consequence is euident The Antecedent I proue because he is no wise person who wil fal out and be offended for euer with his friend for euery trifle as the taking vp of a straw nor he is a iust Prince who should inflict death for stealing a pinne I beleeue Bel would thinke him selfe vniustly haÌ„dled if he were so dealt withal Wherfore if God should do this we should neither account him a wise friend nor a iust Prince Now let vs heare what Bel obiecteth against this so manifest truth 7. Al his proofs may be reduced to this Bel pag. 81. 82. syllogisme what is against Gods law is mortal sinne al sinne is against Gods law Ergo al sinne is mortal Behould Bel here absolutly coÌ„cludeth al sinne to be mortal after calleth our venial sinnes cursed deformed which argueth that he thinketh al sinne to be indeed mortal notwithstanding Gods mercy The Proposition he supposeth The Assumption he proueth out of Scripture Fathers and Schoolmen Out of Scripture because Christ said Math. 12. v. â—â— that we shal giue account for euery idle worde and S. Ihon 1. c. 3. v. 4. telleth vs that Euery sinne is anomia that is transgression of the lavv S. Ambrose also defineth sinne in general to be transgression of Gods law And S. Austin describeth it to be Euery worde deed or desire against Gods law Bellarmin affirmeth euery Bellarm. lib. 4. de Rom. Pont. c. 21. Rhemist 1. Io. 3. v. 4. Angles 4. sent p. 21â— Durand 2. d. 42. q. 6. sinne to be against Gods law Rhemists also confesse Euery sinne to be a swaruing from the Law and doubtles saith he what swarueth from the law is truly against the law Likewise Angles and Durand teach venial sinnes to be against the law 8. To this argument Catholiques answer differently some by denyal of the Proposition others by denial of the Assumption Some say that euery sinne which is against the Law is not mortal but only that which is perfectly against it so that it destroleth the end of the law which is Charity this venial sinnes do not And if I should answer thus Bel were by and by at a Non plus Others say that venial sinnes are not against the law because they are not against the end of the law but besides the law But this difference is rather in words then in matter al agreeing that venial sinne destroieth not Charity nor breaketh friendship 1. Timoth. 1. v. 5. with God which is the end for which the law was made Yet better it is to say that venial sinnes are beside the law then against VVhy venial sinnes are not against the lavv the law because what is not contrary to the end but may stand with out breach of it is not contrary to the meanes but may stand without breach of them but venial sinnes are not contrary to Charity the end of the law but may be without breach of it Ergo neither are they contrary to the law but may be without breach of it And as a man trauailing though he steppe out of his way is not said to goe contrary to his iourneys end so a man walking to heaueÌ„ though by venial sin he steppe out or besides the way yet doth he not goe the coÌ„trary way to hel The Proposition of myne argument is euident for what can stand with the end can not be contrary to the meanes necessary to that end The Assumption both Catholicks graunt and Hereticks can not deny if they Bels arguments aâ— much against him self aâ— against Catholiques admit that there are indeed any venial sins For venial sins whence soeuer they come to be such breake not friendship with God And therfore if Bel graunt in deed as he doth in words that by Gods mercy some sins are made venial he must also confesse that by Gods mercy they are not against his Charity and friendship and so must answer his owne argument which indifferently proueth that there are no venial sins at al whither they be said to be such by their owne nature or by Gods mercy for the argument assumeth not that al which is sinne of it owne nature is against Gods law but absolutly al which is sinne is against Gods law And therfore if Bel thinke venial sinne notwithstanding Gods mercy to be true sinne he must as wel answer his owne argument as I. 9. Admitting therfore his Proposition I deny his Assumption and to his proofe out of S. Mathew I answer that we must giue account for euery idle worde not because they be a against Gods law but because they be beside it And Bel wil beate his horse not only when he turneth backe but also when he starteth out of the way As for the text of S. Ihon he telleth vs not as Bel auoucheth that euery sinne is anomia but absolutly Sinne is anomia and may wel be vnderstoode of only mortal sinne which antonomastice is so called This answere might suffice to what he bringeth about this text in this Article yet because art 4. he brought out of their due place many things about the greeke words anomia and adicia vsed by S. Ihon which we remitted to this place we wil here answer them at large and afterward the rest of his proofs concerning this Article CHAP. II. A text of S. Ihon epist 1. explicated S. Ihons words he citeth in Greeke pas ho poion ten hamartian cai ten anomian Bel pag. 52. poiei cai he hamartia estin hâ— anomia and translateth them thus Euery one that sinneth transgresseth 1. Ioan. 3. v. 4. the law and sinne is the transgression of the law And hereupon inferreth that Euery sinne is transgression of the law and consequently mortal Catholiques answer twoe waies First that S Ihon in this place by sinne vnderstandeth only such sinne as c. 5. v. 16. he calleth sinne to death vz. mortal sinne And this I proue First because in the next verse but one vz. v. 6. he speaketh only of mortal sinne when he saith Euery one that remaineth in him Christ sinneth not and v. 8. who doth sinne is of the Diuel and v. 9. Euery one that is borne of God committeth not sinne because his seede remaineth in him In these verses it is euident S. Ihon spake only of some certeine kinde of sinne which as S. Austin S. Austin tract 5. in 1. Iohn tom 9. saith one borne of God can not commit vz. of mortal sinne wherfore of the same did he meane v. 4. when he in some sorte described sinne by iniquity Both because els it should seeme a kinde of equiuocation as also because if he had described sinne in general it is likely he would haue afterward discoursed of the same and not of one only kind of sinne Secondly because when a worde principally signifyeth one thing it is not to be extended to an other which secondarily it signifieth vnles such extention be gathered by some circumstances of the speech seeing
the giuers death ensue 7. Bel hauinge as you haue heard labored to proue the Eucharist to be no sacrifice 11. Contradict because it is a testament strayght after inferreth thervpon that it is not really Christs blood because it is not really a testament Bel pag. 25. For saith he as Christ sayd in S. Mathevv Math. 26. v. 28. Luc. 22. v. 30. This is my blood of the nevv testament so he said in S. Luke this cup is the nevv testament in my blood But it is not really the nevv testament because remission of sinnes is referred to sheddinge of his blood which was on the crosse not at supper Ansvver The proposition I grante deny the assumption for not onely the last wil of the testator but euen the authentical euidence thereof is properly called a testament So we cal the Bible the testament and Circumcision is called a testament Ecclesiast 44. v. 21. and a couenant Gen. 17. And Christs blood is the authentical euidence of his last wil or els he made none 8. And Bels reason maketh quite against Bel reasoneth against him self him selfe For Christs blood was shed at his supper for remission of sinns as we proued before and him selfe testifieth sayinge then in the present tense vvhich is shed for remission of sinns as the Euangelists both in Greeke and English bibles testifie But because it was not shed or powred out then in a bloody manner and proper forme Bel Hovv Christs blood vvas povvred out at the last supper wil not verefie Christs words in that tense wherin he spake them not consideringe that euen then Christs blood being in a chalice in forme of wine was in that forme powred out into the mouths of the Apostles for remission of their sinns and Exod. 24. v. 8. Hebr. 9. v. 20 his testament therby made as the old was by the sprinkling of Calues blood vpon the Iewes though the ratifying and confirmation therof was afterward by his death 9 Bâ—ls fourth argument is out of S. Paul Bel pag. 25. Heb. 10. v. 18. ouc eti prosphora peri hamartias There is not hence forth an oblatioÌ„ for sinne Some Catholiques answer that the Apostle meaneth an other oblation in substance as the oblations of the Iewes were who offered dayly different beastes and the oblation of the Masse is in substance al one with the oblatioÌ„ of the Crosse This Bel impugneth because then the Masse sacrifice should be of infinit valevv vvhich no Papist dare auouch Here is an vntruth 36. vntruth for many learned Papists auouch it as Caietan Siluester Canus Ruard Soto Caiet 3. part q. 79. art 5. Siluest verbo Missa q. 9. Can. 12. de locis c. 13. ad 10. Ruard art 16. parag 2. Soto 4. d. 14. q. 2. art 2. S. Thom. 4. d. 45. q. 2. a. 4. Scot. quodl 20. Gabriel lect 26. in Con. Bellarm. l. 2. de Missa c. 4. Scholastici 4. d. 45. and others though they grant the effect therof to be finit as the passion and intercession of Christ are of infinit valewe though the effect they worke be but finit because fevv are saued But others as Thomas Scotius Gabriel Bellarmin and deuines commonly deny Bels illation for though the hoste offered in Masse be of infinit valew yet the offeringe of it by men is of finit valew Because al mens actions haue that valew which God by his grace giueth to them which is but sinit And Bel by the widdowes offeringe Luc. 21. might know that the valew of the offering is not alwayes correspondent to the valew of the thing offered For rich mens giftes exceeded her 2. mytes and yet their offering was inferior to hers And much more inferior is mens offerings to the offering of Christ though they offer the selfe some hoste 10. But in deed the Apostle in the place cited by Bel doth not so much deny an other oblation in substance as an other ful and perfect partakinge of Christs oblation teaching the Hebrues as he had done before and as agayne in this Chapter v. 26. that if after they haue bene baptized they returne agayne to the old lawe and Apostatate from Christ they cannot haue the like aboundant remission of sinns applyed to them as was in baptisme And this he ment by those words vvhere there is remission of those sinns novv ther is not an oblation for sinne which he vttereth more playnely v. 26. If vve sinn vvillingly after the knovvledg of the truth receaued novv ther is not left an hoste for sinns but a certaine terrible expectation of iudgment Because God hauinge once pardoned by baptisme both offence and punishment afterward vseth not the like mercy but punisheth sinne 11. After this Bel turneth to his old custome Bel pag. 26. of iniuringe his Mayster Bellarmin charginge him with denial of the Masse to be truely and properly propitiatory because Bellarm. l. 2. de Missa c. 4. he saith that Christ being novv immortal can neither merit nor satisfie Wheras Bellarmin cap. 2. spendeth one whole chapter of that booke to proue Masse to be a propitiatory sacrifice And strayght after those wordes which Bel cyteth aproueth Masse to be a satisfactory cap. 4. cit sacrifice because by it Christs passion accordinge to his institution is applyed to take away the temporal paynes of the liue and dead And by the wordes which Bel citeth onely meaneth that Masse is not properly propitiatory as it proceedeth from any acte which Christ now hath because now he can neither merit nor satisfy Wherefore falsly Bel doth accuse Papists that with them Masse is one while a propitiatory sacrifice and an other while not For the Tridentin Councel whom they al followe Conc. Trid. sess 22. c. 2. can 3. Bellarm. c. 2. cit hath defined it to be truely a propitiatory sacrifice And Bellarmin proueth it at lardge out of Scripture Fathers and Councells See Origen hom 13. in Leuitt S. Chrisostom Origen to 1. S. Chrysost tom 5. tom 3. S. Augustin tom 4. Bel pag. 26. lib. 6. de sacerd hom de prodit Iudae S. Austin q. 57. in Leuit. S. Beda lib. 4. Hist Chap. 22. 12. His fift and last argument against Masse is taken out of the decree glosse de consecrat D. 2. Can. Hoc est thus translated by Bel. As therefore the heauenly bread which is the flesh of Christ is after it manner cald the body of Christ when in deed it is the Sacrament of Christs body of that body which is visible vvhich is palpable mortal nayled on the crosse And that oblation of flesh which is made by the hands of the priest is called Christs death and Crucifixion and not in truth of the thinge but in a mistery signifyinge the thinge so the Sacrament of faith by which baptisme is vnderstood is faith Hetherto the decre now the glosse therof The heauenly SacrameÌ„t which representeth Christs flesh truely is called
beleeue he hath great skil in that tongue though the wordes be in his booke neither accented nor printed right but remitting this fault to the printer the text he englisheth thus But the gift of God is life euerlasting in Christ Iesus our lorde and then argueth in this manner Eternal life is the free gift of God therfore it can be no way due to the merit of mans workes 2. Answer First the consequent seemeth opposite to this other proposition of his pag. 77. Eternal life is due to the workes of Gods elect Secondly the Antecedent is false Foure reasons vvhy eternal life is grace and neither here nor any where els taught by S. Paul He calleth here eternal life grace as it may be called for diuers causes 1. because God gratiously couenanted with vs to giue it as a rewarde of our good workes which we being his slaues by creation he might haue exacted of vs without any rewarde at al. This is S. Thomas his reason S. Thomas 1. 2. q. 114. art 2. 2. because the workes them selues for which God giueth vs life eternal were freely giuen vnto vs by Gods grace This is S. Austins reason epist 105. 5. Austin 3. because the workes haue no perfect actual equality to eternal life but only virtual and proportionate and this reason giueth Theodoret. in cap. 6. Rom. where he Theodoret. saith that temporal paines and eternal ioyes in aequilibrio non respondent and Bel falsly translateth Bel pag. 63. Fals translation 4. are nothing answerable 4. because as workes are rewarded euen aboue their virtual and proportionate equality as Deuines say vltra condignum No maruel if S. Paul called eternal life rather grace or gift then a stipend seeing it hath much more of grace then it hath of iustice yet notwithstanding he no where called it meere grace yea in 1. Cor. 3. Philip 3. v. 14. 2. Timoth. 4. v. 8. S. Paul might haue called glory a stipend S. Austin calling it a rewarde a goale and crowne of iustice he clearly declareth that it is no meere grace nor free gift beside that as S. Austin writeth epist 105. he might haue called it a stipende as he calleth death in respect of sinne but forbore lest we should thinke it were so iustly deserued by good workes as death is by euil And perhaps he called it so in the next verse before where he calleth eternal life in greeke telos which as Beza Beza Rom. 6. confesseth may there signify vectigal or mercedem and is equiualent to stipend 3. Notwithstanding this Bel exclaimeth pag. 62. against the Rhemists that they translated Charisma grace in steed of gift for to extenuate the clearnes of this text wherin he sheweth his malice and folly For malice it is to accuse men to corrupt Scriptures of set purpose and to bring no proofe therof yea to confesse as he doth that they follow the auncient vulgar edition of which S. Hierom was either Author or amender And folly it is to condemne that translation as done for to extenuate the clearnes of Scripture and withal to confesse as he doth that it is according to the olde vulgar edition and that it may be here admitted and to approue an other translation of Donation or Gift which maketh no more for his purpose then Grace which him selfe in the next page englisheth Free grace and finally to alleadge in his owne behalfe Theodoret. S. Chrisostom Origen Ambros Theophilact In cap. 6. ad Rom. and Paul of Burges whoe al in the very places which he citeth for him selfe read as the Rhemists translate grace though some of them explicate it by Gift as it is indeed though no free gift 4. But let vs heare why the Rhemists did not wel translate the worde Charisma by Bel sup Perkins refor Cathol p. 107. Grace Because saith he it signifieth a gift freely bestowed If so Syr why did not you your mates and your Bibles so translate it but Bibles printed by Barker 1584. absolutly by gift So you condemne other and commit your selfe the like fault Remember what S. Paul saith to such Rom. 2. But how proueth he Charisma to signify a Gift freely giuen Forsooth autos ephe This Lexicon Grynaei Basileae 1539. vvho citeth Budaeus Lexicon Gesneri auctū per Arlemium Iunium Hartengum Basileae great Grecian hath said it contrary to the Lexicons made and printed by Protestants who make Charisma al one with Charis and to signify Grace or gift without mention of Free gift contrary to the old vulgar translation contrary to the vniforme reading of Fathers contrary to his owne and his fellows translations Are these your cleare and euident demonstracions which shal be able to put al Papists as you promise to silence for euer in this behalfe pag. 62. 5. Novv saith he let vs vievve the iudgement of holy Fathers vpon this text With a good wil Syr But marke good Readers how the Fathers are holy their wordes are golden See Bel p. 62. 64. 65. 71. 75. 67. 59. 104. 132. their mouthes golden and them selfes glistering beames and strong pillers of Gods Church when they seeme to make for Bel who otherwise amongst Protestants are but plaine Austin and Hierom and their doctrine stubble errors spottes blemishes Likewise when Popish writers seeme to fauour Bel they are with him famous renowned zealous great schoole doctors great Clerks indeed whoe other whiles are but parasites and dunces 6. First he produceth out of Theodoret pag. 62. Theodoret. in c. 6. Rom. that S. Paul did not cal here eternal life a revvarde but grace because it is the gift of God and al our labours are not of equal poise vnto it This is nothing against vs who neither say that S. Paul did in this verse cal eternal life a rewarde nor deny that it is the gift of God nor affirme that our labours are of equal poise vnto it Next he produceth S. Chrisostom in c. 6. Rom. writing S. Chrysost p. 63. that The Apostle called not eternal life a revvarde but grace as Brixius translateth or gift as Bel hath to shevv that they vvere deliuered not by their ovvne strength nor that there is debt revvarde or retribution of labour but that al those things came by Gods grace or as Bel hath they receaued them freely by Gods gift Here S. Chrisostom at the first sight seemeth to deny Genes v 1. Prouerb v. 18. 2. Paralip v. 7. Sap. v. 16. Eccl. v. 22. Isai v. 10. Math. v. 12. 1. Corinth v. 8. S. Chrysost eternal life to be a rewarde or retribution of good workes which is not only contrary to Scripture Gen. 15. 2. paralip 15. prouerb 11. psal 118. Sapient 5. Eccles 18. Isai 40. Math. 5. 1. Corinth 3. Apoca. vlt. v. 12. but euen to him selfe hom 43. in 1. Corinth saying that VVe shal haue perfect revvarde and most ful retribution not only for the good vve do but
also for the euil vve suffer And hom 1. de Resur tom 3. VVhat care saith he vvil he haue of vertue vvho expects no retribution of labours And hom 15. in Math. that we haue God our debtor when we do any good and may exact vsury of him And the like speeches he hath hom 3. and 36. in Math. and 42. in Gen. and in Philog and other where which alone might assure vs that he meaneth not to deny eternal life to be a true reward of our supernatural labors But ether by labors he vnderstandeth natural labors done as he speaketh there by our ovvne streÌ„gth of which labors doubtles eternal life is is no reward debt or retribution Or rather by eternal life he there vnderstood not heauenly glory but only iustificatioÌ„ which he may cal eternal life because it causeth eternal life as our Sauiour for the same cause calleth faith so Iohn 17. v. 3. and for S. Ihon. the contrary sinne is called death and this doubtles is no reward debt or retribution of any labour at al of ours That this is his meaning I proue it I because he saith eternal life was called grace to shew that they were not deliuered c. Therfore by eternal life he vnderstandeth some thing which had deliuered the Romans already from some thing vz. from sinne 2. because he saith that they to whom S. Paul wrote had receaued that eternal life wherof he speaketh but they being yet aliue had not receaued eternal glory but only iustification And S. Chrisostom being thus expounded speaketh not against him selfe other where nor against Scripture and truth 7. Thirdly he cyteth Origen saying Bel pag. 63. Origen in c. 6. ad Rom. Deum vero non erat dignum militibus suis stipendium quasi debitum aliquod dare sed donum gratiam quae est vita aeterna which Bel thus englisheth But it was not a thing worthy beseeming God to giue stipends to his soldiers as a due debt or wage but to bestow on them a gift or free grace which is eternal life Here Bel translateth donum a gift and False translat A. 5. gratiam free grace albeit before he preferred the word donatio which is al one in this matter with donum before gratia because it better insinuateth the freenes of the gift But if you aske him wherfore he translateth gratia free grace he can giue no better reason then his Grandsier Luther did when he translated fides iustificat faith alone iustifyeth vz Sic volo sic iubeo stat pro ratione Surius Ann. â—530 voluntas As for Origen he meaneth nothing els but that it beseemed not God to giue a stipend so due to good works as saith he the king of sinne payeth stipends due to them that obey his tyranny which is most true For although S. Austin ep 105. to 2. S. Anselm Rom. 6. the iust by good works deserue life yet not so iustly as the wicked by sinne deserue death nether is life so due to them as death to these as is euident by what hath bene said before and Willet in affirming vs VVillet controu 17. q. 3. art 3. p. 587. to teach the contrary sheweth a trick of his Ministery 8. S. Ambrose he also alleadgeth but pag. 63. S. Ambros Rom. 6. his words are rather against him for he saith As the followers of sinne get death so the followers of Gods grace that is the faith of Christ which forgiueth sinnes shal haue eternal life What is here for Bel or rather not against him But most clearly doth S. Ambrose S. Ambros confound Bel immediatly before the words cyted VVho from hence forth saith he absteine from sinne receaue a stipend eternal life And serm 7. in psal 118. affirmeth that Dauid could say to God I am a souldier I exact a stipend of my captaine 9. He citeth also Theophilact because Theophilact Rom. 6. he saith S. Paul called erernal life grace and not a revvard as if he should say for ye receaue not revvards of labours but al these things are done by grace in Christ Iesus who worketh and doth them But this is nothing against vs who willingly acknowledge eternal life to be grace and not to proceed of our owne labours done by our selfs but done and wrought also by the grace of Christ After this he citeth Anselme and Photius but alleadgeth not their words yet confesseth that in effect they are the same with others and therfore seeing S. Anselme vpon this place S. Anselme of S. Paul teacheth plainly that eternal life is a stipend of iustice and that S. Paul might haue called it so we may be assured that in effect other Fathers do cal it so as he after S. Ambros and S. Austin doth in expresse S. Austin ep 105. S. Ambros Rom. 6. Bel pag. 64. vntruth 60 words Wherfore vainly doth Bel boast that it is manifest by the foresaid testimonies of holy Fathers that eternal life is the free gift of God for rather the quite contrary is manifest because none of them say it is a free gift or any thing whereof it may be iustly inferred and some of them expresly say it is a Vt Retributionem non vt gratiam sed plane debitum occupas S. Greg. Nazianz orat â— in sanctum lauacrum Burgens addit 2. in c. 6. Rom. stipend and such a one as a souldier may exact of his captaine such as death is to sinne which are euidently no free gifts Wherfore to helpe vp this matter he addeth these wordes of Paulus Burgens He would not therfore say eternal life is the stipend of iustice because the same merits to which it is rendred are not of our selfs but wrought in vs by God through grace These words make not any thing for him but rather against him For in that he saith eternal life is rendred to merits he insinuateth it to be no free grace and in saying S. Paul chose rather to cal it grace then stipend insinuateth that he might haue called it a stipend and in saying it is grace because it is repaid to merits which we do by grace he affirmeth it to be partly grace which no Catholique denyeth 10. The second text of Scripture Bel bringeth out of Rom. 8. v. 18. and translateth â—hus I account that the afflictions of this False translat 6. present tyme are not worthy of the future glory Answer Here is euil translation for where the Apostle saith afflictions are Non condignae ad futuram gloriam ouâ— axia pros ten mellousan doxan are not condigne to the future glory Bel translateth are not worthy of the future glory And the Apostles meaning is not to tel there whether sufferances of this life be condignely meritorious of future glory or no but intendeth to say that they are not comparable to future glory ether in greatnes or in continuance which hindereth not their condigne merit as is euident in Christs sufferances For hauing
therfore the worde Sinne doth principally signify only mortal sinne and secondarily venial sinne according to S. Thomas 1. 2. S. Thomas 4. 88. ar 1. there is no circumstance here conuincing it to be extended to signify venial sinne but rather to the contrarie as hath bene shewed it is not to be extended to venial sinne And this is confirmed because Scriptures Fathers and Catholicke writers by Sinne vnderstād ordinarily only mortal sinne as appeareth by their attributing of death losse of grace and heauen guilt of hel seperation from God and the like to Sinne and by defyning it to be against Gods law or trāsgression of the law which agree only to mortal sinne 2. Thirdly because S. Bede vnderstandeth S. Beda 1. Io. 3. it of such sinne as either is of contēpt of the written law or corrupteth the innocency of the law of nature And the gloford followeth his very words also glos interlin vnderstandeth it of sinne contrary to equity of Gods law which he tooke of S. Bede loc cit Lyra expressly expowndeth Lyra 1. Io. 3. it of mortal sinne and defyneth it to be transgression of the law and the same doth Carthusia and to this purpose serue al Bels proofs that anomia signifyeth transgression of the law for if that be so then sinne is taken for mortal sinne Nether against this exposition see I any obiection more then that the worde Sinne may signify venial sinne and that also it is taken for it c. 1. v. 8. where he saith If we say we haue no sinne we deceaue our selfs But we may answer that though it may signify venial sinne yet ordinarily it doth not and therfore it is not wel inferred that here it doth especially seeing that there are diuers circumstances to the contrary And though it signify sinne in general c. 1. v. 8 yet seeing it doth signify only mortal in this same chapter v. 6. 8. and 9. better it is to gather the signification of a worde out of the next vse therof then out of the further of And if one wil thus expownd the place of S. Ihon as to me it seemeth S. Ihon meaneth onely of mortal sinne best Bel were straight at a Non plus For he supposeth that the worde sinne is taken for al kinde of sinne and only proueth that the worde anomia iniquity is taken for perfect sinne and transgression yet because I wil giue him al the scoape he can aske I admit that by Sinne S. Ihon vnderstood al kinde of actual sinne and deny as many Catholicks do that anomia Iniquity is taken for wickednes and perfect transgression of the law but generally as it is common to perfect transgression and only swaruing frō the law Now let vs see how Bel improueth this 3. His first proofe is because Arias Montanus pag. 52. Arias Montan 1. Io. ◠saith that anomia is transgression of the law But this is not against vs because we graunt that it may signify so only we deny that to be the proper signification of the worde as is euident by the etimology therof which is as much as sine lege without the law and not contra legem against the law yet because al acts against law are also without law the worde may be vsed for acts against law and so signify transgression of the law It sufficeth vs that the propriety of the worde is for vs not for Bel and therfore we better expownd it of swaruing from the law then Bel or any other doth of transgression of the law 4. His second proofe is that S. Ambros Bel pag. 53. S. Ambros S. Austin de Parad. c. 8. and S. Austin l. 2. de consen euang c. 4. and l. 22. cont Faust c. 27. defyne sinne to be preuarication or transgression of the law or to be a thought worde or deede against the eternal law which saith S. Austin is deuine reason or the wil of God commāding the order of nature to be kept and forbidding it to be broken But these Fathers define only mortal sinne because Catholicks ordinarily vnderstand only that sinne when they absolutly speake of sinne as men when they speake of a thinge meane of substance As also because S. Ambros had before spoken only of mortal sinne vz. of Adam and Iudas his sinne And S. Austin in the first place speaketh of sinne against the tenne commandements which no doubt is of it nature mortal and in the second place he plainly defineth such sinne as breaketh the order of nature which also is mortal sinne not venial for who wil say that a litle superfluous laughter breaketh the order of nature Besides it followeth not that if S. Ambros and S. Austin defined sinne to be transgression of the law therfore S. Ihon did so cal it in this place 5. His third proofe is out of S. Bede But S. Bed 1. Io. 3. he is rather against him For he saith that anomia signifieth quasi contra legem vel sine lege factum as it were against law or without law He saith not against but as it were against which more plainly he explicateth saying Or without the law Lyra and Carthusia whom he citeth seeme by anomia and iniquity to vnderstand wickednes but then by sinne they vnderstand only mortal sinne and so fauour Bel nothing But because the Bel pag. 56. Rhemist 1. Io. 3. Rhemists as preuenting an obiection write that The worde iniquity is otherwise taken 1. Io. 3. v. 4. where sinne is said to be iniquity then c. 5. ver 17. where iniquity is said to be sinne which they proue because though the latine worde be al one yet the greeke is differēt vz. adicia which signifyeth iniustice Bel replyeth very wisely forsooth out of S. Austins words S. Augustin to 9. trac 4. in 1. Io. to 9. Let none say sinne is one thing and iniquity an other Euery one that sinneth committeth iniquity As if the question now betwixt the Rhemists and him had bene whither sinne and iniquity were al one and not whether anomia and adicia be al one Better therfore he replieth afterward pag 58. where he proueth anomia and adicia to be al one because the vulgar latine translateth them both Iniquitas But the Rhemists answere That the worde Iniquitas is vsed in a different signification and proue it by the different greeke words for which it is vsed And against this Bel saith nothing But being at a non plus him selfe and not able to reply against this answer and reason he cryeth out that his ansvverer is at a non plus impudently denyeth euery iniquity to be sinne 6. But as for the Rhemists euident it is that herein they are neither impudent nor at a Non plus seeing they giue a reason of what they say against which Bel can not reply And as for iniquity and sinne though Psalm 50. 118. alibi sup they be oftentymes confounded both by Scriptures Fathers yet if we
impossible Wherefore what some say that Clergie men be exempted from the power of Princes is not to be vnderstood vniuersally but of their coactiue power which they haue to punishe the laity And of late Bilson Superintendent of Winton confessed to certeine Catholiques if I be not misinformed that the King is but a ceremonial head that is either a head onely for fasshion sake or onely in matters of ceremonies not in al ecclesiastical causes And albeit they subscribe Supplicat to the King in April 1603. to the supremacie yet perhaps they doe that onely in respect of time as a thousand ministers testifie that diuerse of them did to the communion booke some vpon protestation some vpon exposition some with condicion albeit it conteyned as they say enormities and abuses not agreable to Scriptures rather forsooth then the Church should be depriued of their labours but in deede rather then they shoulde be depriued of the Churches lyuings 3. The true difference therfore betwixt Catholiques and English Protestants if these durst vtter their mindes as strangers doe would not be whether the Prince or Pope but whether the Pope or ministers ought to be head of the Church wherein I appeale to any indifferent mans iudgement whether be more agreable to Gods word that the successour of S. Peter vpon Matth. 16. Ioan. 21. whome Christ built his church and committed his sheepe vnto should be head of the Church or they who are successours to none but beginners of them selues who as S. Ciprian writeth no man creating them Cyprian lib. de simpl praelat Bishopes made them selues Bishopes And wether be more secure to Princes that he should be accounted head of Gods Church Constant in edicto Constant 5. Phocas Iustinian C. de summa Trinit l. vlt. Valentinianus epist ad Theodosisi See cap. 6. parag 6. 7. Conference p. 79. 4. and 20. whom the whole Christian world hath euer acknowledged for such and vnder Whome the mightiest Monarches haue and doe liue as securely as any Protestant Prince whatsoeuer or they who if they were permitted would erect such a Presbitrie as agreeth with a Monarchy no better then the diuel with God who haue kept Kings without state and honor c. and of whom some beardles boies haue braued Kings to their faces and excommunicated them when they came within ther parish CHAP. III. The opinion of Protestants touching deposition of Princes LIKWISE touching the deposition Germany Luther See Surius An. 1525. ProdromuÌ„ Staphil p. 75. of Princes Luther as Sleidan testifieth wrote to Princes That subiects neither cold nor would nor ought any longer to suffer ther gouerment And benig asked his opinion touching the league of Protestans against their Emperor Charles 5. answered Because at this time so Sleidon l. 8. Sur. An. 1531. doubtful perilous many things may hapen that not only right it selfe but necessity of consience may reach vs weapons we may make league for defence whither the Emperor him selfe or any other make war And a litle before his death said VVho Sur. An. 1546. taks not armes whils he may vseth not things giuen him by God And the Protestant Princes in their rebellion against the Emperor set forh Proclamation wherein they write Because the Emperor endeauoreth to dostroy religion Sleidon l. â—â— liberty he giueth vs cause to assaile him with good conscience And againe we renounce ô Emperor lib. 17. the faith and duty vvherwith vve are bound vnto thee This did German Protestants 2. In Swiserland Zwinglius teacheth vs. Svviserland Zvvingl to 1. art 42. That vvhen the King shal deale perfidiously and beside the rule of Christ he may in Gods name be deposed Againe VVhiles naughty Kings are not deposed the vvhole people is punished of God And as for the Protestants of Sweueland their opinion SvveuelaÌ„d is manifest by their excluding the Catholique King of PolaÌ„d from succeding his Mercur. Gallobelg An. 1603. Holland late father And the Holandish Protestants wholy or cheefly defend their long rebellion against their Prince by coolor of religion France Caluin in epist ante lib. institut 3. In France Caluin their Arch-maister teacheth that who reigneth not to serue Gods glory ruleth not but playeth the theefe And in an other place Earthly Princes depose them In cap. 6. Daniel selues whyls they rise against God yea are vnworthy to be accounted men And his scholer Beza accounteth them Martyrs who dyed Beza in Praefat Bibl. 1564. Pantaleon Responsum trium ordinum BurguÌ„diae 1563. Michael Fabritius ep de Beza fal 62. Goodly Canons of Ministers Protestants svvorne to rebel depose Princes in batel against their King for religion and at Cabilon in France 20. Ministers in a Synod decreed to distroy the Church Nobility Magistrats And againe at Berna 1572. set forth Canons of this matter and decreed Can. 3. That in euery City al swore that they their posterity shal obserue firme and inuiolated the points following Can. 40. Vntil it shal please God in whose hands are the harts of Kings to change the hart of the French tyrant and restore the state of the Kingdome to better order raise vp some neighbor Prince whom we may know by his vertue notable marks to be the deliuerer of this miserable people in the meane tyme euery Citty shal choose a maior to gouerne them as wel in warre as peace Can. 40. Let al the Captains leaders haue this axiome as an vndoubted and most certain Oracle neuer to trust to them the King and his who so often and so notoriously haue broken their promise the publike peace and quietnes Nor euer let them lay downe weapons as long as they shal see them persecute the doctrin of saluation and the disciples of the same Item But if the euil be incurable if Gods wil be to roote them natural Princes out then if it please God to raise some Christian Prince to take reuenge of their sinnes and deliuer his people let them subiect them selues to that Prince as to an other Cyrus sent to them from God In the meane space let them gouerne them selues by these rules which we haue prescribed vnto them as laws Behould the verdit of French ministers assembled in Councel O if such rules had bene made in Seminaries what traitors and rebels had the authors bene What exclamations would Bel and his fellow ministers haue made against them 4. In Scotland Knox vttereth his and Scotland his fellow ministers mind herein in his appellation to the nobility people of Scotland Knox. p 36. That I may say bouldly the nobility gouerners iudges and people of England ought not Protestants bond to kil Princes by Knox. only to resist and withstand Mary Iezabel whom they cal their Queene but also put to death her her Priests and al others that ayded her as soone as openly they began to suppresse Christs Gospel And he setteth
absurdity is it more then for a body to be in twoe places for that being once done one may carry him self as wel as an other As the soule because it is in al parts of the body as it is in the legges carrieth it selfe as it is in the body The second absurdity is that Christ at his last supper was both liuing and dead But this followeth not for he was a liue in the Sacrament though there he shewed no acts of life and as long as he is a liue according to his natural being he is neuer dead in the sacrament because his sacramental being is a memorial of his natural being representing and depending of it 2. The third absurdity is that Christ was both visible and inuisible Nether doth this follow For though he were inuisible in the Sacrament yet it is not true to say absolutely he was inuisible because he was there visible in his proper forme But that he was visible in his proper forme and inuisible in Math. 29. Mar. 16. Luc. 20. Ioan. 20. 21. the sacrament is no more absurd then that after his resurrection he was visible to the Apostles and inuisible to the Iewes visible to S. Paul and not to his Companions Act. 9. v. 7. Willet saith that S. Paul did see VVillet Cōtrou 4. q. 3. p. 11◠no man But we wil rather beleue Ananias saying that Christ appeared to him in the way Act. 9. v. 17. The fourth absurdity is that Christ was at his supper long and short broad and narrow light and heauy But rather these follow for what length bredth or weight Christ had in his proper forme the same he had in the sacrament albeit it had not there the like effects of filling roome or weighing as nether he had when he was Math. 14. Marc. 6. Ioan. 6. borne and walked vpon the Sea 3. The fift is that Christ was a sacrifice for our sins before he dyed for vs. This which Bel condemneth of impiety we haue before proued it out of Scripture to be certayne verity for such the holy Fathers auouch it let Bel heare one or twoe for al. S. Gregory Nissen orat 1. de Resurrect Christ offereth S. Gregor Nissen him self an oblation and hoste for vs being both the Priest and the lamb of God VVhen was this when he gaue his body to be eaten and his blood to be drunk to his disciples For it is manifest to euery one that man can not eate of a sheepe vnles slaughtering goe before eating Seing therfore he gaue his disciples his body to be eaten he euidently shewed that the sacrifizing was already perfect and absolute S. Chrisostome also hom de S. Chrysostom proditione Iudae tom 3. saith On that table was celebrated both Paschaes of the figure and of the verity Againe Iudas was present and partaked of that sacrifice And the Fathers are so playne for this matter as Kemnitius confesseth Kemnitius they vsually say that Christs body and blood was at this supper a sacrifice an oblation an hoste and victime and he could not escape their authorities but by casting of a figure 4. The Sixt and last absurdity or impietie which Bel inferreth is that al Christs sacrifice at his supper was imperfect or at his passion needles But nether this followeth For Christs sacrifice at his supper was a most perfect vnbloodly sacrifice according to the order of Melchisedech and yet his sacrifice on the crosse was needful as the peculier price which God exacted at his handes for the redemption of the world that Hebr. 2. v. 15. as the apostle saith by death he might destroy him who had the Empier of death For albeit not only Christs whole body and blood in the Eucharist but euen the least drop of his blood had been a sufficient sacrifice to redeeme the whole world neuertheles God partly to shew his great hatred towards sinne wherof Christ bore the punishment partly to manifest his infinite loue towards man kinde for whose saluation he would not spare the life of his only sonne partly for many other causes exacted of Christ the superaboundant price and ransome of his bloody sacrifice on the crosse But let vs heare how Bel disproueth this 5. He citeth fowre places out of S. Paule Heb 9. and 10. to proue that one oblation of the crosse was sufficient to take away al sinns in the world and that by it once made we are made holy and after it once donne Christ sitteth at the right hand of God But what is this to the purpose For we affirme not Christ to haue offered sacrifice at his last supper because his sacrifice on the Crosse was not sufficient or we not made holy by it but because the scripture and fathers teach so and Christ therby executed the function of his priesthood accordinge to the order of Melchisedech and applyed vnto his apostles the vertue of his bloody sacrifice as he applyeth it vnto vs by the dayly sacrifice of the Masse and did not make perfect and consummate his bloody sacrifice as Bel falsly chardgeth vs to thinke As Bellarmin whom onely I cite because Bel accounteth his testimony most sufficient sheweth at lardge lib. 1. de Missa cap. 25. Wher also he answereth Bels arguments But he should do wel to obiect the aforesaid wordes of S. Paul against Caluin blaspheminge lib. 1. instit 16. num 8. 10. That nothinge had been done for vs if Christ Caluin 2. instit c. 16. paragr 10. had only suffered corporal death but we needed a greater and more excellent price For this is plainly to say that the oblation of Christs body once was not sufficient nor that Christ perfected al by one oblation which is expresly against S. Paule Hebr. 10. v. 10. Hebr. 12. 14. And thus much for Bels second argument against the Masse 6. The third is this The Eucharist is a testament Bel p. 24. ergo either no sacrifice at al or of no valew before the testators death because S. Paule Hebr. 9. Hebr. v. 17. denieth a testament to be of force before the testators death Answer The Antecedent we grant with S. Luke 22. v. 20. though Bel him selfe deny it soone after The consequence we deny for as the blood of calues wher with the old testament was confirmed was both the peoples sacrifice to God and his testament to them as appeareth Heb. 9. 20. and Exod. 24. v. 8. so Christs blood at his supper was both his sacrifice to his father and his testament to his apostles And as a sacrifice it tooke effecte immediatly because a sacrifice is an absolute gifte made to God dependinge of no condition to come as the sacrifice of Abel and Noe Gen. 4. 8. pleased god immediatly But as a testament it was not of force til as S. Paule saith it Hebr. 9. v. 17. was confirmed by death because a testament is a deed of gift not absolute but vpō condition that
the body of Christ but improperly wherefore it is said after it manner but not in the truth of the thinge but in the thing signified that this may be the sense it is called Christs body that is to say it signifieth his body These saith Bel are golden wordes as God would by pens of Papists deliuered 13. I accept his confession First then S. Cratian de consecrat d. 2. can Hoc est Austin and S. Prosper are Papists for as Gratian out of whom the decree is takeÌ„ testifieth the words of the Decree were first deliuered by S. Austins pen and after recorded S. Austin and S. Prosper Papists Sacrificing of flesh by Priests haÌ„ds allovved by Bel. 2 False translat by S. Prosper Secondly I hope Bel hereafter wil allowe of sacrificinge or offering flesh by the hands of the priests because these are part of the golden wordes of that decree For this so gentle confession I wil dissemble with a litle fault of Bels translatinge quod visible quod palpabale mortale in cruce positum est Thus which is visible palpable mortal nayled on the crosse When he shoud haue said which being visible palpable mortal was nailed on the crosse Now let vs heare what he gathereth out of the aforesaid words to the confusion as he saith of Papists but he should haue said to his owne 14. 1. That the blessed bread of the Eucharist is pag. 27. called the Body of Christ What is here against Papists who willingly so cal it but rather against Protestants who seldom or neuer cal it so 2. That it is also called the passion and 37. vntruth death of Christ This is an vntruth for not bread of the Eucharist but the sacrificing of flesh with Priests hands is so called 3. That it is not Christs body truely This is most true for the bread or rather the forme therof in the Eucharist is not Christs body truely properly 4. That it is Christs body as the Sacrament of Baptisme is fayth This is nothing against vs who confesse bread or rather the forme therof called bread because it so seemeth to sense to be but a Sacrament of Christs body 15. 5. That it is not Christs body in truth but in signification This S. Austin saith not but onely that the oblation of the flesh of Christ by the priest is his death and passion not truly but in a mistery signifyinge his death which maketh nothing against vs or to this purpose The glosse in deede saith that the Sacrament is not Christs body in truth but in signification and the same say al Chatholiques namely Bellarmin Bellarm. l. 1. de Eucha c. 14. The Sacrament of the Eucharist is not Christs body but contayneth Christs body for a Sacrament is asensible signe and this sensible signe of bread and wine is that which the glosse sayd is not in truth Christs body but is improperly so called which is so far from being the vpshot of the controuersy or not admitting any solution as Bel fondly boasteth as in mans sight that Bel pag. 27. hath eyes it requireth no solution For who wil thinke that one denieth Christs body to be truely in the Sacrament because he denieth the Sacrament which is the sensible signes of bread and wine to be truly his body So Bel may gather that a body containeth not a soule nor a place a body because the continents are not the thing conteyned But saith Bel if Christs body were in the SacrameÌ„t really it should be there in rei veritate truely As if the glosse had denyed that Christ is in the Sacrament in rei veritate Suerly this sheweth that Bel neuer ment to deale in rei veritate And thus much of the 2. member of this Article Now let vs go to the third CHAP. V. Berengarius his Recantation explicated and S. Austins authority answered POPISH decrees saith Bel tel vs a long Bel pag. 28. tale of one Berengarius some tyme Deacon of a church in Gaunt No maruail if this tale seeme long to Bel which recounteth the foyle of his heresie against the real presence Berengar condemned of 113. Bishops Lanfranc de Sacram. Eucharist in Berengarius the first brocher therof in a general councel at Rome vnder Pope Nicholas the second aboute the year of Christ 1060. wher he recanted publikly and as him selfe saith willingly denouncinge al such to deserue eternal curse who denyed Christs body and blood to be really in the Eucharist Bel maketh him Deacon of Gaunt wheras Bel lacketh latin he was Archdeacon of Angiers in France not being able to distinguish Andeauum from Gandauum Angiers from Gaunt and because he abiured his heresie Bel termeth him a silly Deacon though his brother Buckly cal him an excellent and holy man In deed Bucleis ansvver to 8. reasons p. 62. he found more mercy at Gods hands then I read of any Arch-hereticke and dyed a penitent Catholike For dying on twelf day said as Malmesbur an English author Malmesbur l. 3. histor Angl. in Gabriel 1. p. 114. at that tyme writeth In this day of his apparition my lord Iesus wil appeare to some to glory as I hope for my repentance or to punishment as I feare for others seduced The like repentance I pray God send to Bel ere he dye that as he hath imytated Berengarius in heresie and in abiuration also of it at Rome if I be not deceaued he may likewise imitate him in repentance and penance 2. But because Berengarius in his recantation which was afterward put amongst Distinct 2. â—it the Decrees professed that Christ in the Eucharist sensualiter manibus sacerdotum tangitur frangitur dentibus fidelium atteritur is sensibly touched with hands of Priests broken and chewed with the teeth of the faithful Bel exclaymeth mightely calling his recantation but yet without al proofe cruel barbarous villanous blasphemous and horrible impietie Gladly he would haue the reader beleeue that Catholiques professe Christs body to be in it selfe broken and torne in peeces one member from an other though him selfe soone after not only alleadge Bellarmin to the contrary but confesse also that by the Popes p. 29. doctrin Christs body can not be broken or torne truely and in deed and cite the Glosse vpon the said decree saying that it were a worse pag. 30. heresie to thinke we made parts of Christ then to deny him to be in the sacrament And this is euident by the Masse it selfe where we say Christ nether broken nor deuided is receaued Missa de corpore Christi whole and no cuttinge is of the thing the breach is onely in the signe 3. Neuertheles Christs body is said to be toucht broken and chewed in the Eucharist because the signe of bread in which it really is is so vsed As God is said to haue bene crucified because the humanitie in which he was was so handled and Christ touched when his garment was
Protestant For if as Bel noteth out of S. Austin the bread which the Apostles eate was our lord how can protestants deny it and say it was bare bread Or if as S. Aust speaketh they eate bread our lord how can Bel say they eate not our lord but bare bread Can one â—ate flesh mutton if the flesh he eate be no mutton 7. Thirdly I note his notorious abusing S. Austins authority For first in Englishing Bels abusing of S. Austins vvords his words he addeth to them though in a parenthesis these words Not our lord but afterward he saith S. Austin telleth vs that vvhich Iudas receaued vvas but the bread of vntruth 38. our lord then as imboldened to lye auoucheth that S. Austin affirmeth most constantly vntruth 39. that Iudas receaued barely Panem Domini bread of our lord and lastly as cocke sure not to be tript in lying professeth that S. Austin playnly auoucheth that Iudas receaued not Panem vntruth 40 Dominum bread our lord Wheras S. Austin saith no one of al these but onely that the Apostles receaued bread our lord and Iudas bread of our lord without but or barely or denyal of the other Marke therfore good Bels steps of vntrue dealing reader his steps First his vntruth is cogged into S. Austins words with a parenthesis then is it put with a but afterward with barely and lastly playnly auouched These steps might Bel haue found in his ladder of lying better then he deuised the like before in the Popes ladder to his supremacy But here may the reader take a taste of the vntrue dealing of heretiques For who would not haue sworne but that Bel would haue dealt truely in an argument wherof he counteth so much as if it be solued he wil recant the third tyme. But now to come to his argument 8. I answer directly by denying the Antecedent for S. Austin said not that Iudas eate but or barely Panem Domini bread of our lord and much les said he eate not Panem Dominum but onely said that the Apostles did eate Panem Dominum bread our lord he Panem Domini bread of our lord Wherfore the doubt can be onely why he altered his speech calling that bread our lord which the Apostles eate and that bread of our lord which Iudas eate The reason wherof can not be because he thought the Apostles and Iudas receaued a bread of different substance â—or Epist 162. he expresly S. Austin saith Iudas eate our price to 2. S. Chrysost tom 3. writeth that Iudas receaued pretium nostrum our price which in substance is Panis Dominus bread our lord and S. Chrysost hom de prodit Iudae affirmeth that Christ offered to Iudas the blood which he had sold and Theodoret. in 1. cap. 2. Cor. that he gaue to Iudas his precious body and blood The reason therfore is that which S. Aust Buccella Dominica ven enum fuit Iudae See S. Austin l 2. cont lit Petil. c. 47. tom 7. S. Augustin tom 6. Cortuptio carni hoc nomen imponit Aug. l. 2. cont aduers legis Et prophet c. 6. t0 6. him selfe insinuateth in the words immediatly following illi vitam ille paenam they eate life he punishment vz because the bread had a different effect and operation in Iudas then it had in the Apostles For as him selfe proueth lib. 11. cont Faust cap. 7. one thing of different effects or operations may haue different names What maruaile then if he called that which the Apostles receaued bread our lord because it was both in substance and operation food and life to them and that which Iudas receaued bread of our lord because though in substance it was the same yet through his malice in operation it was poyson and death vnto him And here by the way wold I propound one choise to Bel whether he A choise for Bel wil beleeue the Eucharist to be Panem Dominum with Catholiques or bate Panem Domini with Protestants If the first he may eate Panem Dominum with the Apostles if the second he may eate Panem Domini but it shal be with Iudas 9. But suppose S. Austin had said as he hath not that Iudas did not eat bread our Lord Bel could not therof infer that the Eucharist is not truly our Lord seing he auoucheth that the Apostles who vndoubtedly receaued the Eucharist did eat bread our Lord but at most that what Iudas receaued was not the Eucharist which diuers think and it is a far different question S. Hilar. can 30. in Math. and maketh nothing to this purpose But nether could Bel infer this because S Austin S. August epist 162 to 2. tract 26. 62. in Ioan. tom 9. other where affirmeth Iudas to haue receaued the Sacrament and our price which in substance is bread our Lord and because it is vsual to him to deny the name to a thing if it want the accustomed quality or operation So lib. 11. cont Faust c. 7. he saith S. Augustin tom 6. In resurrection there shal be no flesh and serm 5. de verb. Apost c. 12. There shal be not the same body because it shal not be mortal Which kind of speech he vseth other where and proueth it out of 1. Cor. 15. and 2. cor 5. The most therfore that Bel can infer and he may wel do it is that the bread which Iudas eate was not in operation our Lord and life to him but iudgment and death which I willingly graunt but it maketh nothing for his purpose Let now euery indiffereÌ„t Reader iudge whether this argument out of S. Austin be not sufficiently answered and Bel if he wil be as good as his word bound to recant yet once againe And thus much of this member CHAP. VI. Bels imaginary contradictions in the Masse answered and true Contradiction in his Communion shewed THE fourth member Bel maketh of â—â—l pag. 32. the apparent contradictions which are as he saith in the Masse The first is that Catholiques say that Christs body is the same in the Masse which was on the crosse yet confesse it to be a figure therof This he proueth to be a contradiction because Bellarm. l. 1. de Euchar. c. â— a figure must needs be inferior to the thing figured as Bellarm professeth and S. Paul testifieth Answer First I deny al figures S. Paul Hebr. 10. to be inferrior to things figured some be both figures verity as God the Sonne figure of the substance of his Father Heb. VVhat figures be inferior to thâ— things figured vvhat not 1. v. 3. and yet true God And Seth an image of Adam Gen. 5. v. 3. and yet true man And such figures are equal to the things figured and such a figure of Christ is the Eucharist Others be bare figures as images are of men and the Sacraments and Sacrifices of the ould law were wherof S. Paul and Bellarmin spake and the Apostles Heb.
when consent is not giuen vnto it to vnlawful acts And soone after But in a certain kind of speech it is called sinne and he giueth there two reasons of this figuratiue speech because saith he it was made of sinne and maketh sinne if it ouercome Again So is Concupiscence called sinne because it was made by sinne vvheras novv in the regenerate it selfe is no sinne mark again as speech which the tong maketh is called a tong writing a hand vvhich a hand maketh So also it is called a sinne because it maketh sinne if it ouercome as cold is called sluggish because it maketh sluggards Can any Catholique now speak more plainly In these few words al in one chapter he twise denyeth concupiscence in the regenerate to be sinne once affirmeth it to be improperly so called and giueth two reasons and two examples of such figuratiue speech The S. Augustin to 7. Bellarm. l. 5. de amiss Grat. stat peccati c. 8. same doctrin he teacheth l. 1. contr duas epist Pelag. c. 13. and l. 2. cont Iulian in al his tomes as Bellarmin sheweth So that whatsoeuer Bel hereafter shal obiect out of S. Paul S. Austin or others calling concupiscence S. Austin hath preuented al Bels obiections sinne I need not answer my selfe but referre the Reader to these words of S. Austin wherin he explicateth both why and how S. Paul him selfe and others meane not properly but improperly and figuratiuely when they cal concupiscence sinne Yet because Bels arguments containe diuers vntruths requisite to be taxed I wil answer them al in such order as he proposeth them CHAP. II. Diuers vntruthes of Bel disproued his arguments out of S. Paul against the doctrin in the former chapter ansvvered BEL beginneth this Article as he did Bel pag. 41. the rest with vntruths 1. That S. Paul in vntruth 47 the whole 7. chapter to the Romans proueth original concupiscence in the regenerate to be sinne This is not so for he doth not proue it to be any sinne at al but supposing it to prouoke to sinne calleth it sinne 2. That Papists vntruth 48 can not abide the Apostles doctrin Forsooth because we can not abide Bels exposition 3. That the cause of our denying Concupiscence to vntruth 49 be sinne is because it ouerthroweth our holy so supposed iustification thus blasphemously he denyeth Bel blaspbemeth iustification iustification to be holy our inherent purities condigne merits works of supererogation This is vntrue for it might be such sinne as Bel wold haue it to wit venial and destroy Bel art 6. p. 81. none of al these But the true causes are Scriptures Fathers reason before alleadged and Bel confesseth that the reason pag. 50. which we euer haue in our mouth is the inuoluntarines of concupiscence 4. That the Maister of Sentences vtterly condemneth vs in calling vntruth 50 3. sent d. 19. concupiscence culpam But he meaneth improperly as is euident by his owne words 2. dist 32. Concupiscence after baptisme saith he is only mark Bel punishment of sinne but before baptisme both punishment and fault 2. Thus hauing made his way with vntruths Bel pag. 42. he proueth cōcupiscence to be sinne out of S. Paul Rom. 7. v. 25. saying I my selfe with the mynd serue the law of God but with the flesh the law of sinne And hence noteth that the regenerate do serue the law of sinne But he forgot to note that it is but with the flesh and that with the mynd without which Ibid. there is no formal sinne they serue the law of God He also noteth That the best liuers can not merit grace and glory ex condigno because by sinne they deserue death VVhich because S. Austin saith he at the first could not disgest he vnderstood S. Paul in the 7. chapter to the Romans only 51. vntruth of the vvicked not of the godly But remitting Bel forgetteth his matter the matter of merit and desert of sinne to their proper places art 5. and 6. false it is that S. Austin changed his opinion about the vnderstanding of those words of S. Paul Rom. 7. I am a carnal man solde vnder sinne and the like because he saw that iust men sinned For as him selfe testifyeth 1. Retract S. Austin c. 23. and Bel wrongly cited 22. he reading other expositors found that the foresaid words might be vnderstood of the Apostle him selfe as the word carnal may be verifyed of him in respect of his body not yet spiritual and the word sinne in respect of concupiscence which is sinne vz improperly as the same S. Austin explicateth Lib. 1. de nupt concupis c. 23. l. 1. cont duas epist Pelag. c. 13. in the books to which he referreth vs and we cited them before Wherby we see that S. Austins error was in vnderstanding the foresaid words of formal and proper sinne as Bel doth and corrected it by vnderstanding them of improper sinne And yet euen when he was in that error he was so far from thinking as Bel doth that the best liuers in rigor deserue eternel death that then he wold in no wise thinke the Apostle to speak of a mā in grace assuring him selfe that no such man is solde vnder sinne that deserueth eternal death 3. His second proofe is out of the 23. Bel pag. 42. verse of the same chapter where S. Paul writeth I see a lavv in my members subduing me to the lavv of sinne VVhat saith Bel can he Bel forgetteth vvhat he is to proue merit who is prisoner to the law of sinne But beside that Bel for got what he was to proue vz. Concupiscence in the iust to be sinne not their merit to be none S. Paul by the word me vnderstandeth only his flesh as he had expounded him selfe before v. 18. when he said There dvvelleth not in me that is in my flesh good And S. Austin interpreteth 1. de nupt concupis c. 30. and 31. And v. 23. saith that he vvas prisoner to the lavv of sinne in his flesh and in his mynd serued the lavv of God what maruel then that one prisoner in flesh but free in mynd from which al our merit or sinne proceedeth may by seruing Gods law merit 4. His third proofe is out of the 19. verse Bel pag. 43. where as he citeth S. Paul saith The euil vvhich I vvold not that I do Omitting the false False translat 3. translating of on thelo and Nolo I vvold not as though S. Paul had not had a present and absolute wil not to lust but an imperfect velleity which euen the wicked haue and in english we signify by vvold and vvold not I answer that S. Paul improperly saith He doth that which he wil not and therfore in the very next verse as it were correcting that speech saith If I do that I vvil not I vvorke v. 20. it not wherin he both
Greg. Naz. orat 3. in bapt S. Hierom. S. Chrysost to 4. epist 105. writeth that As death is rendred as a stipend to the merit of sinne so is euerlasting life as a stipend to the merit of iustice S. Ireney l. 4. c. 72. saith By good works we conquer heauen S. Basil orat in init prouerb By good works we buy heauen S. Gregory Nazian For good works we may exact reward not as grace but as playne debt S. Hierom epist ad Celant God hath cause to reward vs. S. Chrisostom hom 7. in epist Rom. calleth vs. Gods creditors and vsurers and him our debtor and hom 3. Tom. 2. de Lazaro that by good workes we deserue heauen as by euil hel Yea Bel him selfe admitteth Bel pag. 77. more then impetration when hereafter he cōfesseth heauen to be due to good workes for where duty is there is not meere Contradict 16. impetration that works are to heauen as the loane of a cloake in a shower of rayne vpon promise of an hundred pownds for here is some iustice And professeth to defend pag. 79. Durand 2. d. 27. quaest 2. expresly admitteth condigne merit Cap. 1. parag 2. Durands opinion who vndoubtedly admitteth more then simple impetration But if Bel had remembred his owne and the common doctrin of Protestants before rehearsed that al good works whatsoeuer are sinne he wold neuer haue graunted that they are impetratorious of Gods fauor and reward For how cā sinne impetrate fauour or reward and not rather offence and punishment Wherupon Perkins in plaine Perkins refor Cathol Of merits p. 112. 104. Caluin 3. instit c. 15. parag 4. 2. tearms affirmeth that our righteousnes is not capable of merit and vtterly renounceth al merit of man And Caluin not only abhorreth the name of merit affirming it to be proude and to obscure Gods grace and to make men proude but professeth that our good vvorks are euer sprinkled vvith many filthinesses for vvhich God may be iustly offended and angry vvith vs so far saith he are they from purchasing his fauour or procuring his liberality towards vs. Thus we see how conformably Bel speaketh to his owne and his fellow Bel against his fellovv Ministers Ministers doctrine 4. Second Conclusion Good workes done in Gods grace are condignely meritorious of eternal life This is that which Bel impugneth in this Article as a point of our faith and auoucheth it to be defyned by the Councel of Trent but falsly For the Councel hath no word of condigne merit but only of true merit which in plaine tearms Bel him self dare not impugne or deny If any shal say saith the Councel that a iustified Ttident sess 6. can 32. man by good works which he doth by the grace of God and merit of Iesus Christ whose liuely member he is doth not truly deserue increase of grace eternal life and consecution therof if he departe in grace and also increase of glory be he accursed Here are good works defyned to be true merit of glory without determining whither they be cōdigne merit therof or no. Wherupon vega who was one of the Vega. Deuines of the coūcel writeth de fid ope q. 4. That some noble schoole diuines being moued saith he with no light arguments and vsing a certaine sober and prudent moderation haue denyed that there is any condigne merit of eternal happines And againe It is certaine saith he that there is merit in our works and some of them be meritorious but of what reward and how they are meritorious it is in controuersy there are diuers opiniōs amōgst the schoole diuines And q. 5. he affirmeth Gregory Gregor 1. d. 17. q. 1. Durand q. 2. Marsil in 2. VValden de sacra c. 7. Burgens in psalm 35. Eckins in centur de predest Durand Marsil Walden Burgensis and Eckins to deny condigne merit Satus also an other diuine of the sayd Councel l. 3. de Nat. Grat. c. 7. saith that there is some difference amongst Catholiques about condigne merit and c. 8. after he had proued condigne merit out of the Councel and otherwaies yet concludeth not that it is a point of faith but only calleth it conclusionem probatissimam a most approued Conclusion And Bellarmin whome Bel tearmeth the mouth of Papists lib. 5. de iustific cap. 16. after he had rehearsed twoe opinions of Catholiques wherof the one seemeth plainly to deny condigne merit the other admitteth it only in a large sense proposeth and defendeth the third opinion which defendeth condigne merit absolutly only as verissimam communem sententiam Theologorum most true and the common opinion of Diuines as indeed it is and we shal proue it anone against Bel. Hereby appeareth Bels shameful proceeding in this Article in impugning condigne merit as a point of faith defyned by the Councel of Trent which hath no word of condigne merit and omitting the question of true merit which the Councel defyned Catholiques defend as a point of their faith against Protestants 5. The third Conclusion is that This This seemeth defyned Conc. Trid. sess 6. c. vlt. in Bulla Pij 5. Gregor 13. condigne merit is not absolute but supposeth the condition of Gods promise made to reward it This is held of the best Diuines and proued at large by Bellarmin l. 5 de iustifi c. 14. The fourth Conclusion is that This condigne merit in our works is not perfect hauing actual and perfect arithmetical equality before explicated This manifestly S. August in psal 93. to 8. S. Chrysost 2. Cor. 9. S. Bernard serm 1. de Annuntiat the Fathers teach with al Catholiques and Bels arguments hereafter brought conuince it and no more The fifte Conclusion is that the imperfect cōdigne merit which is in our works to heauen riseth not meerly of Gods acceptation but partly of the due proportion and sufficiency before explicated in them to the reward This likewise is no matter of faith yet truth taught by S. Thomas 1. 2. 4. 114. ar 1. 3. Bonauent S. Thomas S. Bonauent 2. d. 17. and Deuines in that place cōmonly Bellar l. 5. de Iustif c. 17. though Scot. 1. Bellarm. Scotus d. 17. and some others deny it with whom Bel also falleth in league towards the end Bel pag. 7◠of this Article The sixt Conclusion is that the said condignity riseth not of any due proportion which is in the substance of our worke if it be considered in it selfe but as it is the fruit of the holy Ghost mouing vs to do it and the effect of Gods grace helping vs in doing it which grace making vs partakers as S. Peter speaketh of deuine nature 1. Pet. 1. v. 4. Coloss 1. v. 10. 2. Thessal 1. v. 5. so dignifyeth our works as according to S. Paul we walke vvorthely of God and become vvorthy of Gods kingdome And because Bel denyeth none of these Conclusions but the second and fieft them
only wil I proue 6. That good works are a condigne or worthy merit of heauen in the sense before explicated followeth of that they are a true merit therof because as I thinke only condigne merit is true merit For congrual merit hath no iustice in it as appeareth in good works disposing to iustification which some cal congrual merits and therfore no true merit which can not be without some title of iustice But I proue it other waies First because the Thessalonians suffered to S. Paul â—is to cataZiothenai humas be made or accounted worthy of Gods kingdom 2. Thess 1. v. 5. Ergo sufferances make men worthy or which commeth to one purpose to be truly accounted worthy of Gods kingdom Secondly Apocalip 3. v. 4 They haue not defyled their garments and Apocal. they shal vvalke vvith me in vvhite because they be vvorthy Ergo Saints are worthy to walke with God in glory These places make Protestants confesse that Saincts are worthy of heauen but haue a shift of saying They are vvorthy for Christs merits not for their ovvne But Perkins refor Cathol Of merits p. 113. as plainly as S. Paule affirmeth the Thessalonians to be worthy of Gods kingdome so plainly he affirmeth their worthines to come of their owne sufferances And likewise S. Ihon ascribeth the worthines of Saints to their not defyling their garments which is their owne merit Moreouer Christ speaking of mans labours saith The worker is worthy of his hyer Luc. 10. v. 7. S. Lukâ— S. Paul S. Austin And we worke our saluation Philip. 2. v. 12. And S. Austin epist 105. saith that Eternal life is giuen to the merit of our iustice as death is to the debt of our sinne and that God crowneth our merits And in psal 93. that we buy heauen with labour Therfore the worthines of Saints proceedeth from their owne merits though it proceed also from the merits of Christ For we are branches he Ioan. 15. v. 5. the vyne therfore as grapes which spring out of the branches proceed from the vyne which giueth them their vertue soe al worthines which proceedeth from Saints riseth from Christ as the roote and fountaine thereof 7. Thirdly condigne merit requireth not perfect and arithemetical equality in the worke to the rewarde but only proportion but good workes haue proportion to glory Therfore they are condigne merits thereof The Proposition Bel him selfe pag. 77. alleadgeth and approueth out of Ihon de Combis and it is euident in mens deserts of a Bishopricke which being a spiritual dignity passeth al price and yet may be worthely deserued of men The assumption Infra parag 9. shal be proued a none Nether is our condigne meriting of heauen either blasphemous against Gods free mercy or iniurious to Christs merits as Bel bableth but rather Bel pag 62. Rom. 6. v. 23. Math. 5. v. 12. Math. 11. v. 12. Ioan. 1. v. 16. S. Austin epist 105. Philip. 3. v. 14. 2. Timoth. 4. v. 8. S. Austin ep 105. S. Ambros in c. 6. Rom. S. Chrysost hom 7. Rom. S. Gregor Nazianz. orat 3. in S. lauacrum Our merits honourable to Christ. honourable For though eternal life as it is giuen to good workes be mercy or grace as S. Paul calleth it yet neuer shal Bel proue that it is meere mercy or grace Our Sauiour calleth it a rewarde and saith we get it by violence S. Ihon according to S. Austins exposition calleth it grace for grace that is grace of glory not absolutly but for grace of merits or grace mixt with iustice S. Paul calleth it a goale a crowne of iustice The Fathers cal it a stipend a debt And by whose authority then doth Bel cal it a meere grace or mercy Harken to S. Paul 1. Timoth. 6. Bel and leaue these same nouelties of wordes 8. Likewise it is not iniurious to Christs merits but rather honourable to them For as it is not iniurious to Gods doing good that we by his grace do good for our selfs but rather honourable according to our Sauiours saying In hoc clarificatus est pater Ioan. 15. v. 8. c. In this my father is glorifyed Nor to Christs prayer or impetration that we also through him pray and impetrate for our Our merits no more iniurious to Christs merits then our prayer to his prayer selfs So likewise it is not iniurious to Christs meriting but rather honourable therto that we also through him and as his liuely members do in some sort merit for our selfs What iniury is it to the tree that the branch thereof bringeth forth fruit nether are we therfore more partners with Christ in merit then we are by prayers partners with him in impetration 9. That our merits haue proportion Merits haue proportion to glory and vertual equality to their reward followeth also out of the former For condigne merit requireth at lest due proportion to the reward but especially I proue it First because the reward consisteth in the cleare sight of God face to face and in perfect loue of him and our merit consisteth principally in faith which is a sight or knowledge of God in a glasse and in louing him aboue al things But there is due proportion between the sight of a thinge in a glasse and the cleare sight thereof and betwixt perfect loue and the loue aboue al things Ergo Secondly good workes are fruits of the holy Ghost Galat. 5. v. 22. and of Christs passion for by it we do these good workes Ergo it is iniury to the holy Ghost and to Christ to say that their supernatural fruits haue no proportion to a supernatural rewarde Thirdly glory is grace Rom. 6. Ioan. 1. and our merits are grace but there is proportion between two graces 4. Grace is the seed of glory according to that 1. Ioan. 3. The seed of God remaineth in him therfore in vertue it conteineth glory as the seed doth the tree 5. Glory is a floode making glad the citty of God psal 45. and grace is a fountaine of water leaping into eternal life Ioan. 4. but there is proportion between a floode and a fountaine which springeth into the place of the floode Now let vs come to Bels arguments which beside that they impugne no matter of faith as is before said they disproue no such condignity of merit as Catholiques teach and is already explicated but such as is both absolute and perfectly equal to the rewarde And at last after he had runne him selfe out of breath confesseth that he can not impugne condigne merit as it is defended by Bellarmin who in truth teacheth no other herein then is the common doctrine of the Church CHAP. IIII. Bels arguments out of Scripture against condigne merit ansvvered HIs first argument is taken out of S. Bel pag. 62. Paul Rom. 6. v. 23. To de Charisma tou theou Zoe aionios en Christo Iesou to curio hemon which he citeth in greeke perhaps to make the Reader
euermore it hath bene obserued as appeareth by S. Ignatius epistol ad S. Ignatius S. Iteney Origen S. Basil S. Chrysostom S. Augustin S. Leo. S. Gregory S. Grego Nazianzen in sanct lauaerum â—oncil Laoâ—iâ—cen Can. 10. Philip. S. Ireney loc cit Origen hom 10. Leuit. Basil orat 2. de ieiunio Chrysostom hom 1. in Gen. and 11. hom 16. and 73. ad populum S. Austin epist 118. and 119. and serm de quadrag Leo and Gregor loc cit And what S. Chrysostom meant in the words cited by Bel he him self explicateth in these words Because I am sorry saith he if neglecting the rest you thinke fasting sufficient to saue you which is the meanest of the vertues So that he meant that Christ bid vs not only fast lent but more especially be humble See S. Hierom ep ad Celantiam Math. 9. v. 13. Ose c. 6. v. 6. vntruth 96 Bel p. 130. and milde The like speech vsed Christ when he said I wil haue mercy and not sacrifice vz. only and rather then mercy And so we may say with S. Chrysostom he commanded not fasting but humility And Bel vseth his old trade in auouching vs to think it greater sinne to eat flesh in lent then to commit adultery murder or periury Whereas euery Catholique knoweth these sinnes to be against the law of nature and lawful in no case whatsoeuer and the other against a positiue precept which according to the general custome of the Church bindeth none vnder 21. or aboue 60. years old no sicke body no laboring man no woeman bearing or nursing children besides many other perticuler cases wherein fasting in lent is dispensed withal 7. Eight Traditions more Bel reckoneth Bel p. 131. 132. 133. as of celebrating in vnleauened bread of Christs age when he dyed of his raigne on earth after iudgement of Zacharias that was slayne betwixt the Temple and the altar of the Popes teaching successiuely the self some doctrin with S. Peter of our ladies conception without original sinne of Constantins baptisme at Rome and lastly of honoring Saints But these are ether falsly alleadged for traditions or litle or nothing to the purpose For that of celebrating Leo 9. ep ad Michaelem PattiarchaÌ„ c. 29. Eugen. 4. in decreto vnionis These tvvoe vvere no traditions but erroneous opinioÌ„s See S. Hierom de scriptur in Padia Bel impugneth histories in steed of Traditions Origen in 25. Math. Basil homil de human Christâ— General Nissen orat de Christ natiu Cyrill cont Anthropo This is no Tradition but if it be ment of the Popes teaching as he is Pope it is in Scripture if as a prinat maÌ„ it is an opinion brating in vnleauened bread concernes no thing necessary to mans saluation as testify P Leo 9. and P. Eugenius 4. and therfore is none of these which Bel vndertooke in the beginning of this article to impugne And though S. Ireney were deceaued about Christs age when he suffered and Papias about his reigne after iudgement that maketh not much to the purpose For wel may the Church be certain of Traditions though one Father were mistaken about one Tradition and an other about an other That of Zachary that he was S. Ihon Baptists father who was so slain S. Basil reporteth not as an Apostolical but an historical Tradition and though S Hierom deny it yet Origen S. Greg. Nissen S. Cyril and Valentinian affirme it 8. As for the Popes successiuely teaching the self same doctrin with S. Peter the truth thereof vnto S Victor P. tyme about the year 187. is testifyed by S. Ireney lib. 3. r. 3. vntil S Cornelius P. about the yeare 251. by S. Cyprian lib. 1. epist 3 vnto S. Lucius 1 P. about 257. by him self epist ad Episc Hispan Gall. vntil S. Dammasus P. about the year 380 by S. Hierom epist ad Damas vntil S. Leo 1 Pope about 450 by Theodoret epistol ad Renatum vntil S. Gelasius 1. P. about 496. by him self epist ad S. Ireney S. Cyprian S Lucius S. Hierom. S. Theodoret S. Gelasius 2. S. Ihon. 2. S. Gregory Agatho Nicolas 1. Anast vntil S. Ihon 2. Pope about the year 533. by him self epist ad Iustin vntil S. Gregory the great about the year 600. by him self lib. 6. epist 37 vntil Pope Agatho about the yeare 681. by him self in his epistle approued 6. Synod act 8. and 18. vntil P. Nicolas about the year 860. by him self epist ad Michael Imperat. vntil P. Leo 9 about Leo 9. the yeare 1050. by him self epistol ad Petr. Antioch vntil Pope Innocent 2. about the year 1140. is insinuated by S Bernard epist S. Bernard 190. And the same may be proued of the rest of the Popes since Now let vs see whome Bel opposeth to these so many so holy so antient witnesses 9 Forsooth Nicolas de Lyra a late fryer Bel p. 132. Lyra in cap. 16. Math. Tit. 3. v. 11. O truly said of S. Paule that Heretiks are condemned by their owne iudgements For who condemneth not him self if he wil beleeue one late writer before so many so holy so antient And much more if that Author be found to affirme nothing to the contrary For he only saith That Summi Pontifices inueniuntur apostatasse à side Popes haue apostated from the faith which is a far different thing For wel may one be an Apostata Math. 26. v 70. Concil Sinuessan Damasus iâ— Marcelliâ—â— and yet teach the doctrin of his Predecessor As S Peter denyed his maister yet taught no contrary doctrin S. Marcellin offered sacrifice to Idols and yet taught no Idolatry Caïphas murdered Ioan. 11. v. 51. S. Augustin l. 4. de doctr Christian c. 27. to 3. Christ and yet prophecyed For as S. Austin said of some Bishops that they durst not teach heresy lest they should leese their Bishopriks So we might say of Popes that though some of them had apostated from Christ yet they durst not teach heresy or apostasy lest they shold be deposed but might with a wicked and deceitful hart to vse S. Austins words preach things which are right and true or as S. Paul speaketh preach Philip. 1. v. 18. Christ vpon occasion not vpon truth But indeed neuer did any Pope in his hart apostatat from Christ 10. That point of our ladies conception Bel impugneth an opinion for tradition without sinne is no Tradition but a pious and probable opinion of many and denyed of diuers Catholiques as of S. Thomas S Bernard whome Bel him self citeth and others And as for Constantins baptisme at Bel impugneth a History in steed of tradition pag. 133. Rome it concerneth no matter of saluation but is a meere historical Tradition sufficiently proued by Card. Baronius Annal. Ann. 314. and vnawares contested by Bel him self when he saith that he hath seen at Rome the font and that Constantin is worthely See Nicephor lib. 7. c. 35. called great For why
shold that font be conserued so long but as a monument of so memorable a christning How can Constantin be worthely surnamed great of Christians if at his death he communicated with Arians and was baptized of them at Nicomedia as their fellow heretik Eusebius first reported to purchase credit to his heresy If this had bene so he shold rather haue bene syrnamed of Catholiques the Apostata or Heretike 11. The last tradition of honoring Saints Bel p. 133. Bel saith made some to honor Heretiks for Saints as Platina saith he writeth of the Platina in Bonif. 8. corps of Herman an heretike honored as Saints reliques at Ferrara for 20. years together Answer vntruth 97 How Apostolical a thing the honoring of Saints is Bellarmin sheweth lib. de Sanct. beatit c. 19. Where besids Scripturs and Councels he proueth it by the testimony of 30. Fathers wherof 25 liued aboue a thowsand years ago But is not this a strange metamorphosis to make the error of common people a popish Tradition Beside Platina affirmeth no such thing him selfe but only that some others write so But nether he nor any other write that it rose of popish Tradition That is Bels accustomed vse of addition And therfore where he noteth danger in beleeuing Tradition he might haue noted danger in crediting his owne relation Yea what danger is in not beleeuing Roman Tradition appeareth both by the testimony of Fathers before cited and by the example of Policrates and his fellows the Quartadecimans and by S. Cyprian Quartadecimans are Heretiks ex Epiphan haer 50. 70. Nicephor l. 4. c. 39. August haer 29. Socrates lib. 5. c. 22. Tripartita hist Vincent Lytin and his followers the Donatists reproued only by Roman Tradition As testifyeth Tripartit lib. 9. c. 38. and Vincent Lyrinen But suppose that they of Ferrara had vpon Tradition taken occasion to commit Idolatry Shal we reiect al things wherof men take occasion to offend So we might reiect Christ who was set vnto the ruine of many Luc. 2. v. 34. and by whom the Iewes took occasion of scandal So we might reiect Scripturs by which heretiks haue taken occasion he heresy Sunne and Moone because Gentils haue by them fallen into Idolatry Cannot Bel distinguish between vse abuse of Traditions betwixt scandal giuen taken Thus much of the certainty of Tradtions Now let vs come to the examination of them CHAP. XI Of the examination of Traditions APostolical Traditions are not to be examined by Scripture This is against Bel pag. 117. but euident Because Apostolical â—el p. 117 Tradition is the Apostles word their S. Paul â— Luke word is Gods word 1. Thess 2. v. 16. But Gods word is not to be examined at al Ergo nether is Apostolical Tradition Wel might the Church at first examine a Tradition whether it were Apostolical or no as she did examine diuers parts of the Bible whither they were Scripture or no but finding it to be Apostolical she could no more examine it by the Bible then she can examin one part of the Bible by an other And Bel in saying That the new testament may Bel p. 135. al. 117. be examined by the old sheweth him selfe rather to be a Iew then a Christian For how dare he examin that which is certaine to be deuine truth Or how can he examin the new testament by the old if he be not more certain of the old then of the new But how Traditions ought to be proued heare Tertullian Tertullian lib. de Corona It can not seeme none or a doubtful fault against Custome which is to be defended for it name sake and is sufficiently authorized by protection of consent Plainly reason is to be enquired but so as the Custome be reteined not to destroy it but to vphold it That thou maist obserue it more when thou art sure of the reason of it But what a thing is it that one shal cal Custome in question when he hath fallen from it 2. But saith Bel Scriptures are called canonical Bel p. 117. because they be the rule of faith Therfore al things are to be examined by them And for this cause saith he Esay sent vs to the Law and testimony Esaiae 8. to try the truth Malachias bid vs be myndful Malach. 4. Psalm 119. 2. Pet. 1. Ioan. 5. Math. 22. Act. 17. 1. Ioan. 4. Gal. 1. of Moises lavv Dauid said Gods word is a lathern S. Peter a shyning light For this cause Christ exhorted the Iewes to read Scripturs and said the Pharises erred because they knew not the Scripturs The Berheans examined S. Paules doctrin S. Ihon bid try the spirits S. Paul pronounced him accursed That preached any doctrin not conteined in Scripture as S. Austin and S. Basil expound him S. August l. 3. cont Petil. c. 6. S. Basil sum 72 c. 1. Bible onely Canonical Scripture but not it alone Canonical Sup. c. 2. parag 1. 7. c. 9. paragr 17. 3. Answer The Bible alone is called Canonical Scripture because it alone of al Scripturs the Church followeth as an infallible rule in beleeuing or defyning any thing But it nether is nor is called the only Canon of faith In the rest Bel affirmeth but proueth not that that was the cause why the Scripture said so As for the places of Esay Malachy Dauid and S. Peter they haue bene answered before As for exhortation of Christ I might deny that he there exhorted the Iewes to read Scripture but Scrutamini Scripturas See S. Gyrill l. 3. in Ioan. c. 4. affirmed that they did read them because they thought they conteined life But suppose he did exhort them to read Scripturs for to finde whether he were the Messias or no wheroâ— as he saith there they giue testimony what is this for trying of al matters by them Can Bel inferre an vniuersal propositioÌ„ of one singuler That of the Pharises Corrupt of Script conteineth two corruptions of Scripturs For neither did Christ say The Pharases but the Saduces erred about the resurrection nether doth he say the cause of their error therin was only ignorance of Scripture as Bel insinuateth leauing out the words povvre of God but ignorance both Math. 22. v. 29. of Scripture and of Gods powre you erre saith he knovving nether Scripturs nor the powre of God So if they had known Gods powre though it had not bene by Scripture but by Tradition or reuelation as Iob and Iob 19. v. 25. the faithful vncircumcised did they had not erred about the resurrection Beside the resurrection is a perticuler matter and euidently testifyed in Scripture what proueth this concerning al points of faith 4. As for the Berhaeans whom Bel wil haue to haue examined the truth of S. Pauls Act. 17. doctrin I ask of him whither they were faithful whilst they examined it or faithles If faithles why proposeth he them to vs as an example to imitat