10. v. 1. calleth shadowes of goods to come And these I graunt to be inferior to the things figured But this maketh nothing against vs. 2. Secondly I deny that to be superior Bel ignorant in logick and inferior is contradiction for as euery logician knoweth it is relatiue opposition which may agree to the same thing in different respect As the same soule as it is in the head is locally superior to it selfe as it is in the foote a man as he is learned is inferior in valew to him selfe as he is vertuous And a token as it is from a friend more worth theÌ„ it is of it selfe And hereby appeareth the error of Protestants inferring the Eucharist not to be Christ because it is a figure or remembrance One thing may figure or represent it selfe of him For wel may one thing represent it selfe As a King in a triumphant shew may represent how he behaued him selfe in Battel And Christs body and blood as they are vnder the formes of bread and wyne which are a sunder represent them selues as they were a sunder in their proper formes on the crosse 3. Thirdly I returne Bels argumeÌ„t vpon him selfe Figures must needs be inferior to things figured Ergo the Eucharist is some nobler substance then bread The Antecedent is his owne the Consequence I proue because the Paschal lambe was a figure of the Eucharist as S. Chrisostom S. Cyprian S. S. Ghrysost hom de prodit Iudae tom 3. S. Cyprian l. de vnit eccles S. Hieron in 26. Math. S. August l. 2. cont literas Petilian c. 37 to 7. S. Leo serm 7. de Passione S. Gregot hom 22. in Euang. pag. 32. Chap. 1. parag 12. 13. Chap. 5. parag 2. p. 33. Hiero. S. Austin S Leo S. Gregory others affirme and may be gathered out of S. Paul saying Heb. 10. v. 1 That the law had a shadow of goods to come and by Christs instituting the Eucharist immediatly after the eating of the Pascal lamb Whereby saith S. Chrisostome in one table both Paschals of the figure and verity was celebrated 4. His second and third contradiction is of a greater body being conteyned in a lesse and of Christs body broken and not broken which haue bene answered before His fourth is that if Christs body be made present in the Eucharist by vertue of these words this is my body ether the body is there before the last words be pronounced or no if before then the last is superfluous if not then ether al the body is made by the last word and so the three first stand for cyphers or parte of his body by one word and parte by an other and so Christs body is torne in Bel ignoraÌ„t in logick peeces O worthy challenger ignorant of the principles of logicke What shew of contradiction is there here though we should grant any one of the three points inferred But this good fellow is more skilful in making contradictions then in knowing what contradiction is 5. Briefly I answer that nether Christs whole body nor any parte therof is in the Eucharist before the pronounciation of the last word yet are not the former words superfluous For the last worketh the traÌ„smutation not by his owne vertue alone but with the vertue of them also or rather God worketh al when the last word is pronounced For as S. Chrisostom saith It is not man S. Chrysost homil de prodit Iudae tom 3. that by the consecration of our Lords table maketh the things proposed the body and blood of Christ but that Christ who was crucifyed for vs. The words are vttered by the Priests mouth and consecrated by the povver of God And the like answer must Bel make for diuers matters 6. For in baptisme one may aske whether a child be christened before the name of the holy Ghost be pronounced and then it is superfluous and may be left out or parte by the name of the father parte by the name of the sonne and parte by the name of the holy Ghost and then is the child christened by peece meale or onely by the name of the holy Ghost and then the other twoe names are cyphers And the like argument may be propounded in diuers other matters but I wil propound it in a matter more intelligible and perhaps more proportionate to Bels capacity out of his owne name Thomas When one calleth him by that name ether he is al called by Tom and then As is superfluous or parte by Tom and parte by As and then is he called by peece meale or al by As then is Tom but a cypher and As is al Bel and so by conuersion al Bel is an As Let Bel study to solue this argument and I doubt not but he wil finde the solution of his owne 7. The fifte contradiction which this pag. 34. contradictious fellow findeth in the Masse is that Durand Caietan and foure Catholiques more before the Councel of Trent did otherwise explicate the manner of Christs real presence in the Eucharist then was truth and since the Church hath defined and explicated in the said Councel Is not this a goodly coÌ„tradiction in the Masse did Bel find al these mens opinions there Bellarm. l. 3. de Euchar. â— 11. 18. or rather gathered them out of Bellarmin as he hath done almost al his arguments Or what maketh it against Masse that three or foure Catholiques did in a difficult matter before it was defyned and explicated by the Church dissent from the rest Let Bel if he can shew this diuersity now since the Councel As for Protestants Sainctes aboue Lindan Catalogo sacramentor Sainctes de Euchar. Repetit 1. cap. vlt. 1577. ex Bellarm lib. 1. de Euchar. c. 8. S. August l. 16. de ciuit c. 6. tom 5. 20. yeares agoe gathered aboue 80. different opinions of theirs about these foure words This is my body And an other since hath collected twoe hundred This far exceedeth the coÌ„fusion of tonges at Babel for there was but 72 tongues but here be 80. yea 200. to expresse foure words There one man kept one tongue but here they alter speaking sometymes Lutherish sometyme Zwinglianish and otherwhyle Caluinish and yet seing such horrible confusion wil not giue ouer building of their Babilonian tower of heresy 8. The sixt contradiction is that when pag. 34. the Priest proposeth the B. Sacrament to the people they must adore it albeit saith vntruth 4â— Bel if the Priest haue no intention to consecrate or omit or miscal any word of consecration it remayneth but bread and the worshipers commit idolatry A ioly contradiction no doubt do we think Bel wanted not his wits when he proposed such matter for contradictions Catholiques thinke in deed that when the Priest wanteth both actual and virtual intention or omitteth any essential word that there is no consecration and the Priest Si conscientia propterea laeâ—i noÌ„ potuit quia nesciuit c
lying dissembling and abusing Gods word euery where shew them selues in his books and now and then are noted in my answer No maruel therfore if one possessed of so many and so wicked spirits be so forward so spiteful so malicious against Catholiques as to callenge adiure them al iointly or seuerally to the combat with him Oh that I would please his Maiestie to admit this combat that Bel I the weakest of many thousands of Gods soldiers might try the truth not by writing which blusheth not as Tully said but face to face as the Bishop of Eureux and Plessy did before the French King I doubt not but if there were any blood in Bels body or any shame of men in his minde I shold make it appeare in his face But whiles this combat must be fought a far of only by paper shot and writing and our writings kept from the view of the people no meruail if Bel feare no shame of men whiles they may see him fight florish but must not behold ether defence or blowes of his aduersary If he be so confideÌ„t in his Heresy which he once vomited forth and now like the dog hath lickt vp again as he maketh shew of why hath he not in al this tyme of his Apostasy procured lycence for publike disputation or at lest why neuer repaired he to the Catholique Priests in prison Let him procure but one such safe conducte for Priests as the councel of Trent graunted Sess 13. 15. 18. three or fowre to Protestants when none of our English Ministers durst accept it he shal not need to challenge or adiure but shal be dared at his owne dore For Priests who willingly spend their blood in testimony of the truth which they teach wil far sooner spend their breath in defence therof are ready to make the like offer Epistle to the King as Bel doth in a different matter to iustify it before indifferent iudges against him or what Protestant soeuer vpon peril of their liues if their aduersaries wil aduenture the like peril And vpon this condition Bel I challenge thee and adiure thee accept it if thou darest What more could haue bene done to bring this so weighty a matter wherupon dependeth the eternal saluation of so many millions of soules to tryal face to face then hath bene done of Catholiques by speaking by writing by petition by supplication Puritans vpon one only supplication haue bene admitted to Conference Catholiques can vpon none And this is that which maketh Bel so bold to challeng vs to the open combat when he knoweth we can not appeare in open shew but vpon hazard of our liues And I wold to God that with danger yea with losse of life we might be lyceÌ„ced publikly to try this truth so important to the eternal life of our dearest countrimen But seeing there is no hope of this when I red Bels challenge it seemed to me not only an vnlearned thing patcht vp of obiections gathered out of Bellarmin and learnedly answered by him but a witles challenge of some coward who seeing his enemy commanded vpon pain of death to keep his house callengeth him to the open field and more like to condemne the Author of folly and vanity then the Catholique religion of falsity before any discreet iudicious Reader Neuertheles because as I vnderstood some monthes after the publishing of it some vnaduised Protestants hearing Bels glorious vaunts and challeng had conceaued great hope of this their Champion thought his booke vnaÌ„swerable I took it in hand not knowing as then that any other wold vouchsafe to Author of the Forerunner of Bels dovvnefal medle with it haue left to my knowledg no one point therin vnanswered attending more to solue what he obiecteth then to coÌ„firme what Catholikes mantein though this also I haue done sufficiently as I hope for my intended breuity He termeth this challeng a downfal of VVhat Bel impugneth Popery and yet in the greatest part therof impugneth no point of Popery but ether perticuler opinions of priuat men or which is worse false imputations of his owne being so desirous of quarrelling as he fighteth with his owne shadow And what he impugneth he doth with so good successe as almost in euery Article he ouer throweth VVith vvhat succesâ—e what he meant to establish and confirme So that if he had giuen his booke the right name he shold haue called it the downfal of Bels foolery Of these eight Articles which he hath pickt out as most aduantagious for him self in which there are some things which as S. Austin speaketh l. de vtil cred c. 1. to 6. may be impugned to the common peoples S. Austin capacity but not be defended by reason of their difficulty but of few In the first he impugneth the Popes superiority ouer al Princes on pag 1. earth and his powre to depose them at his good wil and pleasure wherof the first is but the opinion of some few Canonists coÌ„monly reiected of al Catholiks and disproued at large by Bellarmin whose doctrine Bel accounteth the Popes owne doctrin saith it is approued by him The second no Catholik holdeth but it is Bels faulse slaunder of Catholiks In the second omitting p 19. the question of the being of Christs body in the blessed sacrament he impugneth the being of his quantity therein as a thinge saith he held of al papists as an article of their faith which is vntrue as is declared in the answer In the third he inueigheth pag. 37. against the Popes powre to dispense in matrimony before it be consummated which likwise is an opinion of Canonists commonly refuted of Catholik deuines In the fift omittinge true merit which is a point of faith he impugneth condigne merit as a thinge defined by the Councel of Trent p 75. which it is not In the seuenth Article in steede of Traditions conteining things necessary for mans saluation which in the beginning of the article he proposed to impugne he impugneth an erronious opinion p. 131. 132. 133. of Papias about Christs reigne after his iudgement and an other of S. Ireney about Christs age one history about Zachary S. Ihon Baptists father an other concerning ConstaÌ„tins baptisme a probable opinion of Popes priuate teaching the same doctrin with S. Peter and an other concerning our Ladies CoÌ„ception without sin In the eight he oppugneth the keeping of Gods commandments in such a sense as no Catholik dreameth of So that though he had flong down al these matters yet ther had bene no downfal of Popery Is not this fellow think you a iolly challenger of Pâ—pists a goodly downfeller of Popery Is not be one of â—hos 1. Timoth. 1 of whom S. Paul saith willinge to be Doctors of the law know nether what they say nor of what But if we marke the successe which this Champion hath whiles he yet florisheth by him self before â—is
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
auoucheth That ordinarily he can not depose Princes euen for iust causes 7. But let vs heare Bel disproue him self Anatomy of Popish tyrany in the Caueat to the Reader and lib. 2. cap. 4. §. 10. c. 9. 1. Contradiction Secular Priests saith he write plainly and resolutly that the Pope hath no power to depriue Kings of their royal Scepters and regalities nor to giue away their Kingdomes to an other In which opiniō likewise the French Papists do concurre iump with them Item The Seculars although they acknowledge the Popes power supereminent in Spiritualibus yet do they disclaime from it in temporalibus when he taketh vpon him to depose Kinges from their empires and translate their Kingdomes And least we should thinke these few Priests who wrote so were no Papists Bel him self testifieth that they are the Popes deare Vassals and professe the selfe same religion with Epistle to the King other Catholiques 8. The third vntruth conteined in the proposition is that we teach the doctrine of his proposition as a pointe of our faith wherevpon he inferreth in his conclusion our religion and faith to be false Because we teach no such doctrine at al and much lesse as a point of our religion or faith And the grauest best learned amongst Catholiques attribute to rhe Pope onely spiritual superiority ouer Princes and power to depose them in that case wherin our Sauiour said Math. 18. that it were better for a man to be cast into the sea then to liue to wit when they so scandalize others as their deposition is necessary for the saluation of soules as I haue already shewed out af Bellarmin Bel. parag 29. whose testimony in this matter Bel can not refuse seing he calleth him the mouth of Papists and auoucheth his doctrin to be the Popes owne doctrin And this doctrin good Christiā Princes account no more preiudicial or iniurious to their estates then they do the like doctrin of S. Paul 2. Cor. 10. where he professeth him self to haue power to destroy al loftines extolling it self against the knowledge of God to be ready to punish al disobedience 9. Wherfore to requite Bel with a syllogisme like vnto his owne I argue thus you Bel tel vs that we Papists saie the Pope is aboue al powers and potentates on earth that he can depose Kings and Emperours and translate their empiers at his good wil and pleasure But this your tale is a very tale false absurd and nothing else but a mere fable and consequently your late chalenge consisteth of mere falsehoods fables flat leasings The proposition is your owne wordes the truth of the assumption appeereth by my answer to your argument And thus much touching Bels vntruthes vttered in his proposition and proofe therof now let vs come to his dissemblinge CHAP. II. The opinion of protestants touching Princes Supremacie set dovvne LVTHER an Euangelist as he termeth him selfe or as other accompte him Luther lib. cont stat eccles in prologo in glossa cont decreta Caesar Ex Sur. An. 1531. 1539. Pope of Recusamy p. 31. 32. Magdeburg praefat Centur 7. Caluin in c. 7. Amos. an Apostle a prophet a third Elias a beginner of protestantisme in his booke of secular power condemneth those Princes who prescribe laws to their subiects in matter belonging to faith and the Church Magdeburgians his first and cheefest childeren write thus Let not Magistrats be heads of the Church because this Supremacy agreeth not to them Caluin saith they were blasphemers who attributed the supremacy to King Henry 8. And lest we shold think that only forayne Protestāts are of this opinion Antony Gilby in his admonition to England and Scotland Gilby calleth King Henry a monstrous bore for taking the supremacy that he displaced Christ was no better then the Romish Antichrist made him selfe a God And lately VVillet cōtract 791. part 1. and 3. p. 269. 270. Willet auoucheth That Bishops and Pastors haue a spiritual charge ouer Kings that Kings ought to yeeld obedience to those that haue ouersight of their soules That Heathen Princes had the same power and authority in the Church which Christian Princes haue and yet soone after affirmeth That heathen Princes cold not be heads of the Church that is to haue the Souereingty of external gouernment Againe That the King is nether mistical nor ministerial head of the Church that the name of head is vnproperly giuen to the Prince and if any think it to great Kings not so much is ministerial heads of the Church by vvillet a name for any mortal man we wil not saith he greatly contend about it So we see he denyeth both name and authority of the head of the Church to Kings 2. And his Maiesty perceaued that Reanolds and his fellows aymed at a Scottish Presbitry which agreeth with a Monarch Conference p. 82 83. as wel as God and the diuel page 79. and acknowledged his supremacy only to make their partes good with Bishops as Knox his fellow ministers in Scotland made his grandmother head of the Church therby to pul downe the Catholique Bishops Yea that the whole English Clergy is in their harts of the same opiniō appeareth by their open profession to agree in religion with forayne Protestants who plainly deny the supremicy of Princes by their writing and Apologia pag. 28. teaching that Christ alone can behead of the Church by their condemning Catholiques for attributing such authority to man and finally by their Synodical explication of the article of supremacy which they expound thus That Princes should rule al estates Lib. 39. Artic. art 37. and degrees committed to their charge by God whether they be Ecclesiastical or temporal and restrayne with the ciuil sword the stubborne and euil doers wherein we see no power in Ecclesiastical causes granted to Princes but only ouer Ecclesiastical persons And we deny not that Princes haue any power ouer Ecclesiastical persons yea in the very canon of the Masse as priests pray for Papa nostro N. and Antistite nostro N. for our Pope and Byshop so they pray for Rege nostro N. acknowledging the one to be their King as the others to be their Prelates and consequently both to haue power ouer them For as S. Augustin said and it is euident Rex à Augustin in Psalm 44. 67. regendo dicitur a King is so called of power to gouerne And as ecclesiastical persons be ciuil or politique members of the common wealth wherein they liue so haue they See Stapelton relectione Controuersiae 2. q. 1. a. 1. ad 2. Victoria relectione de potesta ecclesiastica sect 7. the same politique or ciuil head which that commonwealth hath for otherwise either ciuil members should haue no ciuil head at al which were monstrous or not be vnder the head of that body whereof they be members but onely vnder a ciuil head of an other body which is
Aug. lib. 2. cont Crescon cap. 26. to 7. Apoc. 22. v. 8. c. 19. v 10. S. August q. 61. in Gen. â—â— 4. Genes 29. v. 24. sinneth therin greeuously but the people worshiping erroniously vpon inuincible ignorance offend no more then did S. Ihon when he worshiped an Angel as God thinking as saith S. Austin it had bene God him self or as did Iacob when he lay with Lia who was not his wife thinking verely it had bene his wife Rachel But to say that there is no consecration when the Priest omitteth any word at al or miscalleth any words so as the sense be not altered thereby is not Catholique doctrin but Bels vsual false dealing 9. His last contradiction is that vvhen pag. 34. many Priests are made together in Rome they al pronounce the vvords of consecration This is true but what then Papists saith he can not tel hovv many Gods or hovv many times God is made in a peece of bread O accusator fratrum Where didest thou heare of many Gods amongest Papists Where of making of God we say after S. Hierom and S. S. Hieron eâ—ist ad Helâ—odor S. Pontian epist 1. Decretali Pontian that Priests conficiuni Corpus Christi make Christs body but dreame not of making God These be the slanders malitiously obiected to Catholikes against thine owne knowledge and Conscience But where is the contradiction Forsooth because Inocentius hâ—ldeth that al such Priests do consecrate Durand thinketh that he only who first pronounceth the words and Caietan is of an other opinion I graunt these contradict one an other But what is this to the Massâ— are these contradictions in it You promised to shew vs Bel deceaueth his Reader contradictions in â—he Masse and twise you haue told vs of durand Caietans contradictions as often of other matters which had no shew of Contradiction Besides that the matter in which these three Authors contradict one an other is no point of faith For with Catholiques it is no more matter of faith whether al the said Priests or one only consecrate then it is with Protestants whither al or one should christen a child if many at once should dippe him into the font pronounce the words of Baptisme So the letter be wel sealed it skilleth not whither one or many be thought to make the print when many together put their hands to the seale 10. But if Bel when he looked vpon the Masse booke had looked on his communion booke and with the like eyes and affection Gilby admonition to England and Scotland fol. 70. he should haue found other stuffe in it then he did in the Masse For besyde that it is made out of our breuiary and Missal wherupon Gilby called King Edward the sixt his booke an English mattins patched forth of the Popes Portesse more then a thousand Ministers whome the vniuersity of Oxford acknowledged to be Ansvver to the PetitioÌ„ their brethren and fellow laborers in the Lords haruest in their petition exhibited Exhibited in April 1603. to his Maiesty say that they groan vnder a burden of humaine rites and ceremonies finde enormities in their Church discipline A thousand ministers censure of the communion booke and in their Churches seruice want of vniformity of doctrin Popish opinions and honor prescribed to the name of Iesus with diuers abuses which they are able say they to shew not to be agreable to Scripture Thus Syr haue your owne ministers deminished the credit of your communion booke And Reynolds an excellent ornament saith Ansvver to 8. reasons Confer p. 63. 86. pag. 25. pag. 59. Buckley in the conference at Hampton court 1. proued the communion booke to contradict twise the Byble the Bishops were faine to amend it 2. he argued it to contradict the 25. Article of their faith 3. to conteyne manifest errors directly repugnant to Scripture 4. he requested it to be pag. 23. fitted to more encrease of piety 5. professeth that vrging men to subscribe vnto it pag. 58. is a great impeachment to a learned ministery wherof he giueth diuers reasons as the repugnancy therin to Scripture the corruption of Scripture the interrogatories and ceremonies in baptisme and certayne D. Râ—inolds censure of the communion booke words in matrimony Thus syr the excellent ornament of your Church hath adorned your communion booke and this black verdict hath he giuen therof 11. And if I should but reckon the contradictions Protestants contradictioÌ„s about their communion in Protestants doctrin about the Eucharist I shold neuer make an end only I wil requite Bel with some few 1. how Christs body saith Willet shold be verily 1. VVillet Tetrostyl col 2. part 3. p. 82. present and yet not really Can there be verum and not res or ens vere and not realiter 2. how there can be a real presence 2. Perkins Reform Cath. p. 185. 189. of Christ in the Sacrament as saith Perkins and yet Christ no otherwise present then a thing to it name 3 How God giueth Christ 3. Perkins sup in this Sacrament saith the same Minister as really and truly as any thing can be giuen to man and yet he is giuen by only faith 4. 4. Caluin 4. instit c. 17. paragr 10. How as Caluin teacheth the Eucharist is no empty signe but hath the verity of the thing vnited to it and yet Christ is only in heauen 5. How there is saith Caluin 5. Caluin sup parag 19. 15. a true and substantial communication of Christs body and blood in the Eucharist and yet Christ no more there then he was 6. Sainctes de Euchar. repetit 6. c. 1. p. 208. Mich. Fabrit ep de Beza in the Sacraments of the Iews which were before his body was any substance 6. How Christs body is truely really and substancially in the Eucharist as Beza wrote in his confession exhibited to the Count Palatine and vttered publikly in the disputation at Surius An. 1556. Poysi and yet withal as far from the Eucharist as heauen from earth Surely such fellows as these haue yea no in their religion 2. Cor. 1. v. 17. 2. Cor. 4. v. 2. or els walking in craftines adulterat as the Apostle speaketh Gods worde For if their words be vnderstood as they signify purport they include manifest contradiction and thus much of the second Article VVherfore be myndful Apotal Bel from wheÌ„ce thou are fallen and do penance Apoc. 2. THE THIRD ARTICLE OF THE POPES DISPENSATIONS CHAP. I. BEL beginneth this Article as he did Bel pag. 36. the two former with vntruthes and dissimulatioÌ„s His vntruths appeare in that he chargeth S. Antonin and Austin of Ancona Antonin 3. part tit 22. c. 5. parag 8. vntruth 42. vntruth 43. with teaching the Pope to haue equal powre with God Because S. Antonin writeth That seeing the Pope is Christs vicar none can lawfully withdraw him self from his
neede no more to assure thy selfe of the truth of Romane religion His conclusion is That traditions are so vncertaine as the learnedest Papists contend about them This he proueth because S. Victor P. contended with the Bishops of Asia S. Policarpe with S. Anicetus P. Surely he meaneth that these men were Papists or els his conclusion is vnproued And consequently Papists and Popery were 1400. years agoe within 200. Popery confessed to be vvish in 200. years after Christ Great Britany conuerted first to Popery years after Christ when the Church as he saith was in good estate And if P. Victor were a Papist then was also his immediat predecessor S. Eleutherius who sent S. Fugatius and Damian to conuert Britany and consequently this Iland was first conuerted from Paganisme to Popery Moreouer both sides earnestly alleadged Apostolical tradition and stowtly defended the same saith Bel Ergo nether side was Protestant and Bel against al Gods Church vvhich liued vvithin 200. years after Christ both agreed against him thar there are Apostolical traditiōs that they are of great weight seeing such great Saints so long agoe did so stowtly defend them on what side now is Bel who stowtly oppugneth what Saints with al Gods Church so long agoe defended what need more proofe of traditions or of Papistry Surely Bel quasi sorex suo iudicio periit Here he hath bewraied him selfe to be against al Saints that were within 200 years after Christ and against the Church when she was in good estate 3. But now to Bels argument The tradition of keeping Easter was vncertaine 200 years after Christ Ergo it is now Answer Euseb lib. 5. c. 23. 25. l. 3. de vit Constan c. 18. 19. Nicephor l. 4. c. 36. Theodoret. l. 2. hist c. 9. Epiphan haer 70. Tripart lib. 9. c. 38. Epist 2. Petri 2. 3. Ioan. Epist Iudae ad Hebraeos Apocalipsis See S. Hierom. in Script ecclesiasticis Et Euseb l. 5. c. 3. This tradition was then vncertaine only in Asia and certaine in the rest of Christendome as is euident by the Councels then helde in Rome Palestine Pontus France Achaia who al accepted this tradition as did after the first general Councel in Nice And though it had bene then vncertaine Bel could no more infer it to be so now then he can infer the same of many parts of the Bible which both then and long after were doubted of and yet accepted now of Protestants But wel may I infer if S. Policarpe and his fellowes erred in not accepting one popish tradition much more Bel in accepting none 4. But saith Bel S. Policarpe Policrates pag. 129. and other Bishops did in those daies make no more account of the Popes opinion then of an other mans did thinke them selfs his equals in gouernment that he defended an error and withstood his proceedings Here is false conueiance to ioyne S. Policarp who liued and dyed in vnion Euseb lib. ◠c. 24. Iren. apud ipsum and communion of the Pope and before this controuersy was defyned with Policrates and his fellows who were excommunicated as declining saith Eusebius into Loc. cit heresy for their obstinacy in error after the whole Church had defyned the contrary These indeed as heretiks vse to do made no account of the Popes opinion or iudgement but condemned him of error and withstood his proceedings though they neuer thought them selfs his equals as Bel without al truth or proofe affirmeth yea Polecrates when he saith I wil not feare S. Hierom. de script eccles in Papia Nicephor l. 4. c. 37. them who threaten me and I must obey God more then men sheweth him selfe to be vnder the Popes obedience but supposing him selfe to defend truth feared not his excommunication But how much al Christendom at that tyme and euer since made account of the Popes sentence appeareth by that as Eusebius and others write they al followed Euseb sup it and condemned them as Heretiks who withstood it And S. Policarp so esteemed Euseb lib. 5. cap. 24. 5. Ireney apud ipsum Nicephor l. 3. c. 30. it as that he came to Rome to confer with the Pope about that matter doubtles wold haue subscribed to his sentence if it had bene pronounced in his daies as his scholler S. Ireney did by whom we may gather his maisters account of the Church of Rome He therfore lib. 3. cap. 3. S. Iren. calleth Rome the greatest and antientest Church founded by S. Peter and Paul and that by Tradition which it hath from the Apostles and alwaies keapeth by succession of Bishops we confound saith he al them that gather otherwise then they should and that al Churches must recur to Rome for her more potent principality 5. The second Tradition is that of keeping Bel p. 130. lent which saith Bel is not Apostolical because S. Chrisostom writeth That Christ S. Chrysost hom 47. in Math. to 2. Euseb lib. 5. c. 24. bid vs not imitat his fast but be humble Nor certain because Eusebius out of Ireney writeth That in his tyme some thought we ought to fast one day others two others more and non nulli forty which variety of fasting began not now first or in our daies but long before I thinke by them who keeping not simply what was traditum deliuered from the beginning did afterward fal into an other custome ether of negligence or of ignorance Here Bel sheweth his lacke of iudgement in citing a place clearly against him selfe For here S Ireney and Eusebius after him clearly affirme That at the beginning there was one manner of fasting lent appointed though some afterward ether of ignorance or negligence did breake it which proueth not the said Tradition to be vncertain in the whole Church vnles Bel wil impute the fault of some few to the whole And of the Roman Church she saith Ireney lib 3. cap. 3. alwaies keapt the S. Ireney Ex histor tripart lib. 9. c. 38. Apostles Tradition And by this is answered what he bringeth out of Socrates touching the diuersity of tyme and meat vsed in fasting lent Albeit what Socrates saith of the Roman Church fasting but three weeks before Easter and not on Saterday is an vntruth For they fasted 40. daies as witnes S. Leo. serm 12. de Quadrag and S. Gregory S. Leo. S. Gregory S. Innocent S. Augustin hom 16. in Euang. And likewise Saterdaies as testify S. Innocent epist ad Decent and S. Austin epist 86. and 118. where also he alleadgeth S. Ambrose 6. And that lent is an Apostolical Tradition not only S. Hierom epist ad Marcel S. Hierom. S. Ambros. witnesseth and S. Ambrose serm 25. 34. and 36. saith it was cōmanded by Christ and S Austin haer 53. accounted the Aërians S. Augustin S. Epiphan haer 75. heretiks for denying the set fast of lent and others to be solemnely kept But it is euident also because
of this reason First I deny that any religious Emperour of the East would haue sate aboue the Pope in Councel as appeareth by the fact of the two great Emperours Constantin and Theodosius before rehearsed and by Iustinus humbling himselfe vnto the Pope prostrate on the ground Iustinians See Art 1. c. 6. parag 6. lowly adoring and Iustinian the second his kissing of his feeet Is it likely that these who so honoured the Pope out of Councel would haue sate aboue him in Councel And albeit one grecian Emperour after both religion and reuerence thereto was decayed in Greece and the whole nation fallen into Schisme and heresy did in the CouÌ„cel of Florence attempt Concil Florent in initio to sit aboue the Pope yet the like is not to be thought of other religious Christian Emperours whereof diuers as Bel testifyeth art 1. pag. 17. humbled themselues and yeelded euen their soueraigne rights to Popes Yea the selfe same Emperour who by some euil suggestion would haue sate aboue the Pope would at his first meeting with him haue kneeled vnto him But suppose Concil Florent sup that the grecian Emperours by reason of their temporal superiority would haue sitten aboue the Pope Doe they therefore deny his spiritual primacy No more surely then a gentleman doth deny his pastours spiritual authority ouer him because he wil sit aboue him Did not the grecians euen in the Florentin Councel where they attempted In lit vnionis to place the Emperour aboue the Pope defyne together with the Latins that the Bishop of Rome hath primatum in vniuersum orbem primacy ouer the whole world 8. In two other matters Bel iniuryeth Bel p. 127. the Pope auouching that he would neuer shew his face in any Councel And that he shamefully vntruth 102. vntruth 103. abuseth the worlde because he can not communicate his supreame iudicial authority to his Legates and wil approue nothinge decreed in Councel vnles it be agreable to that vvhich he decreeth a part in his chaire at home For the first of these is a manifest vntruth because the Pope hath bene personally present almost in al the general councels helde in the west as at Florence at Constance at Viena at Lyons at Rhemes at Claremount and diuers councels of Lateran In the other the Pope abuseth the worlde no more then doth the Prince abuse the Parliament when sending thither the L. Chaunceller to supplie his place and praeseed in his roome wil neuerthelesse approue nothing what the Peeres doe or decree vnles himselfe iudgeth it conuenient CHAP. XIIII Of the oath vvhich Bishops vse to make vnto the Pope BECAVSE Bishops sweare fidelity to the Pope and to keep and defend the primacy of the Romane Church and rules of holy fathers against al men and neuertheles as Bellarmin writeth are not to obey Bellarm. lib. 1. de concil cap. vlt. him but when he commandeth according to Gods law and holy canons and may notwithstanding their oath speake their minde in councel and depose the Pope if he become an heretike Bel inferreth diuers pag. 125. 126. things requisit to be answered First that Bishops sweare the Pope can depose al Emperours and Kings in the Christian wordle Secondly that they sweare to admit his decree whome they vntruth 104. freely graunt may be an hereticke Thirdly that they sweare obedience to him in matters of faith whome they can depose for heresy Fourthly that the Pope is not supreame Iudge of controuersies seeing Bishops may examyne and iudge whether what he commaundeth be agreable to Gods worde and the Canons Lastly that they sweare flat rebellion against their Soueraigns seeing they sweare to defend the Popes Primacy against al men whomsoeuer 2. Answer As for the oath of Bishops made to the Pope the lawfulnes thereof appeareth because it is made withal Catholique princes consent and meant only in iust and lawful things which are according to Gods law and holy Canons And it hath bene vsed aboue a thowsand yeare agoe as is euident by the like oath made by a Bishop vnto S. Gregory the great And S. Boniface the S. Gregor â—â— 10. ep 31. Baron Ann. 723. Apostle of Germany and worthiest man that euer England bredde did sweare when he was consecrated Bishop to concurre with See Concil Tolet. 11. can 10. the Pope and commodities of his church And as for the first point which Bel inferreth it is vntrue as appeareth by the answer to the first article The second and third contayne no inconuenience For we must obey what he decreeth or defyneth Iudicially as sitting in S. Peeters chaire though in hart he were an hereticke As our Sauiour coÌ„manded S. Math. 23. v. 3. S. Mare 8. v. 15. S. Math. 16. v. 6. the Iewes to follow what the Scribes taught out of Moyses chaire but abstaine from their priuate leauen If Bel can not imagine how a man by Gods disposition may vtter truth coÌ„trary to his owne minde let him remember Balaam and Caiphas Numer 22. Ioh. 11. v. 52. Chap. 10. parag 9. Bellarm. lib. 4. de Rom. Pont. cap. 6. 7. Bel p. 125. and what hath bene said before out of S. Austin Besides we graunt not freely as Bel freely forgeth that the Pope may be an hereticke For Bellarmin whose only testimony saith Bel is most sufficient in al popish affaires defendeth the contrary And by that which hath bene said to these two points appeareth the answer to the fourth Because Bishops must not examin the doctrine which the Pope deliuereth iudicially out of S. Peters chaire as supreame pastour of Gods church but only that wherein he vttereth his owne priuate opinion 3. And as for the last point Bishops sweare no rebellion Both because they sweare to defend the Popes primacie only according to Gods worde and holy Canons which admit no rebellion As also The vveapons of our vvarfare are not carnal 1. Cor. 10. v. 4. Euseb lib. 6. c. 25. Gelas epist ad Anast S. Chrysost lib. cont Gent. because the defence which Bishops are to vse is not by insurrection and rebellion but by spiritual chastisment and correction In which sort S. Fabian defended the orders of the Church against the Emperour Philip. S. Innocent defended S. Chrisostom against Archadius S. Babilas and S. Ambrose punished their Emperours without any rebellion at al. 4. After the foresaid collections Bel pag 128. Rhemists Act. 15. vntruth 105. auoucheth an vntruth vpon the Rhemists affirming them to tel plainely and rowndly that the determination of Councels is needles because the Popes iudgement alone is infallible Where as they in that place which Bel cyteth write that though the Sea Apostolique haue infallible assistance yet the determinanation of Councels are necessary for many causes as for searching out the truth for the recouery of hereticks and contentation of the weake who not alwaies giuing ouer to one mans determination yet wil either yeeld to the iudgement
parag 4. c. 6. par 3. 4. 7. 8. art 7. c. 1. parag 2. c. 9. parag 22. c. 12. parag 3. Bel a foolish phisitian art 7. c. 7. parag 17. Bels godly sense an vngodly shift art 5. c. 3. parag 2. Bels godly keeping Gods commaundements an vngodly breaking of them art 8. c. 1. parag 1. Bel keepeth Gods commaundements or knoweth him not art 8. c. 1. parag 9. Bels ignorance in history art 1. c. 9. par 2. Bels ignorance in latin art 5. c. 4. parag 10. art 7. c. 9. par 19. art 2. c. 4 parag 13. Bels ignorance in logik art 2. c. 6 par 2. 4. Bels ignorance in preaching a. 7. c. 7. par 10. Bel impugneth errors histories opinions in steed of Traditions a. 7. c. 10. par 7. 10. Bel impugneth an opinion of Protestants and Canonists as a point of Popery art 3. c. 1. parag 2. Bel impugneth his owne slanders as a point of Popery art 1. c. 1. parag 5. Bel impugneth a school point as a point of Popery a. 2. c. 1. parag 6. a. 5. c. 2. parag 4. Bels ladder of lying art 2. c. 5. parag 7. Bel maketh Srripture like a neck verse art 7. c. 7. parag 1. Bels malice and folly in reprehending the Rhemists art 5. c. 4. parag 3. Bel noteth S. Austin what is quite against him self art 2. c. 5. parag 6. Bel ouerthroweth at once what he inteÌ„ded to proue in al the Article a. 4. c. 3. parag 8. Bel preferreth reason in matter of faith before authority art 2. c. 1. parag 9. Bels question like to that of the Capharnaits art 2. c. 1. parag 11. Bel recanting art 5. c. 6. parag 8. Bel seemeth a Libertin art 8. c. 1. parag 10. Bels shifts to auoid authority a. 8. c. 2. par 2. Bels vain boast art 5. c. 4. parag 9. Bels vain protestation art 7. c. 12. parag 4. Bel cursed by the law or keeperh it art 8. c. 3. parag 2. Bels vntruths whereof diuers are slaunderous a. 1. c. 1. parag 1. c. 7. par 4. c. 9. parag 28. 33. a. 2. c. 4. par 14. c. 6. par 8. a. 3. c. 1. par 1. 10. 13. a. 4. c. 1. parag 9. c. 2. par 1. 4. 5. 6. a. 5. c. 5. par 7. 9. 10. c. 6. par 1. 2. 4. 5. 9. a. 6. c. 2. par 9. a. 7. c. 3. par 7. c. 4. parag 6. 8. c. 5. par 1. 4. 5. 8. c. 7. par 4. 18. 19. c. 9. parag 22. c. 10. parag 6. 11. c. 12. parag 1. 2. 3. c. 13. par 8. c. 14. par 1. 4. a. 8. c. 2. par 2. Bel wil not haue vs heare Scripture read in Churches art 7. c. 7. parag 16. Bel wil examin Scripturs art 7. c. 9. par 12. Bel wresteth Scripture art 8. c. 1. parag 6. Berengarius dyed a Catholik a. 2. c. 5. par 1. Berhaeans example explicated what they examined art 7. c. 11. parag 4. S. Bernards meaning about possibility of louing God art 8. c. 4. parag 3. 4. S. Bernards meaning about merit art 5. c. 5. parag 9. Byble alone canonical Scripture but not alone Canonical art 7. c. 11. parag 3. Byble conserued and beleeued to be Gods word by Tradition art 7. c. 9. parag 4. Bilson attributing to Kings participation of Gods name power honor homagâ— art 1. c. 7. parag 7. Bishops oath to the Pope made with consent of al Catholik Princes a. 7. c. 14. par 2. Bishops oath to the Pope lawful and antient art 7. c. 14. parag 2. Bishops sweare no rebellion a. 7. c. 14. par 3. Britanny conuerted first to Popery art 7. c. 10. parag 2. C. CAtholiques and Protestants true difference in whome the supremacy is art 1. c. 2. parag 3. Catholiks neuer attributed to the Pope power proper to God art 1. chap. 7. parag 5. Catholiks faith of the Eucharist grownded vpon Scripture and Fathers art 2. c. 1. parag 7. 8. Catholique Church like a prudent nurse art 7. c. 7. parag 17. Catholiques and Protestants opinion about deposition of Princes compared art 1. c. 3. parag 8. Catholiques falsly charged where Protestants might better art 7. c. 1. par 4. Catholiques falsly charged about disobedience to euil Kings art 1. c. 9. parag 34. Catholiques how they think the commandements possible art 8. c. 1. parag 2. Catholiques haue Tradition euen from S. Peter art 7. c. 9. parag 10. Catholiques vse Scripture in vulgare tong art 7. c. 8. parag 4. Caluin attributeth deuine power to Magistrats art 1. c. 7. parag 3. Caluin confesseth S. Austin to thinke inuoluntary concupiscence no true sinne art 4. c. 1. parag 18. Caluin accounteth the sacrifice of the crosse insufficient art 2. c. 4. parag 5. Caluin father of the new Arrians art 7. c. 1. parag 5. Caluins smale account of Gods word when it is against him art 2. c. 1. parag 10. Caluinists become Arrians and Mahumetans art 7. c. 1. parag 5. Ceremonial law perfectly prescribed to the Iewes art 7 c. 2 parag 5 6. Charles made Emperor without consent of Eastern Emperors art 1. chap. 9. paragr 19. Choise propounded to Protestants about Emperors made by Popes art 1. c. 6. parag 3 an other about Traditions art 7. c. 9. parag 3. about Luther art 7. c. 9. parag 16. Christs body to be organical in the sacrament no point of faith a. 2. c 1. parag 6. Christs body in his nariuity in a litle roome art 2. c. 1. parag 12. Christs body in onâ— place naturally in many sacramentally art 2. c. 2. parag 6. Christs body broken in a signe art 2. c. 5. parag 3. Christs body broken in a signe which really conteineth it art 2 c. 5. parag 4. Christs blood is a testament a 2. c. 3 par 7. Christs blood how powred out or shed at his supper art 2. c. 4. parag 8. Christ carâ—yed him self literally or really in his owne hands art 2. c. 4 parag 1. Christ nether killed nor dyeth at Masse art 2. c. 3. parag 6. Christ offered sacrifice at his last supper art 2. c. 2. parag 2. Christs sacrifice at his last supper not imperfect nor at his passion needles art 2. c. 4. parag 4. Christ sacramental being a representation of his natural being a. 2. c. 4. parag 1. ChristiaÌ„s bound to obey as wel the present as the primatiue Church a. 7. c. 13. par 2. S. Chrisostom about Traditions explicated art 7. c. 4. parag 11. S. Chrisostom about reading Scripture explicated and opposit therein to Protestants art 7. c. 7. parag 8. S. Chrisostom how he meaÌ„t that Christ bid vs not immitate his fast a. 7. c. 10. par 6. S. Chrisostom giueth not people liberty to expound Scriptures contrary to their Pastors a. 7. c. 7. parag 8. Churches authority not mere humaine art 7. c. 9. parag 21. Churches authority concurreth to deuine saith art 7. c. 9. parag 20. Churches authority both first brought and continued S. Austin in beleefe of the Ghospel art