this place serueth nothing 18. Bels sixt solution is That we beleeue Bel p. 136. not the Scripture to be Gods worde because the Church teacheth vs so but because it is of it selfe axiopistos worthy of credit and God inwardly moueth vs to beleeue it That we beleeue it not for the Churches authority he proueth Because els the formal obiect of our beleefe and last resolution therein should not be the first verity God him selfe but man which is contrary to S. Dionis and S. Thomas S. Dionis de diuin nom c. 7. S. Thom. 2. 2. q. 1. art 1. Aquinas who teach That the formal obiect of our faith is the first verity and S. Thom. addeth That faith beleeueth nothing but because it is reuealed of God Also because S. Austin saith That man learneth S. Augustin tractat 3. in Ioan. to 9. not of man that outward teachings are some helps and admonitions but who teacheth the hart hath his chayre in heauen That the Scripture is of it selfe axiopistos or worthy of credit we deny not only we deny that by it selfe without testimony of the Church we can knowe that it is so worthy Nether deny we that God inwardly moueth our harts to beleeue it only we say that therto he vseth also the testimony of the holy Church nor ordinarily moueth any therto without the external testimony of the Church wherfore albeit it be most true that we beleeue the Scripture to be Gods worde because God moueth vs therto yet false it is to deny that we beleeue it not also because the Church doth teach it Because Gods inward motion and the Churches outward testimony are no opposit causes and impossible to concurre to one and the same effect but the second is subordinate to the first and can not worke without it as the first though it can doth not worke this effect without the second Wherfore wel said S. Austin Non crederem Euangelio nisi Cont. epist fundam c. 4. to 6. me Ecclesiae authoritas commoueret I wold not beleeue the Ghospel vnles the authority of the Church did commoue me therto 19. This place of S. Austin so stingeth pag. 137. Bel as he wyndeth euery way to auoid it First he telleth vs that there is a great difference Bels lacke of latin betweene mouere and commouere because mouere is to moue apart by it selfe commouere to moue together with an other This difference is false For nether is mouere to moue apart but absolutly as it is cōmon to mouing apart or with an other Nether though commouere do more properly signify mouing with an other is it alwaies so taken as infinit places both of holy and prophane writers can testify yea Bel him selfe with in 8. lynes pag. 138. after englisheth it absolutly mouing But suppose it were what inferreth Bel thereupon Forsooth that S. Austins meaning is nothing els but that the authority of the Church did outwardly concurre with the inward motion of God to bring him to beleeue the Ghospel That the Church did ioyntly concurre to S. Austins faith of the Ghospel is certaine and so Bel translating commouere for iointly mouing I refuse not But false it is that the Church did iointly concurre with God only to the bringing of S. Austin to the faith of the Ghospel and not to the conseruing him in the same faith Because c. 4. he saith That if thou percase canst finde any manifest S. Austin thing in the Ghospel of Maniches Apostleship thou shalt weaken the authority of Catholiques with me who bid me beleeue not thee which authority being weakned now nether can I beleeue the Ghospel Behold the authority of Catholiques conserued S. Austin in the faith of the Ghospel without which he professeth that he could beleeue the Ghospel no longer And againe Amongst other things which most iustly as he saith holde him in the Church he reckoneth authority and succession in the Church 20. But do you thinke that Bel wil stand to his expounding of commouere and graunting the Church to concurre with the inward motion of the holy Ghost to bring a man to beleeue the Ghospel No surely For in the next page he telleth vs. That the pag. 138. authority of the Church did moue beholde iointly mouing forgotten S. Austin to heare the Ghospel preached and to giue some humane credit vnto it For deuine faith proceedeth not from the outward teachings of man as I haue proued saith he already out of S. Austin This denyal of deuine faith to proceed from outward teaching of man is directly against Scripture and S. Austin For Rom. 10. v. S Paul Roman 10. 17. Faith commeth of hearing the preacher The Colossians learnt the grace of Christ of Epaphoras Coloss 1. v. 7. The Thessalonians Coloss 1. learnt the Traditions which they should keep by speech and letter 2. Thess 2. Thessalon 2. 1. Corinth 4. Philemon 2. v. 15 S. Paul begate the Corinthians in the Ghospel 1. Corinth 4. v. 15. He begate Onesimus Philem. v. 11. He and Apollo were Gods helpers in bringing the Corinthians to Christs faith 1. Corinth 3. v. 9. They that succour preachers are called cooperators of the truth 3. Ioan. v. 8. and therfore 3. Ioan. 8. much more the preachers them selfs And if deuine faith proceede not at al from outwarde teaching of men why did Christ send his Apostles to teach al nations Math. Math. 28. 28. v. 19. why appointed he in his Church some teachers for consummating of Saints Ephes Ephes 4. 4. v. 11 Why was S Paul a teacher of Gentils 1. Timoth. 2. v. 7. others act 13 v. 4. How 2. Timoth. could S. Paul bestovv some spiritual grace vpon Act. 13. the Romans Rom. 1. v. 11. Did Christ send these Apostles to teach humaine faith was Rom. 1. S. Ihon Baptist sent before Christ to giue humane knowledge of saluation to his people Luc. 1. v. 77. Lastly nothing is more Luc. 1. frequent in Scripture then that one man teacheth an other and surely it meaneth not of humane learning or beleefe For what careth the Sctipture for that but of deuine and such as bringeth to heauen saluation such as made Iewes compunct in hart act 2. v. 37. such as disposed Gentils Act. 2. 10. to receaue the holy Ghost act 10. v. 44. 21. Likewise it is against S. Austin First he thinketh as Bel confesseth the Church to concurre with the inward motion of the holy Ghost to the faith of the Ghospel But faith of the Ghospel to which the holy Ghost inwardly concurreth is deuine Ergo to this the Church concurreth Besids S. Austin affirmeth that authority holdeth Cont. epist fundam c. 4. tom 6. him in the Catholique Church And that if the authority of Catholiques were weakned he wold not beleeue the Ghospel which he would neuer say if his deuine faith did not depend vpon the Catholiques authority Moreouer what more euident then the holy Fathers when they speake of beleeuing the Ghospel they meane of deuine and Christian faith And
what faith should S. Austin meane of but of such faith as he exhorted the Maniches vnto which was deuine And in the place alleadged by Bel he calleth outward teaching helpe to faith and only meaneth that a man can not learne faith of man alone without al inward teaching of God And therfore addeth That if he be not within who teacheth the Tract 3. in 1. Ioan. 10. 9. hart in vayne is our sound and where Gods inspiration is not there in vaine words sound outwardly which is most true and nothing against vs. Lastly it is against reason For the authority of Gods Church is not meere humane but in some sort deuine as a witnes by God him selfe appointed to testify his truth And therfore he said vvho heareth Luc. 10. v. 16. you heareth me therfore the faith that proceedeth from such authority is not humane 22. Wherfore Bel not trusting much to this shift flyeth to an other vz. That S. Austin said not these vvords of him selfe as he vvas then a christian but as he had bene in tymes past a Maniche This he proueth Because in the same chapter he saith That the authority of vntruth 93 1. vntruth 94 2. vntruth 95 3. the Ghospel is aboue the authority of the Churche in the chapter before That the truth of Scriptures must be preferred before authority consent of nations and the name of Catholique and promiseth to yeeld to Maniches doctrine if he shal be able to proue it out of Scripture But both this answer and proofs are most falsly auouched vpon S Austin For if he had meant the foresaid words of him selfe only as when he was a Manichist he wold not haue said Non crederem nisi commoueret c. I wold not beleeue vnles the Church did commoue me But non credidissem nisi commouisset I had not or wold not haue beleeued vnlesse the Church had commoued me Which Bel wel marking made him say so in english though he had not said it in latine Besides False translat 12. in the same chapter he addeth Qua authoritate Catholicorum infirmata iam nec potero Euangelio credere which authority of Catholiques being discredited I shal not be able now marke Bel to beleeue the Ghospel Moreouer cap. 4. he said That besides other motiues the authority of Catholiques tenet doth holde me in the lap of the Church 23. Bels proofs are nothing but his owne vntruths For though it be true That the Scripture is of greater authority then the Church yet nether doth S. Austin say it in that place nether maketh it any thing against vs. For albeit the Scripturs be in it selfe of greater authority yet the authority of the Church is both infallible and more euident to me And what maruel if for an infallible authority more euident I beleeue an other though greater yet not so manifest As S. Ihon was sent to giue testimony of Christ Ioan. 1 v. 8. and yet far inferior to Christ Nether saith S. Austin That truth of Scripture is to be preferred before authority and consent of Catholiques But Bel added the worde Scripturs as though S. Austin meant that their truth could be knowne without the authority of Catholiques or be opposit vnto it which he manifestly denyeth Nether meaneth he of the truth of Scripturs which the Manichist against whom he wrote reiected almost wholy and he him selfe professeth he could S. Austin speaketh of most manifest and euident truth and such is not the Scriptures not take for truth if it were contrary to Catholiques but of any knowne truth in general which he saith and truly is to be preferred before al authority opposit vnto it because such authority is not infallible but false and deceitful And therfore he speaketh vppon supposition that if it were true which other where he auoucheth to be impossible that Manichists taught truth and Catholiques error then their truth vvere to be preferred before the name of Catholiques consent of nations and authority begun with miracles nourished vvith hope encreased vvith charity established vvith antiquity and succession of Priests euen from the seat of Peter to vvhom our Lord after his resurrection commanded his sheep to be fed vnto this present Bishop But saith the glorious Saint vnto maniches I after him to Protestants Amongst you only soundeth the promise of truth vvhich if it vvere so manifest as it could not be doubted of it vvere to be preferred before al things that hold me in the Catholique Church 24. His third vntruth of S. Austins promise is directly contrary to S. Austin in the S. Austin vvold not beleeue Maniche though he had manifest Scripture Sup. paragr 18. same place If saith he thou shalt read any manifest thing for Manichey out of the Ghospel I vvil beleeue nether them nor thee Not them because they lyed to me of thee Not thee because thou bringest me that Scripture vvhich I beleeued through them vvho haue lyed As for Bels reasons to proue that we beleeue nothing with deuine faith for authority of the Church they are easely answered For though the formal obiect of faith be the first verity yet not simply as it is in it selfe but as it is proposed vnto vs by the Church And therfore though we beleeue nothing but because it is spoken and reuealed by God yet because he speaketh not immediatly to vs by him selfe but by the mouth of his Church whome who so heareth heareth God and Luc. 10. v. 16. 1. Thess c. 2. v. 13. whose worde is not mans worde but truly Gods worde therfore faith is not without the testimony of the Church As for S. Austins authority it hath bene answered before as also his arguments which Bel bringeth against Traditions CHAP. X. Of the certainty of Apostolical Traditions THERE are certaine and vndoubted Apostolical traditions This is against Bel pag. 128 129. c. But I proue it because the traditions of the Byble to be Gods worde of the perpetual virginity of our B. Lady of the transferring of the Sabbath and such like are certaine and vndoubted Besids if in the law of nature and Moyses traditions were keapt certaine why not in the law of grace But more euident wil the conclusion be if we descend to perticuler traditions which Bel endeuoreth Bel p. 128. 129. to proue vncertaine First he setteth-downe this Proposition Vnwritten traditions are so vncertaine as the best learned papists are at great contētion about them This he proueth in the tradition of Easter about which contended S. Victor P. the Bishops of Asia aboue 1400 years agoe both earnestly alleadging Apostolical traditions Likewise S. Anicetus and S. Policarpe who liued al within 200. years after Christ when the Church was in good estate and stayned vvith fevv or no corruptions 2. Marke good Reader his conclusion and proofs therof and thou wilt
anomia or adicia what you wil be al sinne transgression of the law proue you that al concupiscence is formal sinne The question is now not what anomia or adicia or sinne is but what concupiscence is from which Bel flying into an other question sheweth him selfe to be at a non plus Wherfore remitting this place of S. Ihon with al which he bringeth to proue that euery sinne is transgression to the 6. article to which it belongeth and nothing concerneth this I wil answer only foure authorities which he abuseth to proue inuoluntary concupiscence to be sinne 2. The first is of S. Ambrose in c. 7. Bel pag. 56. S. Ambros Rom. where he saith that a man is not free from cryme because he sinneth inuitus vnwillingly or against his wil. Where Bel noteth that he calleth concupiscence cryme or mortal sinne And That a man sinneth in that which he doth against his wil. But besides that the Author of those commentaries is not S. Ambrose he meaneth not of concupiscence but of custome of sinning which begun in the sinner saith he by his owne fault and sloath and wherby he is laded and sooner yeeldeth to sinne then to the law and though he wold do good yet is he oppressed by custome And therfore when he saith that such a one is not free from cryme in sinning against his wil he meaneth not of absolute and resolute wil to the contrary for custome can not make a man to do a thing against his absolute wil but of an imperfect wil which diuers cal velleity which most sinners though neuer so accustomed to sinne haue to do good and against which kind of wil they sinne but are not therfore as that Author saith truly free from cryme because notwithstanding this imperfect wil of doing wel they haue an absolute and perfect wil to sinne And so this place concerneth nothing acts of concupiscence altogether inuoluntary and against both perfect and imperfect wil. 3. An other testimony he citeth out of S. Ambrose in the same place where he saith That S. Paul separated not this concupiscence from sinne but mingled it But he meaneth only of voluntary acts as is euident by the reason wherwith he proueth that this concupiscence seemed no sinne because saith he it delighted and seemed simplex causa a harmles matter to couet a thing of our neighbour 4. The third authority is of S. Bede Bel pag. 57. S. Beda 1. 10. 3. whom he confesseth to haue bene renowned through out the christian world for learning and vertue And if he thinke as he writeth he thinketh Papistry to be true piety For S. Bede was a notorious Papist approuing Masse honoring of reliques images prayer for the dead purgatory and other such points of Papistry as is euident out of his Ecclesiastical history Bel alleadgeth him because he saith They sinne who of frailty lat infirmitas corrupt innocency What is here to the purpose who deny that sinne may be done as wel of frailty as of malice For seeing none is so fraile but he is assisted by Gods grace in which he may do al Philip 4. v. 13. and is not suffered to be tempted S. Paul aboue his powre 1. Corinth 10. v. 13. if he sinne of frailty he sinneth voluntarily 5. His fourth authority is out of S. Thomas Bel pag. 59. S. Thom. 12. q. 74. art 3. saying That what a man doth without deliberation of reason he doth it not perfectly because the principal thing in man doth it not and therfore it is not perfectly a humaine act and so perfectly nether vertue nor sinne but imperfectly VVherfore such a motion of sensuality preuenting reason is a venial imperfect sinne Out of these words Bel noteth these important obseruations as he calleth them 1. That S. Thomas is a Popish Saint 2. That for his great learning and Bel to pag. 132. his confusion confesseth him to haue bene a great Cleark indeed he was surnamed the Angelical Doctor 3. That P. Vrban 4. and Innocent 5. confirmed his doctrin for authentical and gaue it the first place after Cononical Scripture How wel these three notes are gathered out of S. Thomas his foresaid words let euery one be iudge But Bel can gather quodlibet ex quolibet water out of a flint stone 6. But I must note out of Bels important obseruations diuers important vntruths 1. vntruth 57. That P. Vtban 4. and P. Innocent 5. confirmed vntruth 58 S. Thomas his doctrin for authentical 2. That P. Vrban 4. gaue it the first Vrban in Confirmat doctrinae S. Thomae place after Canonical Scripture Indeed P. Vrban 4. highly admired his doctrin as if it were sent from heauen P. Innocēt in a Innocent in sermo Ecceplusquam Salomon hic sermon as a preacher by way of exaggeratiōn gaue it the first place after Scripture but neither did they confirme it as authentical nether did both of them giue it the next place after Scripture The 3. vntruth which vntruth 59. he repeateth twise in this page very often in his booke is That we are bound to defend and beleeue S. Thomas his doctrin and may not in any case refuse or deny it This is a manifest vntruth For albeit S. Thomas be and that worthely of the greatest authority amongst schoolmen yet his doctrin may and is often denyed in schools as Bel hath heard many tymes where it concerneth no matter of faith yea Bel him selfe art 7. pag. 133. affirmeth Contradict 15. him to be commonly denyed about the conception of our Lady And P. Vrban 4. commanded only the vniuersity of Tholouse to teach and follow especially saith he his doctrin Wherby we see he commanded them not to follow his doctrin only and none others but chiefly his nor as an infallible truth but as most probable Other vniuersities and Catholiques are left to their liberty to follow excepting matter of faith wherin al agree or only erre of ignorance what schoolmen they please 7. And this is so notorious as when we obiect to Protestants their dissention in matters The disagreement of Schoolemen far different from that of Protestants S. Austin of faith they returne vpon vs the disagreement of schoolmen But there is a great difference For the disagreement of schoolmen is in things wherin S. Austin l. 1. contr Iulian. c. 6. The learnedest and best defenders of Catholique verity may salua fidei compage disagree and one say better and truer then an other And if of ignorance any of them erre it is alwaies with readines to submit them selues to the iudgment of the Catholique Church Wheras Protestants disagree about matters which belong as S. Austin speaketh ad ipsa fidei fundamenta Sup. And omitting those notorious dissentions amongst them about the real presence the number of Canonical books Christs suffering the paines of hel his discent into hel the like I wil propose a few other points Dissentions
chron 96. Euseb chronic 97. he maketh the 14. yeare of Domitian to be about 100. years after Christs ascension which was but about the 97. yeare after Christs natiuity as is euident by al Chronicles or supputators of tymes and so wanted almost 40. of an 100. after his ascension Omitting also an other manifest error in affirming S. Ihon to haue written his Ghospel almost an 100. years after Christs ascension who dyed the 68. yeare after his passion See Baron An. 101. Eusebius in chron S. Hieron in Scriptur Ecclesiast in Ioanne in chron as Eusebius and S. Hierom testify and therfore could not write almost an 110. years after Christs ascension vnles he wrote many years after his owne death 3. But omitting these errors as testimonies of Bels ignorance in histories which I regard not To his argument I answer That See S. Cyril l. 12. in Ioan. c. 61. those words These are written are meant only of signa miracles done by Christ and written by S. Ihon to moue vs to beleeue that Christ was God Reinold thes 1. Reinolds pag. 60. confesseth That they are referred properly to signa myracles yet wil haue them also meant of precepts doctrine written by S. Ihon because myracles are to confirme and persvvade doctrine and precepts But I proue that they are meant only of miracles Because S Ihon hauing recorded diuers miracles of Christ afterward immediatly before those sayd words saith Many other miracles did Iesus in the sight of his disciples vvhich v. 30. are not vvritten in this booke And then addeth but These are written that you may beeleue that Iesus v. 31. is Christ the sonne of God c. Who seeth not here that the demonstratiue pronowne These is referred only to miracles For S. Ihon hauing said that many miracles were vnwritten streight after with the aduersatiue or exceptiue particle But which Bel guilefully leaft out excepteth these which he had written from the condition of others which he had not written saying But these are written c And Reinolds reason is so far from prouing his purpose as it proueth the quite contrary For because Reinolds proof against him self Christs doctrine and faith was the end of S. Ihons writing and myracles the meanes and motiues to bring men to Christs faith as him selfe professeth in the forsaid words euideÌ„t it is that he meaneth both of Christs doctrine and miracles in the foresaid verse but differently and vnder different words For of myracles he meaneth as motiues and meanes vnder the words These are written c. And of doctrine he meaneth as the end of his writing the myracles vnder the other words That you may beleeue c. 4. But suppose that S. Ihon by These vnderstood both myracles doctrine can Bel therfore infer that S. Ihon meant of thâ— whole canon of Scriptures Surely no because he hauing before said That many other myracles of Christ were not written in this booke and immediatly adding But these are written c. can not be vnderstood but of his owne writing and in his owne Ghospel wheruppon if Bel inferre any thing he must inferre that S. Ihons Ghospel alone is absolutly sufficient and conteineth al things necessary Which I hope he wil not doe Reinolds graunteth Io. Reinolds apol p. 216. that S. Ihons Ghospel is sufficient supposing that we heare of no other But this is nothing to the purpose For they out of this place inferre the Scripture to be absolutly sufficieÌ„t so as we may reiect al other things though we heare of them And therfore seeing S. Ihon in this place can not be vnderstood but of his owne Ghospel if hence they proue absolute sufficiency of Scripture against Traditions they must inferre absolute sufficiency of S. Ihons Ghospel against al other what soeuer I omit a place Bel alleadgeth out of S. Cyril with an other S. Cyril lib. 12 in Io. cap. vlt. S. Augustin tract 49. in Ioan. Sup. c. 1. parag 2. Bel pag. 91. out of S. Austin which I cited in the first conclusion For they proue no more then is there affirmed 5. His second place out of the new testament is act 20. v. 27. I haue not spared to shew vnto you the whole counsel of God Therfore saith he the whole counsel of God touching our saluation is conteined in holy Scripture Omitting his needles proofs out of Lâ—â—a and Carthu that S. Paul meaneth of al counsâ—l touching our saluation I answer that this place ether maketh directly against Protestants or not at al against Catholiques For seeing S. Paul speaketh of his owne shewing vnto the Ephesians if he be vnderstood of shewing only by writing it followeth that his epistle to the Ephesians conteineth al Gods counsel and is absolutly sufficient which is against Protestants But if he be vnderstood as he should be of shewing in general ether by worde or writing nothing followeth to Bels purpose or against Catholiques 6. But saith Bel it wil not suffice to ansvver pag. 91. That al Gods counsel was preached but not written because S. Paul was an Apostle of that Rom. 1. Act. 26. Ghospel vvhich was promised by the Prophets taught no other thing then that the Prophets had foretolde But this proueth no more of S. Paul then of al the Apostles For they were al Apostles of the same Gospel and taught the same doctrine which he did and yet some of them wrote neuer a worde Some shew it hath to proue that al which S. Paul preached was written by the Prophets Sup. c. 1. parag 7. 8. which how it is to be vnderstood hath bene before explicated 7. And because Bellarmin saith That the Bellarm. lib. 1. de verbo Dei cap. 1. 2. Scripture is an infallible and most secure rule of faith And That he is mad who reiecting Scripture followeth inward inspirations Bel chargeth Bel pag. 93. vntruth 77 him to contradict him selfe teaching els vvhere the contrary but cyteth no place because none is to be found and to confound vntruth 78 himselfe because he wil not rely vpon Gods vvritten testimonies but seeke after vnvvritten vanities and ground his faith vpon them Here Bel slandereth Bellarmin For when did euer he or any Catholique refuse to rely vpon Gods written testimony when did they not account it a most infallible rule of faith vpon what vanities do they ground their faith we confesse Scripture to be an infallible rule but not the total rule but as Bellarmin Bellarmin saith lib. 4. de verb. dei c. 12. the partial rule Let Bel improue this Hic Rhodus hic Saltus 8. Moreouer he alleadgeth S. Austin Bel pag. 93. S. Augustin cont Adimant cap. 3. to 6. writing That there are no precepts or promises in the doctrine of the Ghospel and Apostles which are not in the old Testament True But as S. Austin afterward in expresse words recalled S. Augustin lib. 1. Retrac c. 22.
to 1. S. Paul and corrected this error so I would wish Bel to do His third place is 2. Timoth 3. v. 15. Holy scriptures are able to make thee vvise to saluation This maketh not against vs. both Hovv Scriptures are able to make men vvise to saluation because we deny not that Scripturs are able to make men wise to saluation but only deny that they alone do it As also because we graunt they actually conteine whatsoeuer is necessary to euery mans saluation and vertually whatsoeuer els And lastly because the forsaid words are meant only of the old Testament which S. Timothy saith S. Paul there Had learned from his infancy which alone being not as Protestants confesse absolutly sufficient so as we may reiect the new testament they can not therof inferre Scripture to be so absolutly sufficient as that we may reiect Traditions Now let vs come to his proofs out of Fathers which particulerly proceed against Traditions CHAP. IIII. Bels arguments out of Fathers touching sufficiency of Scripture and Traditions ansvvered VIncentius lyrin who lyued in S. Austins Vincent Lyrin con haereses tyme Writeth That he enquiring of many holy and learned men How he should escape heresy they al answered him by sticking to Scripture and the Churches Traditions And. S. S. Ireney lib. 3. c. â— Ireney writeth of him selfe that by traditions of the Church of Rome he confounded al those that teach otherwise then they should No maruel therfore if Bel being desyrous noâ— to escape but to spread heresy and loth to be Ould heretiks detest traditions S. Iren. Tortullian S. Hilarie S. Augustin c. 1. to 6. S. Epiphan confownded do with the olde hereticks Marcionits and Valentinians ex Iren l. 3. c. 2. and Tertul. de praescrip with the Ari ans ex Hilario l. cont Constant August l. 1. contr Maximin with the Aerians ex Epipha her 75. with the Ennomians ex Basil l. de spir sanct c. 27. 29. with the S. Basil Nestorians and Eutichians ex 7. Synod 7. Synod act 1. impugne Traditions And let not the Reader maruel that Bel bringeth the words of dyuers Fathers against Traditions which almost al are obiections taken out of Bellarmin Bollarm lib. 4. de verbo Dei c. 11. For they make no more for his purpose then the words of Scripture did for the Diuel or Iewes when they alleadged them Math. 4. v. 6. Ioan. 12. v. 34. against Christ And we Wil bring such expresse words of the same Fathers for Traditions as shal cleare al suspition and can admit no solution 2. First he cyteth Dionis Areopag saiing Bel pag. 94. S. Dionys de diu nom c. 1. vve must nether speake nor thinke any thing of the Deity praeter ea beside those things vvhich Scriptures haue reuealed I might except that Protestants deny Dionis Areopag to be Centur. CeÌ„t. 1. lib. 1. c. 10. Luther Caluin ex Bellarm. l. 2. de Monachis c. 5. author of those bookes but I neede not For the words make nothing to the purpose both because they forbid only speaking or thincking of the Deity beside that which Scripture reuealeth as also because by praeter he vnderstaÌ„deth not euery thing out of Scripture els we should not vse the words Trinity and Consubstantiality but only such as are quite beside and neither actually nor vertually are conteined in Scripture But let S. Dionis tel plainly his owne minde concerning Traditions Those first Captaines saith he and Princes of our Hierarchy haue S. Dionys l. de ecclesiastic Hierarch c. 1. deliuered vnto vs diuyne and immaterial matters partly by written partly by their vnvvritten institutions How could Apostolical Traditions be more plainly auouched 3. Two places Bel bringeth out of S. Austin S. Augustin 2. de doct Christian c. 6. 2. de peccat mer. remiss â— vlt. which because we alleadged them in cap. 1. conclus 2. and proue no more then is there taught I omit And as for S. Austin he not only auoucheth Apostolical Traditions epist 118. but de Genes ad litt l. 10. c. 23. tom 3. professeth that baptisme of infants were not to be beleeued if it were not an Apostolical tradition and obiecteth them against the Pelagians in lib. cont Iulian. amoni and giueth vs this rule to knowe them If S. Austins rule to knovv Apostolical traditions S. Ireney lib. 3. c. 1. the whole Church obserue them and no Councel appoynted them l. 2. de bapt c. 7. 6. 23 24 S. Ireney he cyteth because he writeth That the Ghospel which the Apostles preached they aftervvard deliuered vnto vs in Scriptures and it is the foundation of our faith These words proue no more then that the Apostles preached not one Ghospel writ an other but one and the selfe same But that euery one of them or any one of them writ euery whit they al preached S. Ireney affirmeth not And his affection to Traditions is euident both out of his words before rehearsed as also lib. 3. c. 4. where he saith we ought to S. Ireney keepe Traditions though the Apostles had written nothing And affirmeth many barbarous nations of his tyme to haue beleeued in Christ keapt the doctrine of saluation and antient Tradition without Scripture 4. The next he produceth is Tertullian â—el pag. 95. Tertul. con Hermogen writing thus I reuerence the fulnes of Scripture which sheweth to me the Maker and the things made And soone after But whither al things were made of subiacent matter I haue no where readde let Hermogenes shoppe shew it written If it be not written let him feare that wee prouided for them that adde or take away Answer Tertullian speaketh of one perticuler matter which the hereticke Hermogenes of his owne head not only without Tradition or Scripture both contrary to both taught of creating the worlde of subiacent matter not of nothing And no maruel if Tertullian said the Scripture was ful in this poynt and required Scripture of Hermogenes for proofe of his heresy being sure he could alleadge no Tradition But for true Traditions Tertullian is so great a manteiner of them as lib. de prescrip he thincketh hereticks ought to be confuted rather by them then by Scripture and other where affirmeth Tertull. lib. de Corona milit lib. 1. cont Marcionem l. 2. ad vxorem diuers things to be practised in the Church as the ceremonies in baptisme signe of the Crosse and such like only by authority of Tradition without al proofe of Scripture vvhere of saith he Tradition is the beginner custome conseruer and faith the obseruer 5. Of S. Cyprian Bel much triumpheth Bel pag. 96. because writing against one particuler Tradition Primo imitare pietatem humilitatemque Cipriani tunc profes consilium Cipriani August lib. 2. cont Crescon cap. 31. to 7. S. Cyptian epist ad Pom peium of not rebaptizing the baptized by hereticks which he thought had
c. 8. See epist ad Epictetum l. cit Apud Athanas Theodoret l. cit S. Grego Nazianz orat 2. de Theolog Councel did not inuent that word but set it downe testimonio patrum by testimony of their Fathers and Eusebius though an Arian confesseth the same And S. Gregory Nazian writing against the Arians saith that it should suffice vs that our Fathers thought not as they do and the same argumeÌ„t vseth also S. Athanasius writing against the Apollinarists And how vntruly he affirmeth that the Fathers did not say many vnwritten things are to be beleeued I refer my selfe to their testimonies alleadged aboue cap. 4. But saith Bel S. Athanasius proued homousion because though the word was not in Scripture the sense was A goodly reason He proued it out of Scripture therfore not out of Tradition as if one should say He proued it out of S. Ihon therfore not out of S. Paul 3. Origen saith Bel hom 25. in Math. Bel p. 118. and hom 1. in 1. Hierem counselleth vs to try al doctrins by Scripture This is vntrue vntruth 101. Origen For Origen speaketh not of al but only of our opinions and doctrins Our opinions and expositions saith he haue no credit without their testimonies Againe VVe must alleadge the sense of Scripture for testimony of al the words we vtter Terrullian calling that truth which is first and false which is after maketh nothing to his purpose Next he alleadgeth S. Austin saying That we must not consent euen S. Augustin lib. de vnit eccles c. 10. to 7. to Catholique Bishops error or priuat opinion against Scripture Error against Scripture is not to be followed Ergo nether Apostolical Traditions contested by the whole Church Surely Bel hath great facility in inferring quodlibet ex quolibet He bringeth also S. Chrisostom calling Gods lawes a S. Chrysost hom 13. in 2. Cor. to 4. most exact rule and bidding vs learn not what this or that man thinks and of these things enquire these points also out of Scripture Answer S. Chrysostoms meaning is that Gods word is most exact in the matter whereof he talked vz. whither pouerty be to be preferred before riches in which matter we ought saith he to leaue the opinions of this or that worldly man who prefer riches but seek what the Scripture saith of it And Bel to make him False translat 13. seeme to say That al truth is to be sought out of Scripture translated these words Deque his à Scripturis haec etiam inquirite thus Search the truth out of the Scriptures Englishing nether de his nor haec 4. After S. Chrysostom he citeth two pag. 120. Chap 5. parag 5. sentences out of Victoria cited by him and answered by vs before To whome he adioyneth Canus teaching That Priests are not Canus l. 3. de loc c. vlt. to be heard vnles they teach according to Gods law Certain And then inferreth That Papists teach plainly that no doctrine is to be receaued which is not tryed by Gods word True also if it be rightly vnderstood vz. of such doctrine as may be tryed not of deuine as Apostolical Traditions be which may not be tryed And of Gods whole word not of a part thereof as the Scripture is And that expounded not according to the humor of priuat spirits but according to the vniforme consent of Fathers Councels This most iust and reasonable rule of trying al matters in controuersy the Councel of Concil Trident sess 18. in saluo coductu dato Protestantibus Trent prescribed to the Protestants But they wil try deuine truth conteined not only in Traditions but also in Scripture that part by which they wil try the rest they wil expound according to their owne priuat spirits which is to make them selfs rule and iudges of al wherfore vainly doth Bel professe to agree with the Pope in al coÌ„trouersies pag. 120. if he wil be tryed by Gods word For vnles Bel be made iudge and tryer both of Gods word and of his meaning or as Protestants speake vnles he may iudge which is Scripture and which is the true sense there must nether tryal nor iudgement passe For vnles Protestants may haue al the law in their owne hands they wil accept no iudgement 5. But because Bellarmin graunteth that Bellarm. lib. 2. de Concil c. 52. singuli Episcopi al Bishops seuerally may erre and somtyme do erre and dissent one from an other so that we know not which of them is to be followed Bel thinketh pag. 121. that he hath a great catch yet remembring him self better that though Catholiques graunt that euery Bishop seuerally may erre yet deny that they can erre al when they are gathered in a Synode confirmed by the Pope he taketh occasion to make a long digression about Councels CHAP. XIII Of the authority of late general Councels GENERAL Councels in these our dayes are as certaine as before tymes This is against Bel pag. 123. saying that in our dayes they are like a nose of waxe and as vncertaine as the winde And because he denyeth not but that general Councels in some times haue bene certaine forsooth such as defyned nothing contrary to Protestantisme I wil only proue that they are now as certaine as euer First because Christ promyseth that he would be in the midst of them that are gathered in his name Math. 18. v. 20. S. Math. That the holy Ghost should teach vs al truth Iohn 16. That the gates of hel should not preuaile S. Iohn v. â—3 S. Math. against his Church Math. 16. v. 18. which promises are limited to no certaine tyme but are extended as he saith Math. vlt. euen to the end of the worlde Likewise Christs commaund of hearing his Church Math. S. Math. v. 17. S. Luc. 18. of hearing preachers sent by him Luc. 10. of obeying our Prelates and being subiect to them Hebr. 13. v. 17. bindeth as wel S. Paul in our dayes as before tymes wherfore either the Church Preachers and Prelates teaching in a general Councel in our dayes can not erre or Christ in our daies commaundeth vs to beleeue heresy and lyes 2. Secondly the present Church of our daies hath authority to decyde controuersies in faith Ergo we be bound to obey her decision Ergo it is no lye The Antecedent is an article of Protestants faith Article 39. Art 20. The first consequence I proue because who resisteth power in matters belonging to the power refisteth Gods ordinance and purchaseth damnation to him selfe Roman 13. vers 2. 3. which being true of temporal power and concerning wordly matters much more true it is of spiritual power and in matters of faith and saluation The second consequence is euident For God who is truth it selfe and can not lye can not binde vs especially See S. Gregory lib. 1. epist 24. vnder paine of damnation to beleeue and follow lyes Thirdly as Protestants except