue they not brought That Bel in his ovvne iudgemeÌ„t vvas both an Apostata and Traiter vvhiles he vvas Preist one Apostata and fierbrand of seditioÌ„ Knox sent from Geneua brought more mischiefe to your Grandmother your B. mother to your father and Kingdom of Scotland then I can rehearse or your Maiestie without great griefe can remember Ministers pretend the loue of the Ghospel as the cause of persuading you from friendship with the Pope But yet disswade not from friendship with the Turke They pretend also your graces See Conser at Hampton Court p. 80. 81. security But the true cause indeed your Maiestie descried discouered in Knox to wit their owne security aduauÌ„cement which they fear would be endangered if you kept your ancient and surest friend and therefore with your losse as your maiestie perceaued in your Grandmothers case they worke their owne wealth and security And thus much of the Popes The laue benefits of the British Kings to the Sea Apostolik Note this As for the Christian Princes of this land though they haue bene of foure different and most opposite nations to wit Britons English Danes and Normans yet haue they al agreed in keeping the league of friendship with the Pope being officious vnto him accouÌ„ting him their especial friend Of the British kings of this land first K. Lucius A. 156. Beda lib. 1. c. 4. is King Lucius whose particular affection towards the Sea Apostolick is euident by that he neglecting other Christian Churches neare vnto him he sent so far as to Rome for Preachers As for Constantin the great Constantin Mag. 324. the immortal glory of the British kings his extraordinary loue and affection vnto the Sea of Rome is more notorious then I need rechearse For he not only gaue vnto the Pope the gouernment of Rome and of a good parte of the west as besides him selfe and Latin historiographers Constant in edicto Isidor Eugubin de donat ConstaÌ„t Grat. d. 69. Iuo Genebr in chron Photius seu Balsam in nomoran R. Abraham in Zikron Dibre Romi Abben Estra 11. Daniel Cadualader Polid. lib. 3. both Greecks and Iewes professed enimies to the Pope do testifie but also serued him as a lackey houlding his stirrop and leading his horse by the bridle Cadwallader also the last British king in England hauing lefte his countrey went no whither but to Rome and there ended his daies And if the histories of those ancieÌ„t times were more perfect or the Britons had raigned longer in this Iland no doubt but we should haue more examples of their deuotion to the Sea of Rome as appeareth by Salomon A. 869. Argenteus histor Brit. lib. 2. c. 27. Baron An. â—â—9 Salomon their King in litle Britany after they had bene driuen hence by the Saxons who writing to Pope Adrian the second beginneth his letter thus Domino ac beatissimo Apost sedis Rom Hadriano Salomon Britanorum Rex flexis genibus inclinatoque capite And sendeth him his statua in gold with diuers rich guifts and money promiseth a yearlie pension and acknowledgeth his Royal title to haue bene giuen to him by Popes This was the loue of the British kings vnto the Sea Apostolike To the British kings succeeded the The loue benefits of the English Kings K. Ethelbert An. 596. Beda lib. â— c. 25. Saxons or English as wel in their loue and reuerence to the Sea of Rome as in their kingdome For king Ethelbert at the very first receaued S. Gregory his Legats very courteouslie prouided them of al things necessary and freelie licensed them to preach vsing these gratious words worthie to be imitated of your Maiestie in the like case For so much as you are come so far to impart vnto vs such knovvledge as you take to be true vve vvil not trouble you but rather vvithal courtesie receaue you After him king Ofwin hauing K. Osvvin A. 665. perfectly learned that the Church of Rome saith S. Beda was the Catholique Lib. 3. c. 29. and Apostolicke Church sent thither in the yeare 665. a Priest to be consecrated Archbishop of Canterbury And in a conference about the obseruation of Easter hearing that the keies of heauen were giuen to S. Peter
had once deceaued you in a mony matter you wold beware how you trusted them again and wil you beleeue them stil they hauing by their owne confession hitherto deceaued you both in your Church seruice Bible commending the one to you as diuine seruice and the other as Gods pure word and now condemning them both Open your eyes for the passion of Christ and seeing publike conference wil not be graunted where we might lay open vnto you the deceits of your Ministers help your selfs as wel as you may read with indifferency such books as are written for this purpose make earnest intercession to God to see the truth grace to follow it when you haue found it which God of his goodnes graunt Farewel 2. Februar 1605. Thy seruant in Christe IESV S. R. A TABLE OF THE ARTICLES AND CHAPTERS ARTICLE I. Of the Popes Superiority BELS argument against the Popes superiority answered diuers his vntruths and dissimulations therin discouered Chapt. 1. The opinion of Protestants touching Princes supremacy set down Chapt. 2. The opinion of Protestants touching deposition of Princes Chapt. 3. The practise of Protestants touching deposition of Princes Chapt. 4. Bels proofes of his assumption against the Popes superiority answered Chapt. 5. Bels answer to an argument of Catholiks for the Popes superiority confuted Chap. 6. Some of Bels slaunderous vntruths disproued Chapt. 7. Certain fals steps of a ladder which Bel imagineth the Pope had to clime to his superiority disproued Chapt. 8. The rest of Bels fals steps and slaunderous vntruths in this article disproued Chap. 9. ARTICLE 2. Of the Masse Bels reason against the real presence of Christ in the B. Sacrament answered his vntruth and dissimulation therin discouered Chapt. 1. Authorities alleadged by Bel against the real presence answered Chapt. 2. Masse proued Bels argumēt against it answered his manifold vntruths therin disproued Chap. 3. The rest of Bels arguments against the Masse confuted Chap. 4. Berengarius his recantation explicated and S. Austins authority answered Chap. 5. Bels imaginary contradictions in the Masse answered and true contradictions in his communion shewed Chap. 6. ARTICLE III. Of the Popes Dispensations Chapt. 1.  ARTICLE IIII. Of original concupiscence in the regenerate The Catholike doctrin touching concupiscence explicated and proued Chap. 1. Diuers vntruths of Bel disproued his arguments out of S. Paul against the doctrin of the former Chapter answered Chap. 2. Bels arguments out of S. Austin touching concupiscence answered Chap. 3. Bels arguments out of S. Ambros S. Bede S. Thomas touching concupiscence answered Chap. 4. ARTICLE V. Of the merit of good vvorks Of the Protestanis enmity to good works and frendship with euil Chap. 1. Of Bels positions touching good works Chap. 2. The Catholiks doctrin touching merit particulerly set downe and proued Chapt. 3. Bels arguments out of Scripture against condigne merit answered Chap. 4. Bels arguments out of holy Fathers against condigne merit answered Chap. 5. Bels arguments out of late Catholik writers against condigne merit answered Chap. 6. ARTICLE VI. Of the distinction of mortal and venial sins The true distinction proued and Bels obiection answered Chapt. 1. A text of S. Ihon epist 1. explicated Chap. 2. ARTICLE VII The Catholike doctrin touching sufficiency of Scripture propounded proued certaine vntruths of Bel disproued Chap. 1. Bels arguments out of the old testamēt concerning the sufficiency of Scripture answered Chap. 2. Bels arguments out of the new testament touching sufficiency of Scripture answered Chap. 3. Bels arguments out of Fathers touching sufficiency of Scripturs and Traditions answered Chap. 4. Bels arguments out of late Catholik writers touching sufficiency of Traditions and Scripture answered Chap. 5. Of the difficulty or easynes of Scripture Chap. 6. Of the vulgar peoples reading Scripture Chap. 7. Of the translation of Scripture into vulgar tongs Chap. 8. Of Apostolical Traditions whether ther be any or none Chap. 9. Of the certainty of Apostolical Traditiōs Chap. 10. Of the examination of Traditions Chap. 11. Bels arguments out of Fathers about the examination of Traditions answered Chap. 12. Of the authority of late general Coūcels Chap. 13. Of the oath which Bishops vse to make vnto the Pope Chapt. 14. ARTICLE VIII Of keeping Gods commandements The possibility of keeping Gods commandements explicated and proued out of Scripture Chap. 1. The possibility of keeping Gods commandements proued out of Fathers and reason Chap. 2. Bels arguments out of Scripture against the possibility of keeping Gods commandements answered Chapt. 3. Bels arguments out of Fathers against the possibility of keeping Gods commandements answered Chapt. 4. THE FIRST ARTICLE OF THE POPES SVPERIORITY CHAPT I. Bels arguments against the Popes Superiority ansvvered diuers his vntruthes and dissimulations therin discouered BEL like a man in great choler and very desirous to encounter with his enemie beginneth his chalenge very abruptly hastily yet not forgetting his scholerschip or ministerie he geueth the onset with a syllogisme ful charged with vntruthes dissimulacions You Papistes saith 3. Vntruthes 2. dissimulations he tel vs that the Pope is aboue al powers and potentates on earth that he can depose Kinges Emperours from their royal thrones and translate their empires and regalities at his good wil and pleasure But this doctrin is false absurde nothing else but a mere fable And conseqently Romish Religion consisteth of meere falsehoods fables flat leasinges 2. Not without cause gentle Reader hath Bel proposed these bloudy questions of the Popes supremacie and deposition of Princes in his first article and placed them in the forefront of his battel for he hopeth that they wil be his best bulwarke and surest defense in the combate that in such lystes he shal not fight alone but assisted with the Princes sworde wherein he dealeth with Catholiques as Puritanes which Conference at Hampton Court pag. 82. 83. his Maiesty prudently obserueth doe vvith protestants vvho because they could not othervvise make their partes good against protestants appeale to his supremacie And as the old Arians Ambr. epist 32. victor lib. 1. de preste◠vandol did who euermore accused the Catholiques as iniurious to the Prince which they al learne of the Iewes who being vnable to disprooue Christs doctrine endeuoured to bring him into the compasse of treason and Matth. 22. v. 17. at last procured his death as enemy to Cesar Wherfore ymitating the example of our Sauiour when the like question was propounded to seeke his bloud I answere Bel briefelie That what is Cesars we ought to Luc. 20. v. 25. geue to Cesar and what is Gods to God and what is Gods Vicars to Gods Vicar Onely because Bel in his said syllogisme chargeth Catholiques most falsely withal dissembleth the opinion of protestantes touching the supremacie and deposition of Princes I wil disproue his vntruthes and discouer his dissimulations and afterward compare the opinion and practise of Protestants Catholiques touching this matter
auoucheth That ordinarily he can not depose Princes euen for iust causes 7. But let vs heare Bel disproue him self Anatomy of Popish tyrany in the Caueat to the Reader and lib. 2. cap. 4. §. 10. c. 9. 1. Contradiction Secular Priests saith he write plainly and resolutly that the Pope hath no power to depriue Kings of their royal Scepters and regalities nor to giue away their Kingdomes to an other In which opiniō likewise the French Papists do concurre iump with them Item The Seculars although they acknowledge the Popes power supereminent in Spiritualibus yet do they disclaime from it in temporalibus when he taketh vpon him to depose Kinges from their empires and translate their Kingdomes And least we should thinke these few Priests who wrote so were no Papists Bel him self testifieth that they are the Popes deare Vassals and professe the selfe same religion with Epistle to the King other Catholiques 8. The third vntruth conteined in the proposition is that we teach the doctrine of his proposition as a pointe of our faith wherevpon he inferreth in his conclusion our religion and faith to be false Because we teach no such doctrine at al and much lesse as a point of our religion or faith And the grauest best learned amongst Catholiques attribute to rhe Pope onely spiritual superiority ouer Princes and power to depose them in that case wherin our Sauiour said Math. 18. that it were better for a man to be cast into the sea then to liue to wit when they so scandalize others as their deposition is necessary for the saluation of soules as I haue already shewed out af Bellarmin Bel. parag 29. whose testimony in this matter Bel can not refuse seing he calleth him the mouth of Papists and auoucheth his doctrin to be the Popes owne doctrin And this doctrin good Christiā Princes account no more preiudicial or iniurious to their estates then they do the like doctrin of S. Paul 2. Cor. 10. where he professeth him self to haue power to destroy al loftines extolling it self against the knowledge of God to be ready to punish al disobedience 9. Wherfore to requite Bel with a syllogisme like vnto his owne I argue thus you Bel tel vs that we Papists saie the Pope is aboue al powers and potentates on earth that he can depose Kings and Emperours and translate their empiers at his good wil and pleasure But this your tale is a very tale false absurd and nothing else but a mere fable and consequently your late chalenge consisteth of mere falsehoods fables flat leasings The proposition is your owne wordes the truth of the assumption appeereth by my answer to your argument And thus much touching Bels vntruthes vttered in his proposition and proofe therof now let vs come to his dissemblinge CHAP. II. The opinion of protestants touching Princes Supremacie set dovvne LVTHER an Euangelist as he termeth him selfe or as other accompte him Luther lib. cont stat eccles in prologo in glossa cont decreta Caesar Ex Sur. An. 1531. 1539. Pope of Recusamy p. 31. 32. Magdeburg praefat Centur 7. Caluin in c. 7. Amos. an Apostle a prophet a third Elias a beginner of protestantisme in his booke of secular power condemneth those Princes who prescribe laws to their subiects in matter belonging to faith and the Church Magdeburgians his first and cheefest childeren write thus Let not Magistrats be heads of the Church because this Supremacy agreeth not to them Caluin saith they were blasphemers who attributed the supremacy to King Henry 8. And lest we shold think that only forayne Protestāts are of this opinion Antony Gilby in his admonition to England and Scotland Gilby calleth King Henry a monstrous bore for taking the supremacy that he displaced Christ was no better then the Romish Antichrist made him selfe a God And lately VVillet cōtract 791. part 1. and 3. p. 269. 270. Willet auoucheth That Bishops and Pastors haue a spiritual charge ouer Kings that Kings ought to yeeld obedience to those that haue ouersight of their soules That Heathen Princes had the same power and authority in the Church which Christian Princes haue and yet soone after affirmeth That heathen Princes cold not be heads of the Church that is to haue the Souereingty of external gouernment Againe That the King is nether mistical nor ministerial head of the Church that the name of head is vnproperly giuen to the Prince and if any think it to great Kings not so much is ministerial heads of the Church by vvillet a name for any mortal man we wil not saith he greatly contend about it So we see he denyeth both name and authority of the head of the Church to Kings 2. And his Maiesty perceaued that Reanolds and his fellows aymed at a Scottish Presbitry which agreeth with a Monarch Conference p. 82 83. as wel as God and the diuel page 79. and acknowledged his supremacy only to make their partes good with Bishops as Knox his fellow ministers in Scotland made his grandmother head of the Church therby to pul downe the Catholique Bishops Yea that the whole English Clergy is in their harts of the same opiniō appeareth by their open profession to agree in religion with forayne Protestants who plainly deny the supremicy of Princes by their writing and Apologia pag. 28. teaching that Christ alone can behead of the Church by their condemning Catholiques for attributing such authority to man and finally by their Synodical explication of the article of supremacy which they expound thus That Princes should rule al estates Lib. 39. Artic. art 37. and degrees committed to their charge by God whether they be Ecclesiastical or temporal and restrayne with the ciuil sword the stubborne and euil doers wherein we see no power in Ecclesiastical causes granted to Princes but only ouer Ecclesiastical persons And we deny not that Princes haue any power ouer Ecclesiastical persons yea in the very canon of the Masse as priests pray for Papa nostro N. and Antistite nostro N. for our Pope and Byshop so they pray for Rege nostro N. acknowledging the one to be their King as the others to be their Prelates and consequently both to haue power ouer them For as S. Augustin said and it is euident Rex à Augustin in Psalm 44. 67. regendo dicitur a King is so called of power to gouerne And as ecclesiastical persons be ciuil or politique members of the common wealth wherein they liue so haue they See Stapelton relectione Controuersiae 2. q. 1. a. 1. ad 2. Victoria relectione de potesta ecclesiastica sect 7. the same politique or ciuil head which that commonwealth hath for otherwise either ciuil members should haue no ciuil head at al which were monstrous or not be vnder the head of that body whereof they be members but onely vnder a ciuil head of an other body which is
is the first P. whome we find to haue made a flat decree touching the deposition of Princes in these words If any King Prelat Iudge or seculer person lib. 12. epist vlt. lib. 11. epist 10. of what degree or highnes soeuer do violate the priuileges of S. Medards monastery let him be deposed And vpon the 4. al 5. poenit psalme he writeth that no reason alloweth him to be King who alienateth men from Christ and enthralleth his Church and sharply inueigheth against the Emp for vsurping right of earthly power ouer the Church of Rome which he calleth the head of al Churches and Lady of Nations and telleth him that it were better for him to acknowledge her his Lady and submit him selfe to her according to the example of godly Princes 3. And as for the place which Bel citeth he speaketh not there of the subiection duty or obedieÌ„ce of a subiect to his Prince but of a seruant to his Maister as he had bene to Mauritius whiles they were both priuat men which him selfe plainly professeth in the beginning of his letter in these words In this suggestion I speake not as Bishop nor as subiect by reason of the common wealth but by priuat right of my owne because you haue bene my Lord since that time when as yet you were not Lord of al. And therfore by the forsayd words he meaneth no otherwise then a louing seruant doth when vpon curtesie to his old Maister though he haue left him yet he stil calleth him Maister and offereth him selfe and his seruice at his command His second error was in inferring vpon the bare words of one P. speaking of him selfe alone not onely his dutiful obedience but also of al his Predecessors for 600. years together He would espie his error if I should infer the same oâ— al. S. Greg his successors for 600. years after him And though euery English Priest do cal his Maiesty Soueraigne Lord professe them selues subiect to his commande and to owe him obedience as far as Bel can shew that euer S. Gregory did to the Emp yet wil he not suffer me to infer that they liue in al dutiful obedience to their Prince but wil condemne them al of high treason For with him as of old with Donatists Quod volumus Sanctum est 4. His 3. error is in granting that Popes Contradict Gelas epist ad Anastas Theodoret. lib. 5. cap. 18. Sozom. l. 7. c. 24. Paulin. in vit Ambros Lib. cont Gentil Euseb lib. 6. c. 26. Niceph. lib. 13. c 39. Gelas d. 96. con Duo sunt Georg. Patriarcha in vit Chrysost Symach ep ad Anastas Stapleto de Eccl. Rom. Platina iâ— Gelasio for 600. years after Christ liued in al dutiful obedience to Emperors wherein he quite ouerthroweth what he ment to proue in this Article For if that be true he can not thinke that to excommunicate or depose Princes vpon great causes is against the duty of Popes Because to omit S. Ambrose his excoÌ„municating of the Emperors Theodosius Maximus S. Babilas his excoÌ„municating an other Emp whom he droue saith S. Chrisost out of the Church as if he had bene a base slaue of no account no fewer then fiue or six Popes haue excoÌ„municated their Emperors in that time As S. Fabian excoÌ„municated Phillip the first Christian Emperor S. Innocent 1. the Emperours Arcadius and Eudoxia P. Symachus P. Anastasius and as some say P. Gelasius excommunicated the Emperor Anastasius and P. Vigil Baron An. â—84 Contradict the Empresse Theodora And S. Gregory him selfe proceeded further as you heard euen to depose Princes Moreouer Bel Writeth p 8. that Barbarians possessed al Italy from the yeare 471. vntil Charles the great 801. How then saieth he here that Popes liued vnder Emperors vntil 603. 5. His fourth error is in coÌ„fessing S. Gregory the great to be ours that is a Papist wherupon follow many things to his vtter confusion First that the old Rom religion for I hope what is aboue a 1000. yeares old is old which him selfe p 83. confesseth to be Catholique sound pure is Papistical 2. That the first Christian religion which our English Anceitours hauing bene euer before bondslaues saith S. Bedal 2. c. 1. of Idols receaued from S. Gregory by his legat S. Austin was Papistical 3. That al Christendome was in S. Gregories time Papistical because it communicated with him in faith and religion as is euident by his Epistles written to al partes of Christendome Thus we see this mans smal wit in prouing his vntruthes Now let vs see his good wil. 6. Very loth he is to graunt the Pope the Bel pag. 3. S. Ignat. ep ad Mariam Cassab name of Pope which Saints Councels Princes Catholiques Schismatiks haue euer giuen him Bishops of Rome saith he S. Iustin ep ad zenam seren S. Aug. epist 92. 95. 261. S. Hiero. ep ad Damas Amb. ep 81 VinceÌ„t cont haeres liberatus in breuiar cap. 22. Concil Calcedon as 16. Carthag Mileuil apud August ep 90. 92. Epirot ep ad Hermis Constantin in edicto Galli Placidici epist ad Pulcheriam Choniatas Vide epist trium Concil Africon ad Damas to 1. Camil. Protestants cal vs Papists of the Pope yet vvil not cal him Pope Victor de persecut vaÌ„dalica lib. 1. Bel p. 3. Gregor Turon de glor mart cap. 25. 30. 79. now called Popes And when not Syr did not S. Ignatius who liued in the Apostles tyme cal S. Anaclerus Pope did not also S. Iustin euen as the Magdeburgians confesse did not S. Austin S. Hierome S. Ambrose Vincent Lirin others aboue a thousand yeares a goe did not the Councel of Calcedon of Carthage of Mileui of Epirus do not the Gretians cal the Bishop of Rome Pope Was he not alwaies called Pope as wel in England as in al Christendome els vntil the 26. yeare of Henry 8. when hauinge reuoulted from the Popes obedience he commanded this name to be razed out of al writings calendaties Holy Doctors whatsoeuer 7. And a maruailous thing it is to consider the contradictious spirit of Protestants They wil cal vs nothing but Papists as Arians called Catholique Romans and our religion Popish which are bynames inuented of them selues and deriued from the name of Pope and yet wil they not cal him Pope which hath bene his name euer since the Apostles time And thus much touching Bels proofe of his Assumption out of S. Gregory 8. Next he alleadgeth S. Ambrose saying Dauid being King was subiect to no human law But besids that the word human is not in that place S. Ambrose freeth Kings onely Bonus impetator intra non supra ecclesiaÌ„ est Ambr. epist 32. Theodoret. lib. 5. cap. 18. Sozomen l. 7. c. 24. Paulin. in vita Ambros Ruffin lib. 1. c. 2. Theodoret. lib. 4. cap. 5. from penalty of ciuil or temporal lawes For how subiect he thought them to be to Ecclesiastical lawes
Vicar of Christ Christ of the Lord and God of Pharao And thus spoke S. Bernard euen in those books where according to Caluins Caluin l. 4. c. 11. paragr 11. iudgment he spoke it so as truth it selfe semed to speake And albeit the Pope do not entitle him selfe King of Kings but Seruant of Gods seruants which is a more humble stile then any Prince vseth yet rightly might he because he hath twoe Kingdomes vz. Naples and Sicily Feudatary The Pope gaue IrlaÌ„d to the King of England Stovv ann â—â—71 and temporally subiect vnto him as he had also Ireland before he gaue it vnto the crowne of England in K. Henry 2. time 7. But because Bel is so hard aconstruer of some Catholiques words let vs heare not a parasite but a Protestant Prelat speaking not in absence but in presence of the King and realme Bilson in his late sermon Bilson at the Kings coronation saith Kings be Gods by office they haue the society of his name are in his place their very robes are sanctified euery thing belonging to them is sacred are pertakers with Christ in the power honour and iustice of his Kingdome on earth and partake with Gods homage Behould he calleth Kings Gods and partners with God in his name power honour and homage and yet no Catholique chardgeth Protestants that they attribute to the King or that he challengeth power proper to God alone 8. The third point reprehended by Bel in Gersons reporte is that ecclesiastical and temporal power is said to come from the Pope This saith Bel pag 16. is to make the Pope author of al power a thing proper to God 14. vntruth 15. vntruth This say I is for Bel to vtter two vntruthes at once for neither do they speake of al power but only of power in earth which they deuide into ecclesiastical temporal besides which there is power in heauen of God and Saints neither do they make the Pope author of al power in earth but only saie it commeth from the Pope which is not to make him author therof vnles Bel wil make euery officer author of what he doth in the Princes name euery instrument author of the effect it worketh by vertue of the cause And thus much touching this slaunder of Popes imposed by Bel. Now let vs come to others for no other stuffe we are like to hear hereafter in this article CHAP. VIII Certaine false steps of a ladder vvhich Bel imagineth the Pope had to climbe to his superiority disproued BEL hauing vpon the foresaid words of some nameles Catholiques taken occasion Bel pag. 17. to slaunder Popes goeth on in like sorte for many leaues together setting downe steppes in a ladder which as he imagineth the Popes had to climbe to their superiority The first steppe saith he was the departure of the Emperour Constantine from Rome to Constantinople but if he had better considered he should haue found that as the cittie of Rome decaied by Constantines departure and Constantinople increased So the Sea of Rome rather fel therby in external Euseb Hieron in chron Conc. Constant epist ad Damasc Gelas ad Episcop Dardaniae dignity and the Sea of Constantinople rose then otherwise For wheras before Constantines going to Constantinople which was about the yeare 330. that church was but new and a parish of another church as Gelasius witnesseth soone after in the yeare 381. it was made a Patriarchate Cone Constantin c. 5. Concil Calced act 16. next to Rome and in the yeare 451. the Grecians gaue it equal priuiledges with Rome And not content with this about the yeare 600. that Patriarch arrogated the title of Oecumenical that is ouer the whole worlde And finallie in the yeare 1054. claimed Sigebert in chron the place of the first Patriarch alleadging the Pope to haue lost his primacy by adding filióque to the Nicene Creed 2. But Constantine sayth Bel at his departure pag. 7. did as the Popes parasites tel vs giue lardge guifts to the Pope euen his whole power dominion and territories both in Rome Italy and al the west Behould a man as the Prouerbe is hauing a wolfe by the eare which he dare neither hould nor yet let goe For if he graunt that Constantine gaue the Pope his whole power and dominion ouer Rome Italy and al the west he must needs graunt that the Pope of right hath imperial power ouer al the west If he deny it he sheweth not how ConstaÌ„tins departure was a steppe for the Pope to climbe to higher authority Besides that not Constantins departure but his guifte should haue bene made the steppe Notwithstanding choosing rather to condemne him selfe of not shewing how Constantins departure was a steppe for the Pope to climbe then to graunt that the Pope hath so good right to imperial power ouer the west he inclineth to denial of the guift citeth Valla Volaterran Cathalan Cusan fowre late and obscure writers against it and tearmeth them Popishe parasites who affirme it 3. But against these foure late writers I oppose foure most auncient Isidor Photius or Balsamon Gratian Iuo many late writers besides two Iewes Rabby Abraham and Aben Esra who al auouch Constantins guift whereof Photius and the Iewes were professed enimies of the Pope and Bel him selfe confesseth that some Emperours haue giuen the Pope their soueraigne rights In which kinde no Emperour excelled Constantine yet Bellarmine saith Bellarmin lib. 5. de Roman Pont. â— 9. Bel seemeth to doubt of this and such like donations Wherein Sir In these words saith he there are extant at Rome the authentical euidences of these and the like donations and if there were not prescription of eight hundred yeares would aboundantlie suffice For Kingdomes vniustlie gotten are in proces of time made lawful as he proueth by the Romane Empier gotten Prescription of 30. yeares sufficeth by ciuil lavv by Cesar the Kingdome of England by Saxons and others What shew is in theis words of doubt or rather not of certainty For Bellarmin affirmeth that the Pope hath two iust titles to hould his estate The first is free guift of Princes whereof he can shew authentical euidences the other prescription of time 4. The second steppe saith Bel was the fal pag. 8. of the Empire in the west in the yeare 471. and vacancy therof for almost 330. yeares But how this fal and vacancy of the Empire was a steppe for Popes to climbe neither he sheweth nor any can imagin especially if as he writeth straight after in this vacancie of the Empire Rome was spoiled with fier sword and the verie walles throvvne dovvne to the ground and al Italie possessed of the Barbares vntil Carolus Magnus who was the first Emperour after the vacancie if in this vacancy Rome was destroied and al Italy possessed by Barbares who for the most part were heathens or heretiks how could it bee a steppe for the Pope to climbe and
obedience And that Christ hath giuen him most ful powre as S. Cyril saith he teacheth lib. thesaur which proofe out of S. Cyril this honest challenger left out Austin of Ancona affirmeth Augustin do Ancona in summa p. 152. that The Pope as Christs vicar hath vniuersal iurisdiction ouer al Kingdoms and Empiers Did euer man see greater impudency what word is here of equal powre with God Nay expresse word of inequality if vicars be vnequal to principals deputies to Kings Did Christs humanity when it receaued most ful powre Math. 28. v. 18. and authority S. Mathevv ouer al kingdoms and bounds of the earth psal 2. v. 8. receaue equal powre to Dauid God And if the powre of Christ as man though neuer so ful and vniuersal were create and vnequal to Gods powre who can imagin the powre giuen by Christ as man to a pure man to be equal to Gods I omit Bels error in affirming that Austin of Ioan. 12. liued 956. August de Ancona 1305. Onuph in chron Ancona dedicated his booke to Pope Ihon the twelft who was dead almost 400. years before him But he shold haue said Ihon 22. and this error can not be laid vpon the Printer seeing the number is set downe not in cyphers but letters 2. His dissimulation is euident First because Dissimulati◠4. he concealeth that the opinion That matrimony only contracted may be vpon vrgent occasion dissolued is held but of some Canonists and of very few deuines who commonly hold the contrary But impugneth Bel impugneth an opinion of Canonists and of Protestants as a matter of faith 5. Dissimulation Surius Ann. 1540. Vid. Lindan l. de concordia Haereticor p. 69. it as if it were held of al Catholiques and as a point of their faith Secondly he imposeth the said opinion vpon Catholiques only dissembling that Protestants think not only matrimony contracted but also consummated by carnal copulation may be dissolued impugne Catholiques for not admitting any cause of dissoluing such matrimony 3. Luther the Protestants first Father writ a booke 1540. where he auoucheth it to be hard and vniust that the innocent person may not marry an other after separation made for adultery Caluin calleth it a Caluin 4. instit c. 19. paragr 37. most vniust law Likwise Bucer in cap. 19. Math. Melancht de loc tit de coniugio Kemnitius in 2. part exami And Willet in VVillet controu 15. q. 2. p. 526. 527. name of English Protestants Al these affirme that adultery is a iust cause why euen consummated marriage may be dissolued and a new contracted Luther addeth other Luther in c. 7. ad Corinth edit 1523. causes as the one persuading the other to sinne much debate betwene them and long absence of the one party which if it be done of malice seemeth iust cause to willet and therto he citeth Beza 1. Corinth VVillet sup 7. and other Protestants And this was practized in K. Edward 6. tyme when Syr Ralf Sadler hauing maried one Mathew Baro his wife in his absence though Baro had begotten children of her yet could not recouer her but by Parlament she was adiudged to Sadler Caluin addeth want of Caluin Bucer sup consent of parents if the parties be yong and Bucer addeth incommodious behauior of ether party to be a sufficient cause 4. Wherfore if the Pope by dissoluing Bel pag. 37. contracted matrimony which he doth very seldom and vpon vrgent occasion weighty cause challenge as Bel saith powre equal to God Surely Protestants by dissoluing consummated matrimony often and vpon so many causes wherof some are very smale and not sufficient to dissolue a meere ciuil contract do challenge powre aboue God But let vs see how he against some Catholiques and generally al Protestants proueth that contracted matrimony can not be dissolued but by God alone for any cause whatsoeuer 5. His reason is because Christ said Math. pag. 38. c. 19. v. 6. what God hath ioyned let not man seperate and Luc. 16. v. 18. Euery one that putteth away his wife and marieth an other committeth adultery And S. Paul 1. Corinth c. 7. v. 10. Those that are ioyned in matrimony command not I but our lord that the wife depart not from the husband but if she depart abide vnmaried or be reconciled to her husband To this the Canonists answer That Christ and his Apostle spake only of consummated matrimony because Math. 19. Christ forbiddeth seperation of such as immediatly before he had said to be made one flesh which is by consummation of matrimony And likewise Luc. 16. prohibiteth mariage after dismission of a wife carnally known as is gathered out of Math. 5. v. 32. where he vseth the same words and citeth the law of diuorce Deut. 24. v. 1. which speaketh of a woman carnally known saying If a man haue taken a vvife and had her and she haue not found fauor in his eyes for some filthines he shal c. And hereby are answered the words of S. Paul in which he referreth him self to the precept of Christ Besids that S. Thecla virgin was by him soluta à nuptijs losed from mariage as writeth S. Epiph. haer 78. which S. Epiphan fact S. Ambros lib. 2. de virg commendeth S. Ambros and it argueth that the Apostle tought vnconsummated mariage might be dissolued 6. Against this answer Bel bringeth many replies in number but none of force 1. That if contracted matrimony were not de iure pag. 38. diuino the greatest Popish Doctors vvold not deny the Popes dispensation therin Lo here when it maketh for his purpose he confesseth the greatest Catholique Doctors to think contracted matrimony to be indissoluble Why then doth he impugne the contrary as an Article of our faith To his argument I answer that though al Catholiques beleeue the institution of contracted matrimony to be of God and Deuines for the most part probably thinke the continuance also therof to be iure diuino and commanded by God yet neuertheles Canonists do probably teach that the continuance of it is not absolutly and in al cases commanded by God but may vpon great and vrgent causes be dissolued by the Church 7. Secondly he replyeth that Christ speaketh absolutly and maketh no mention of copulation or popish consummation Answer Though in that verse he spake absolutly yet immediatly before he made mention of copulation And wil Bel forbid vs to expound a sentence of Scripture by the antecedents or consequents But I maruel much why he tearmed consummation or copulation popish Me thinketh he shold rather cal it Ministerish For Papists can say with S. Austin lib. de bono coniug c. 13. tom 6. VVe S. Austin see lib. 5. cont Faust c. 9. haue many brethren and companions of the heauenly inheritance of both sexes vvho are continent ether after experience of mariage or are free from al such copulation such are innumerable But for Ministers their first
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
oy Bel art 4. c. 3. parag 7. P. S. Paul how he vnderstood the worde beside Galat 11. v. 2. a 7 c. 11. parag 5. S Paul loc cit meant of his preaching not of Scripâ—ure art 7 c. 1. parag 6 S. Paul might haue called glory a stipend arâ— 5. â— 4. parag 2. S Paul Rom. 7 explicated a. 4 c. 2 per tot S. Paul Rom 8 explicated a. â— c. 4. par 10. Pelagians thought knowledge of Scripture necessary to euery one art 7. c. 1 par 3. Pelagians licenced wemen to be skilâ—ul in Scripture to sing with them a 7. c. 7. parag 13. Peoples owing no obedâ—eÌ„â—â— to euil Princes no doctrin of Catholiks art 1. c. 9. par 4. S. Policarps account of the Popes sentence art 7. c. 10. parag 4. Popes accounted loyal excommunicated Emperors art 1. c. 5. parag 4. Pope as Pope challengeth no royal right to ether sword art 1. c. 9. parag 22. Pope can not depose Princes ordinarily euen for iust causes art 1. c. 1. par 5. 6. Pope can not depose princes for his pleasure art 1 c. 1. parag 5. Popes and Protestants proceedings in deposing Princes compared a. 1. c. 9. par 26. Pope cold not become Antichrist by the acceptance of the Exarchate a. 1. c. 9. par 4. Pope as Pope hath no temporal iurisdiction at al art 1. c. 1. parag 4. Popes confirmation by Emperors when it began and when it left a. 1. c. 8. par 8. Pope hath censured al that molest our King art 1. c. 4. parag 6. Pope did neuer challeng power proper or equal to God art 1. c. 7. parag 3. Pope how he is said to haue more then humain power art 1. c. 7 parag 3. Pope how he may be called King of Kings art 1. c. 7. parag 6. Pope how he may he King now though he were not in Pepins tyme art 1. c. 9 par 8. Pope highly esteemed by S. Bernard art 1. chap. 7. parag 6. Popes sentence highly esteemed by S. Hierom art 7. c. 12. parag 1. and by others ibid. c. 10. parag 4. Popes definitiue sentence a rule of faith in S. Cyprians tyme art 7. c. 12. parag 1. Pope neuer dispensed to mary a ful sister art 3. c. 1. parag 13. Pope in Councel as King in parlament art 7. c. 13. parag 8. Popes haue giuen three Kingdoms to England art 1. c. 9. parag 17. Popes liberality to Christian Princes art 1. c. 9. parag 37. Popes most cruelly handled by Christian princes art 1. c. 9. parag 27. Popes might haue apostatated from faith yet not taught heresy art 7. c. 10. par 9. Popes name euer from the Apostles tyme art 1. c. 5. parag 6. Popes neuer apostated in hart a. 7. c. 10. par 9. Popes not prowde in mainteining their dignity art 7. c. 13. parag 5. Popes or princes of what nothing they can make somthing art 1 c. 9. parag 29. Popes or princes of what things they can alter the nature art 1. c. 9 parag 28. Popes true step to his primacy a. 1. c. 9. par 32. Pope nether spiritual nor temporal superior to al princes on earth a. 1. c. 1. par â— 4. Popes primacy acknowledged by Gretian Emperors Councels and Patriarchs art 7. c. 13. parag 6. Popes priuate doctrin may be examined but not his iudicial sentence of faith art 7. c. 14. parag 2. Popes present in most Councels of the west art 7. c. 13. parag 8. Popes taught alwaies the doctrin of S. Peter art 7. c. 10. parag 8. Pope translated the Empire and appointed the Electors art 1. c. 6. parag 3. 4. Popery confessed to haue bene with in 200. years after Christ art 7. c. 10. parag 2. Prayers in an vnknowne tong commended by S. Paul art 7. c. 8 parag 2. Princes absolute haue no temporal superior art 1. c. 1. parag 4. Princes deposed by Prophets a. 1. c 5. par 3. Protestants admit Tradition a. 7. c. 9. par 11. Protestants haue no reason to admit one tradition no more art 7. c. 9. par 11. Protestants arrogate more power and authority then the Pope a. 1 c. 7 par 3. Protestants cal Catholiques Papists and Popish of the Pope yet wil not cal him Pope art 1. c. 5. parag 5. Protestants censure of the communion booke art â— c. 6 parag 10. Protestants contradictions about the Eucharist art 2. c. 6. parag 11. Protestants innumerable explication of fower words art 2. c. 6. parag 7. Protestants iudgment of Fathers when they are against them art 5 c. 4 parag 5. Protestants dissentions touched in the late conference art 4. c. 4 parag 7. Protestants enemity to good workes by word and deed art 5. c 1. parag 2. 3. Protestants frendship to euil works Ibid. parag 3. Protestants had the bible from Catholiques and how art 7. c. 9. parag 9. Protestants in 70. years haue attempted to depose to princes art 1. c. 4. parag 6. Protestants haue murdered diuers princes art 1. c. 4. parag 6. Protestants haue burnt two Kings bodies Ibid. Protestants abuse princes art 1. c. 9. par 3â— Protestants make and vnmake Emperors as they list art 1. c. 6 parag 3. Protestants opinion of deposing princes art 1. c. 3 per tot Protestants and the Popes deposing princes compared art 1. c. 4. parag 6. Protestants opinion of princes supremacy art 1. c. 2. parag 1. 2. Protestants and Catholiques opinion about supremacy compared ibid. parag 3. Protestants make their professed enemyes papists art 7. c. 1. parag 13. Protestants manner of answering Catholiques art 1. c. 6. parag 1. Protestants new light art 1. c. 6. parag 9. Protestants ouerthrow their owne arguments against Tradition art 7. c. 9. par 11. Protestants persuade to read Scripture as the serpent to eate the apple art 7. c. 7. parag 2. Protestants good by english bibles art 7. c. 8. parag 1. Protestants promise with Manichees vndoubted truth for to ouerthrow authority art 7. c. 9. parag 23. Protestants teach doctrin of Diuels art 2. c. 1. parag 1. 2. 3. Protestants try deuine truth a. 7. c. 12. par 4. Protestant wemen preached publikly in Germany art 7. c. 13. Puritans subscribe to the communion book only in respect of tyme art 1. c. 2. par 2. Puritans vrge the supremacy only for pollicy art 1. c. 2. parag 2. Q. Q. Elizabeths affiance in Catholiques fidelity art 1. c. 4. parag 4. R. REading of Scripture not debarred from the godly art 7. c. 7. parag 3. Reading or hearing Gods worde without vnderstanding of great effect ibid. Reading of Scripture not necessary nor expedient to al art 7. c. 7. parag 1. 2. Real presence proued out of Scripture and Fathers art 2. c. 1. parag 7. 8. Reason not to be sought in Gods workes art 2. c. 1. parag 11. Remaining of sinne what it is a. 4. c. 1. p. 16. Reprobats not al positiuely damned for original sinne art 4. c. 2. parag 6. Reprobats how may be said to be damned for
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
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.