but authority of Scriptures and command of God teaching Answer In the first place S. Hierom speaketh of a perticuler opinion vz That Zacharias who was slaine betwene the Temple and the Altar was S. Ihon Baptists father which he supposeth to haue bene no Apostolical Tradition and therfore of it saith because it is not proued out of Scripture it is as easely reiected as affirmed But what S. Hierom writeth of a particuler opinion helde without tradition Bel can not iustly extend to certaine Traditions The second place maketh nothing against vs. Because the Traditions of the Church were taught by the Apostles and not by any other afterward And S. Hieroms meaning is to deny that any man may teach of his owne worde and authority any new doctrine as Montanus and such like Hereticks did but only that which they receaued from the Apostles who were as S. Paul saith Eph. 2. v. 20 our foundation The thirde place maketh les to the purpose For tradition is no error of Ancestors And Scripture we graunt to be followed but not it alone but as S. Hierom saith the commandment of God teaching whether it be by writing or tradition As for traditions S. Hierom plainly alloweth them Dialog cont Lucif where he confesseth it to be the custome of the S. Hierome Church to obserue many things by tradition as if they were written laws And epist ad Marcel receaueth lent and lib. cont Heluid defendeth our Ladies perpetual virginity only by tradition 16. Many more Fathers I might alleadge for traditions But I content my selfe with the testimonies of them whom Bel brought for the contrary Let the indifferent Reader weigh the places cited by him and me and vprightly iudge as he tendreth his saluation Whether the holy Fathers reiected or imbraced ecclesiastical traditions Perhaps Bel wil answer That the Fathers contradict them selfes and say as the false mother did Let them be nether myne nor thine but be deuided 3. Reg. 3. v. 26. But who remembreth Salomons iudgment wil by this alone perceaue to whom of right the Fathers belong I haue answered al that Bel hath brought out of them and most of the authorities alleadged by me especially those of S. Dionis S. Epipha S. Chrisost S. Basil admit no answer at al Now let vs come to Bels arguments out of Catholique writers CHAP. V. Bels arguments out of late Catholique vvriters touching sufficiency of Scriptures and Traditions ansvvered THE first he alleadgeth is the learned Bel p. 100. Roffensis artic 37. Luther and holy Bishop Fisher whom he vntruly tearmeth a canonized Saint with vs Because in one place he calleth Scripture the storehouse of al truthes necessary to be known of Christians And in an other saith when heretiks Veritate 4. cont art Lutheri contend with vs we ought to defend our cause with other help then Scripture Because saith Bel Popery can not be defended by Scripture and auoucheth vntruth 81. Papists to confesse That they can not manteine their faith by Gods written word Answer How Scripture may be called a Store-house of al truths necessary to Christians appeareth out of the first and second Conclusion And Sup. c. 1. parag 2. 7. in the said place B. Fisher writeth of Purgatory That though it could not be proued out of Scriture yet it ought to be beleeued for Tradition And in the secōd place he nether saith absolutly That we ought not to proue our faith out of Scripture at al nether to Catholiks nor to Heretiks Nor that we ought not to proue it out of Scripture euen against Heretiks For him selfe so proueth it against Luther And much lesse saith That we can not proue it out of Scripture as Bel falsly forgeth But his meaning is That when we dispute with Heretiks we ought to haue aliud subsidium quam scripturae other proofs beside Scripture hereof he geueth foure reasons 2. First because Luther professed to beleeue Purgatory though it were not in Scripture 2. Because Scripturs in some points at the first sight and in words seeme to fauor Heretiks more then Catholiques as appeareth in the controuersy between S. Hierom Heluidius about our Ladies perpetual virginity 3. Because Heretiks deny many parts of Scripture 4. Because though they admit the words yet they peruert the sense and meaning of Scripture which is as much saith Tertullian as if they denied the words And oftentimes the true sense is not so euident that it alone sufficeth to conuince an Heretik when to contend about it wearyeth as the same Tertullian writeth the constant ouer turneth the weak and scandalizeth the midle sort Wherupon he aduiseth Sup. cap. 19. vs wisely That in disputing vvith Heretiks before vve come to proofs out of Scripture vve try vvhose the Scriptures are to whose possession of right they belonge For that being cleared it vvil soone appeare saith he vvho hath the true Christian faith the true vnderstanding of Scripture and al Christian Traditions And the same meant B. Fisher who also citeth Tertul. his words make rather for Traditiōs then against them And if this course were taken with Protestants they wold be quickly confounded For they as Doue confesseth and it is euident Doue of Recusancy p. 13. had the Scripture from vs not by gift or loan For we nether gaue nor lent them to Protestants but by theaft and stealth as Turks and Infidels may haue them and therfore are wrong vsurpers of our goods and possessions and iustly may we say to them with Tertullian VVhen whence came Supra c. 37. you vvhat do you in my possession being none of myne By vvhat right Marcion Luther doest thousel my vvood vvith vvhat lycence Valentine Caluin doest thou turne a vvay my fovvntains VVith vvhat authoryty Apelles Beza doest thou moue my limits It is my possession vvhat do you others sovve and feed at your pleasure It is my possession I possesse it of ould I possesse it first I haue strong originals from the Authors vvhose the thing vvas Thus Tertullian And here I omit that Bel citeth an apocriphal sentence out of Esdr 3. 4. vnder the name of the wise man as if it were Salomons 3. Next he alleadgeth Canus his words Bel p. 101. Seeing the Canon of Scripture is perfect and most Canus de locis lib. 7. c. 3. sufficient to al things what need the vnderstanding and authority of Saints be adioined therto But Bel forgot to tel that Canus proposeth this only as an obiection which he answereth by denying the illatiō therin included Because saith he the Fathers are needful to right vnderstand the Scripture Nether denying nor graunting the Antecedent concerning the perfection and sufficiency of Scripture But how sufficient he thought Scripture to Canus be appeareth l. 3. c. 6. where after S. Ignatius epist ad Heronem he calleth them wolues Heretiks which refuse the Churches Traditions and c. 7. solueth the best arguments Protestans bring
parag 13. and arâ— 7. c. 9. parag 19. vntruth 92 made oftentymes of coblers tinkers and taylers who may thanke the Lord as one of them did that they know nothing of the Romish tongue 4. That in the Churches vve read vnto the common people latin sermons In deed we read such in our seruice but read them to the common people no more then we read the Masse to them But read both in honour and seruice to God who vnderstandeth as wel latin as english And thus much touching Scripture now let vs come to Traditions CHAP. IX Of Apostolical Traditions vvhether there be any or none OF the Traditions which the Church manteineth some were instituted by Christ some by his Apostles by the inspiration of the holy Ghost and others by the Church it selfe The question is whether there by any of the two former kinds of Traditions instituted or deliuered by the Apostles and therupon called Apostolical vvhat â—ind of traditioÌ„s Bel impugnâ—th without writing which concerne things as Bel saith in the beginning of this article pag. 86. necessary to mans saluation For though as I said before the Scripture conteine al Chapt. 1. things which are necessary to be knowne actually of euery one yet because euery one is bound to deny no point of christian faith but at lest vertually and implicitly to beleeue al such traditions as concerne matters of faith or manners may as Bel speaketh be said to concerne things necessary to mans saluation This supposed I affirme with the vniforme consent of al holy Fathers that there are such traditions and it followeth of that which we proued in the first chapter that the Scripture conteineth not actually al points of christian faith and otherwise I proue it because S. Paul 2. S. Paul S. Basil de Spirit c. 29. S. Chrysost 2. Thessalon hom 4. S. Epiphan haer 61. S. Damascenus 4. de fid c. 17. Thess 2. v. 15. saith Hold the Traditions which you haue learned whether it be by worde or by our epistle therfore he deliuered some Traditions only by worde as S. Basil S Chrisostom S. Epiphanius S. Damascen out of this place do gather 2. Secondly S. Ihon the last writer of Scripture said Hauing many things to vvrite to 3. Ioan. v. 13. you I vvould not by paper and inke Ergo many things which were to be told to christians S. Shon left vnwritten yea thought it not expedient to write them Bel answereth Bel p. 117. That the Apostles taught no needful doctrin which they did not after commit to vvriting This answer insinuateth that the Apostles taught some needles matter contrary to S. Paul 2. Timoth. 2 Tit. 3. and that which S. Paul commanded the Thessalonicenses to hold S. Ihon said he had to write were needles things which is but to blaspheme the Apostles Thirdly in the law of nature there were traditions as is euident and testifyed Gen. 18. v. 19. Likewise in tyme of the Conference at Hampton Court p. 68. Valer. Max. lib. 3. c. 319. de scauro vario seuero S. Dionis l. 1. eccles hier c. 1. S. Ignat. ep ad Heron. S. Iren. lib. 3. c. 3. S. Ciprian l. 2. epist 3. S. Basil lib. de Spirit 6. 27. 29. law written as English Protestants confesse why not therefore in tyme of the Ghospel 3. Fourthly I wil propose to the Reader a choise som what like to that which a Roman made to his Citizens when being accused of his aduersary in a long oration he stept vp and said my aduersary affirmeth I deny it whether beleeue you citizens And so in few words reiected his aduersaries long accusation For S. Dionisius Areopag S. Ignatius both schollers of the Apostles S. Ireney S. Cyprian S. Basil S. Chrisostom S. Epiphanius S. Hierom. S. S. Chrysost 2. Thessal hom 4. S. Epiphan haer 61. S. Hierom. dial contr Lucif S. Augustin epist 118. l. 10. de Genen ad lit c. 23. Austin and others affirme that there are Apostolical Traditions Bel some few new start vp Heretiks deny it Whether beleeue you Christians This choise is far aboue that of the Roman For there was but one against one yea ones bare denyal against the others proofs But here are many against few Saints against to say the lest ordinary fellows Doctors of Gods Church against vnlearned Ministers Catholiques against Heretiks yea manifest proofs against bare denyals And shal we not especially in a matter of fact as is whether the Apostles left any vnwritten Traditions or no beleeue many most holy most learned most incorrupt most antient witnesses yea wherof some were eye witnesses of the matter before a few vnlearned vnconstant iangling new fellowes S. Hierom. epist 61. c. 9. S. Augustin de Symbolo ad Catechumen Ruffin in Symbol S. Hierom. con Heluid S. Augustin haer 55. S. Epiphan haer 78. Locis supra cit c. 3. 4. Moreouer whence haue we the Apostles Creed but by Tradition as testify S. Hierom S. Austin and Ruffinus whence the perpetual virginity of our B. Lady as appeareth by S. Hierom S. Austin S. Epiphanius whence the lawful transferring the Sabbath day from Saterday to Sonday but by Tradition Whence many other things as testify S. Hierom S. Dionis S. Iren. S. Cyptian Tertull. Origen S. Basil S. Epiphan S. Chrisost S. Hierom S. Austin S. Ambrose and others but by Tradition But especially whence haue we the Bible it selfe Whence haue we that euery booke chapter and verse of it is Gods worde and no one sentence therin corrupted in al these 1600. years where haue we that the Gospel bearing the name of S. Thomas who was an Apostle and eye witnes of Christs actions is not as wel or better Christs Ghospel then that which carrieth the name of S. Luke and was written only by heare-say Luc. 1. v. 2. S. Hierom. de Scriptur eccles in Luca. Bel bringeth six ansvvers as is professed in the very beginning but by Tradition This reason so courseth Bel vp and downe as like fox many tymes vn-earthed euen for wearines he runneth into the hunters toyle graunting what the argument would 5. His first answer is That there is great difference Bel p. 134. betvvixt the primmatiue Church and the Church of late daies For the Apostles heard Christs doctrine savv his myracles and were replenished with the holy Ghost and consequently must needs be fit vvitnesses of al that Christ did and taught vvhich adiuncts the Church of Rome hath not Here Bel blasphemeth Christs Church of late daies auouching her to be nether replenished with the holy Ghost Symbol Apostol contrary to our Creed professing her to be holy and Christs promise that the holy Ghost should remaine with her for euer Nor to be a Ioan. 14. v. 16. fit witnes of his truth contrary to S. Paul affirming her to be the piller and strength of 1. Timoth. 3. v. 15. truth and to Gods sending her
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
If he wil follow them let him confesse him selfe to want faith none wil discommend him for examining ether Traditions or Scripture For in infidels such examination is some disposition to faith but in the faithful an argument of doubt and distrust If faithful how could they examin whither that were true or no which they assuredly beleeued to be deuine truth Wherfore they examined not the truth of S. Pauls doctrin For they receaued it Hovv the Berhaeans examined S. Pauls doctrin saith S. Luke with al greedines and beleeued but did for confirmation and encrease of their faith search the Scripturs whether these things were so or no vz in Scripturs that is fortold in Scripturs And this kind of examining Traditions we disalow not 5. As for S. Ihon He bid vs try doubtful VVhat S. Ihon bid vs trye 1. Ioan. 4. spirits but not Apostolical spirits or Traditions Besids he bid vs not try them only by Scripture and therfore he maketh nothing for Bels purpose Finally as for S. Paul he accursed not as S Austin noteth S. Augustin â—o 9. tract 98. in Ioan him that should preach more then he had done For so he should preiudice him selfe who coueted to returne to the Thessalonians to preach more then 1. Thess 3. v. 10. he had done and to supply as he writeth the points which wanted to their faith But only such as preach things beside vz quite Hovv S. Paul vnder stood the vvord besyde Gal. 1. v. 2. that Ghospel which he had preached which things v. 6 and 7. he calleth an other Ghospel inuerting Christs Ghospel Such were the cirrumcision obseruation of Iewish ceremonies against which he disputeth in the whole epistle But what is this against Apostolical Traditions are they a second Ghospel do they inuert Christs Ghospel are they Iewish ceremonies 6. Beside S. Paul nether speaketh of Scripture S. Paul speaketh not of Scripture but of his ovvne preaching nor can be vnderstood of it alone For when he saith besids that vvhich vve haue euangelized to you he nether had written any thing before to the Galathians Nor then nor after writ to them al points of Christian faith And therfore when he speaketh The like saieth S. Ignat epist ad Heron. of those that teach praeter eae quae traditl sunt of his owne euangelizing both in tyme before the writing of that epistle and vnto the Galathians euident it is he meant not of euangelizing by only writing but rather of euangelizing by word of mouth because before the writing of that epistle he had euangelized to the Galathians only by word of mouth and of that euangelizing he speaketh which before tymes he had vsed to them And so this place maketh more for vs then for Bel. 7. As for S. Austin and S. Basil they say not That S. Paul meant of euangelizing by only Scripture but out of this place infer that nothing is to be preached which is beside Scripture in that sense wherin S. Paul vsed the word Beside vz so beside as it is an other Ghospel inuerting Christs Ghospel which they rightly inferred For what is so beside Scripture as it is a new Ghospel and inuerteth Christs Ghospel is in like sort beside that which S. Paul had euangelized to the Galathians and no Apostolical Tradition but a cursed doctrin And thus much of Bels proofs out of Scripture touching examination of Traditions Now let vs see his proofs out of Fathers CHAP. XII Bels arguments out of holy Fathers about the examination of Traditions ansvvered FIRST he saith That in S. Cyprians daies Bel p. 117. vntruth 98 vntruth 99 nether Tradition was a sufficient proofe of doctrin nor the Popes definitiue sentence a rule of faith These be both vntruths For that TraditioÌ„ was a sufficient proofe of doctrin in S. Cyprians daies is euident by the testimony of his maister Tertullian S. Ireney and S. Dionis before his tyme and S. Basil S. Sup. cap. 4. S. Augustin l 2. de bapt c. 9. Tripartit l. 9. c. 38. Vincent Lyrin Socrates lib. 5. c. 22. Te pacatum reddat traditio Basil hom contr Sabellian Chrysost hom 42. 2. ad Thessaâ— Cap. cit parag 6. Chrisostom others after his tyme before cited And by his owne words before alleadged and the decyding of two controuersies only by Tradition the one in his owne tyme about the baptisme of heretiks the other before his tyme about the tyme of Easter Nether did he euer doubt that true Tradition was sufficient proofe of doctrin of which S. Chrisostom said It is Tradition seeke no more but thought and truly that humane and mistaken Tradition was no sufficient rule as hath bene shewed before And that the Popes definitiue sentence in his tyme was a sufficient rule of faith is euident by his owne saying That false faith can Cyprian lib. 4. epistol 8. calleth Rome the Matrice and roote of the Catholique Church S. Cyprian l. 1. epist 3. S. Augustin l. 6. de bapt contr Donat c. 2. S. Cyprian ep ad Pompeiâ—m Euseb lib. 7. hist c. 3. Vincent Lyrin S. Augustin lib. de vnic bapt cap. 13. See c. 4. parag 7. 8. S. Hieroms account of the Popes decree haue no accesse to S. Peters chair and that Heresyes and Schismes rise not but because it is not thought that there is for the tyme one Priest in the Church and one iudge in Christs roome and by his owne subscribing at the last to the Popes commandement though he thought it had bene contrary to Scripture Nether did he euer withstand the Popes definitiue sentence For P. Steeuen did not defyne as a matter of faith but only commanded that such should not be rebaptized but the Tradition obserued as both S. Cyprian Eusebius Vincent Lyrinen and others testify And this command S. Cyprian did not at first obey wherin he offended as S. Austin writeth though after he did as the same S. Austin doth likewise testify And no doubt but he thought as wel of the Popes decrees as S Hierom did when he wrote to P. Damasus Decree I pray if it please you I wil not fear to say three Hypostases if you bid And requested him for Christs sake to giue authority ether to affirme or deny three hypostases And darest thou Bel make no account of the Popes sentence when so great and holy a Doctor so highly esteemed it as without it he durst nether affirme nor deny three hypostases and with it doubted not to do ether 2. After this Bel alleadgeth the practise Bel p. 118. of Fathers who when the Arians saith he wold not admit the word homousion because it vntruth 100. was not in Scripture mark how he confesseth him selfe to imitate Arians the Fathers did not proue it by Tradition nor say that many vnwritten things are to be beleeued This is not so For S. Athanasius saith that the Bishops of the Nicen S. Athan. apud Theodoret l. 1.
wil speake exactly and properly more is required to formal and proper sinne then to formal iniquity For iniquity requireth only want Difference betvvixt formal sinne and iniquity of equity and conformity to Gods law formal sinne besides this requireth voluntarines so al formal sinne is formal iniquity but not contrarywise As adultery or murder committed by a foole or mad man is iniquity but no more sinne then it is in beasts Hereupon S. Austin l. 2. contr Iulian. c. 5. S. Austin distinguished two iniquityes one which is sinne and blotted out in baptisme an other which is the law of sinne infirmity remaineth is yet iniquity because saith he iniquum est that the flesh should rebel against the spirit l. 6. c. 19. calleth lust against wil some iniquity yet oftentymes denyeth it to be true sinne nether doth he say in the place which Bel citeth that iniquity sinne is al one but that sinne is not a different thing from iniquity but that who cōmitteth sinne committeth iniquity which how it is true is euident by that which is said Albeit when he saith that al iniquity is blotted out in baptisme he confounde iniquity with sinne as before is cited out of Scripture which argueth that wel may the worde iniquity be taken in a different sense Iohn 5. and 3. as Iohn 5. for voluntary iniquity and proper sinne as appeareth by the greeke worde adicia and c. 3. for iniquity in general as appeareth by the worde anomia which is cōmon to volūtary or inuolūtary 7. The places of S. Ambros and S. Austin are already answered for they define only mortal sinne And of the same vnderstandeth Bellarmin when he saith al sinne is against the law for venial sinnes he proueth not to be against the law tom 3. lib. 1. de amiss grat stat pecc cap. 11. Nether followeth it as Bel thincketh that some sinnes are no sinnes but only that Some sinnes are not perfectly sinnes as Bellarmin proueth loc cit As for the Rhemists doubtles it is false which Bel addeth that what Sup. c. 2. parag 8. swarueth from the law is against it as I haue proued against his bare assertion of the contrary Durand and Angles I confesse did thincke venial sinnes to be against the law but neither is this a matter of faith neither do they intend to fauour Bel any thing but answer his argument an otherway as hath bene shewed before 8. But pretty it is to see how that because Bel pag. 82 Angles 2. sent p. 275. Angles writeth that it seemeth now to be the commoner opinion in schooles that venial sinnes are against the law Bel noteth the Romish religion of mutability confessing that the olde Romane religion was Catholique Olde Roman religiō Catholique sound and pure sownde and pure with which he wil not contend Beholde the ytch which this fellow hath to calumniate the Romane religion Angles in sinuateth Schoole opinions to be mutable Bel applieth it to Romane religion as if it consisted of schoole opinions which may be helde pro contra salua fidei compage with vnity in faith as S. Austin speaketh But seeing you haue graūted S. Augustin l. 1. cont Iul. c. 6. to 7. the olde Romane religion to haue bene Catholique and pure slaunder the late I bring an action of slaunder against you and charge you that you doe not like dolosus versari in generalibus but to bringe good witnesses when wherin and by whome the late Romane religion corrupted the purity of the olde knowing that otherwise to vse your phrase al the world wil cry with open mouth Fye vpon you and your slaunderous Ministery But in the meane tyme let vs proceed with him here 9. Their canonized Martyr Bishop Fisher Bel pag. 83. Ruffens art 32. cont Luther Gerson de vit spirit lect 1. part 1. saith he and Popish Bishop Gerson wrote that vental sinnes were such only by the mercy of God Here Bel for one truth vttereth twoe vntruths True it is that B. Fisher and Gerson were in that errour but that was both before it was condemned in the Church as it 75. vntruth was since by Pius 5. and Gregorius 13. neither did they account inuoluntary motions of Concupiscence for venial sinnes as Bel doth but such as Catholiques account venial 76. vntruth But vntrue it is that either B. Fisher is canonized or Gerson was a bishoppe who Trithem in Gersone was only Chauncellor of the vniuersity of Paris 10. Finally he concludeth this Article pag. 85. with this goodly reason one stealeth iust so many egges as are necessary to make a mortal sinne A reason not vvorth a rotte◠egge an other stealeth one les but there can be no reason why God may iustly condemne the one to hel and not the other therfore both sinne mortally alike To this I answer by demanding a reason why the iudge may condemne him to death that stealeth thirteene pence halfe penny and not him that stealeth one penny les If he answer because the law condemneth one and not the other I aske againe what reason was there that the lawe was made against the one and not against the other And if Bel can finde a reason in this he wil finde one in his owne question The reason of both is because such a quantity is a notable iniury to our neighbour and consequently is against charity so breaketh the law and a les quantity is not Be myndful Apocalip therfore Bel from whence thou art fallen and do penance Apocal. 2. THE SEVENTH ARTICLE OF VNVVRITTEN TRADITIONS Bel intituleth this seuenth article of traditions though therein he handleth diuerse other matters as of the sufficiencie and perspicuity of Scriptures and of the readinge them in vulgar tongues and by the common people of the authoritie of Councels and oathes of Bishops But these he handleth so confusedly so tediously being almost as longe in this one article as in al the rest as I founde much more difficultie to gather togither what he saied of euery point in different places and to bringe them to some methodical order for the healpe of the readers memory then I had to frame an answere first therefore I wil entreate of Scriptures next of Tradition then of Councels and lastly of Bisshops oathes CHAP. I. The Catholique doctrine touching sufficiency of Scriptures propounded and proued certayne vntruthes of Bel disproued ALBEIT euery one be forbidden to deny any point of the Christian faith yet are not al cōmaunded to know actually euery point thereof but to some it sufficeth that they beleeue the fundamental pointes conteyned in the Apostles Creede and such like and to be so desposed in minde as they woulde beleeue the rest if they knewe them which is to be beleeue them implicitely or virtually Moreouer one thinge may conteyne an other either actually as fyer doth conteyne heate and the sunne light or virtually
as a flynte conteyneth fyer and euery cause his effecte These things supposed 2. First Conclusion is Al such pointes of Christian faith as are necessarie to be actually beleeued of euery one that hath vse of reason though he be neuer so simple are actually conteyned in Scripture either clearely or obscurely This is nothing against traditions because wel may they be and are pointes of Christian faith though they be not such as the actual and explicite beleefe of them be so necessarie as none whatsoeuer can be saued without it For it sufficeth that they be such as the implecite and virtual beleefe of them is necessary to euery ones saluation and may be denyed of none vnder payne of damnation And the conclusion is taught of Bellarmin lib. 4. S. Augustin lib. de doct Christian c. ◠to 3. de verbo non scripto cap. 11. Where expounding these wordes of S. Austine In these which are plainely set dovvne in scripture are al those thinges founde vvhich conteyne faith and maner of life he answereth that S. Austine speaketh of those pointes of doctrine which are necessary simply to al as they saith he are which are conteyned in the Apostles Creed and tenne cōmaundements Likewise Stapleton Staplet Relect Contract 5. q. 5. i◠explic Artic affirmeth that the Apostles wrote al or almost al that parte of faith which is necessary to be explicitely beleeued of al and euery one And it seemeth euident because such pointes of faith as are precisely necessary to be actually knowen of euery one what so euer be both fewe and are the fundamental and most notorious pointes of Christianity as the mysterie of the Trinity the incarnation and passion of Christ and such like which are al actually at least obscurely conteined in scripture For surely the prophets and Euangelists writinge their doctrine for our better remembrance would omitte no one point which was necessary to be actually knowen of euery one especially seeinge they haue writen many things with are not so necessary And this cōclusion teacheth S. Austin when he saith S. Augustin tract 49. in Ioan. to 9. that those thinges are written which seemed sufficient for the saluation of the faithful Where I note that he sayd not vvhich seemed sufficient to Christian faith but which seemed sufficient to saluation because fewer pointes suffice to saluation then the Christian faith conteineth againe In these things which are plainly L. 2. de doct l. cit sup sett downe in scripture al those thinges are founde which conteine faith and maner of life Where I also obserue that he saied not absolutely al things as Bel translateth him but al those Bel pag. 94. 110. 11. False translation things insinuatinge that he speaketh not of al things belonging to Christian faith but onely of those which are necessary to be beleeued and done of euery one which he calleth precepts of life and rules of faith And yet more plainely I beleeue also that herein S. Augustin lib. 2. de pec mer. remis cap. vlt. to 7. there would be most cleere authority diuinorum eloquiorum of Gods word if man could not be ignorant of it without losse of his promised saluation Where if by diuina eloquia we vnderstand holy writte as Bel translateth pag. 95. and S. Augustin seemeth to meane because immediatly before he spake of scriptures me thinks he plainely auoucheth that God hath procured euery thinge to be clearely written which to knowe is necessary to euery mans saluation The same teacheth S. Cyril saying Not al things S. Cyril lib. 12. in Joan. cap. 68. vvhich our Lord did are written but what the vvriters deemed sufficient as wel for manners as for doctrin that by right faith and vvorks vve may attayne to the kingdome of heauen And S. Chrisostome 2. Thess hom 3. vvhat things soeuer S. Chrysost are necessary are manifest out of Scripture 3. Here by the way I must aduertise the Reader of Bels euil dealing with his maister Bellarmin and other Catholiques For because Bellarmin affirmeth That the Apostles Bellarm. lib. 4. de verbo Dei c. 11. wrote al things vvhich are necessary for al men and which they commonly vttered to al but not al the rest Bel inferreth That al things written Bel p. 114. are necessary for al. As if it were al one to say Al things necessary for al are written and al things written are necessary Perhaps he thinks to turne propositions as easely as he did his coate And if al things written be necessary for al as Bel gathereth surely as S. Hierom sayd to the Pelagians teaching S. Hierom. dial 1. cont Pelagian as Bel doth that none can be without sinne but they that are skilful in the law a great part of Christendome must needs be damned yea Luther and Caluin who professe Luther praefat in psalm Caluin 3. instit c. 2. parag 4. their ignorance in diuers points of Scripture I omit that the vttering of some things to some fewe who were perfect spiritual and fit to teach others and capable of strōg meate as is manifest S. Paule did 1. cor c. 2. v. 6. c. 3. v. 1. 2. Heb. 5. 14. 2. Timoth. 2. v. 2. Bel scorn fully calleth preaching in corners Bel p. 114. and such hearers Iesuited Popelings 4. And Catholicks he falsly chargeth Bel p. 139. 141. with denying that baptisme of infants consubstantiality of God the Sonne with his Father and the mistery of the B. Trinity are in Scripture or can be proued thence For Bellarmin proueth baptisme of Infants Bellarm. lib. 1. de baptis c. 8. to 2. by as many arguments out of Scripture as Bel doth vz. by three out of the figure of circumcision gen 17. out of Christs words Ioan 3. and out of the practise of the Apostles act 16. and 1. cor 1. wherof Bel borrowed the first and last The mistery of the Trinitie Bellarmin proueth by six arguments Bellarm. lib. 2. de Christo c. 6. to 1. out of Scripture and and the consubstantiality of Christ he proueth lib. 1. de christo c. 4. out of eleuen places of the olde testament to which he addeth c. 5. nyne more and c. 6. fifteene places out of the new testament 5. Better he might haue charged his good maisters Luther and Caluin with this matter Luther lib. cont Iacob Iatomum Caluin in Ioan. 10. See Staplet Antidat Euangel in Io. 10. v. 30. For Luther said his soule hated the vvorde omousion or consubstantial and Caluin expoundeth these places which make most for the consubstantiality as the olde Arrians did Likewise Luther lib. cont Cochleum an 1523. said Infants are not at al to be baptized if they do not beleeue And lib. de capt Babil c. de bapt Sacraments profit no body but faith alone And Caluin wil not haue the Caluin Io. 3. words Ioan 3. v. 5. which made the very Pelagians to graunt necessity of baptizing Ex
August l. 1. de pecc mer. remiss c. 30. Infants to be meant of baptisme Hereupon the Anabaptists who deny baptisme Balthasar Pacimontan apud Coclâ—um in ostis Lutheri See Posseâ—in de athâ—ismis Haerâ—ticorum of children professe that they learnt their doctrine from Luther and the new Arrians in Transiluania who deny the Trinity and consubstantiality of Christ in their disputation with Protestants appealed to Caluins iudgement professed they receaued their doctrine from him And Smidelin a Smidelin in refutat blasphemae apolog Danaei 1583. great Protestant writeth That it is no maruel that very many Caluinists in Transiluany Poleland and Hungary became Arrians and of Arrians soone after Mahometans 6. But sport it is to heare Bel answer an Bel p. 140. obiection which is the grouÌ„de of the Anabaptists Infants haue no faith Ergo they are not to be baptized First he saith they haue faith that their faith profession is to be baptised of faithful parents in vnity of the Catholique Church After he denyeth them to haue faith in act but to haue faith fundamentally and by inclination How these answers agree let the Reader iudge I would know of him First whence he hath this new point of faith that baptized infants haue to be borne of faithful parents Are none borne of heretiks or Infidels Secondly How they make profession of it by words or deeds and whether Bel by their profession could discerne a baptised infant from one vnbaptized Thirdly how infants can be iustified by faith alone and haue no Inclination to faith iustifyeth Infants according to Bel. Scripture containeth virtually al points of Christian faith See Staplet Relect. controu 5. q. 5. art 1. S Austin l. 1. cont Crescon c. 33. Nullum mihi sacrameÌ„tum aut sermo aliquis admodum obscurior de sacris literis aperitur vbi non eadem praecepta reperio August epist 119. Propter duo praecepta charitatis sensisse Maist quicquid in illis libris sensit nisi crediderimus mendacem facimus Deum August 12. confess c. 25. tom 1. faith in act but only an inclination therto Surely they can haue instification no otherwise then they haue faith and therfore if they haue not faith in act they can haue no iustification in act but only be inclined to it as they are inclined to faith 7. Second conclusion Al points of Christian faith are vertually conteyned in Scripture First because it teacheth vs to belieue the Church which teacheth actually al points of Christian faith and therfore Scripture vertually teacheth vs al. Hereupon wrote S. Austin That in doing what the Church teacheth we holde the truth of Scriptures albeit they afforde no example thereof because we therin follow the Church which the Scripture vndoubtedly sheweth Secondly because the end of al Gods worde whether written or vnwritten is loue of him selfe aboue al things and of our neighbour as our selfe as appeareth by that 1. Timoth. 1. v. 5. The end of the precept is charity and Rom. 13. v. 8. who loueth his neighbour hath fulfilled the law and to the better comprehending and obtayning of this end he referreth al whatsoeuer he reuealed and this end being contayned in Scripture it followeth that the Scripture doth vertually contayne as a cause doth the effect al points of faith 8. And hereupon also it followeth that al the rest of Gods worde whether written or vnwritten may be called an explication of the foresaid coÌ„mandements because it contayneth nothing but which is vertually contayned in these commandements thereto referred by God as to their end which our Sauiour meant when he said In Matth. 22. v. 40. these tvvo commandements al the lavv and Prophets hange because of them depend as of their end al the rest which the law and Prophets contayne And hereupon said S. S. Epiphan Epiphan haer 65. That we may tel the inuention of euery question out of the consequeÌ„ce of Scriptures He said not out of scripture For al can not be taken thence as him selfe writeth haer 61. but of the consequence of them because al questions are resolued out of the Scriptures or out of that which followeth of them as the effect of rhe cause And according to these two conclusions we may expound other Fathers when they say al things are contained in Scripture For either they meane not absolutely of al points of Christian faith nor of actual containing as appeareth by that other where they manifestely defend Traditions but either only of points necessary to be knowne of euery Christian or of vertual containing 9. Third conclusion Al points of Christian faith are not actually coÌ„tained in scripture Al points of Christian faith are not actually in the Scripture neither clearly nor obscurely neither in plaine words nor in meaning This conclusioÌ„ Bel seemeth to graunt pag. 118. where he admitteth of a thing although not expresly written yet vertually saith he and effectually contained in Scripture And the whole English Article 6. Cleargy defyne That what may be proued out of Scripture is necessary to be beleeued though it be not read But what can be proued what not they alone wil be iudges But whatsoeuer Protestants say I proue the conclusion For no where in Scripture it is sayd either in plaine words or in meaning That al the books chapters verses and sentences which in the Bible are admitted for Canonical are truly Canonical and Gods pure worde without the mixture of mans worde If Bel can finde any such place from the first of Genesis to the last of the Apocal let him name it And yet this is a point of Christian faith yea thereupon depende al the Articles we gather out of Scripture S. Austin For as S. Austin said epist 9. and 19. If any vntruth be founde in Scriptures vvhat authority S. Hierom. con Heluid S. Augustin haeres 84. 82. S. Epiphan haer 78. S. Hilar. in 1. Math. Can. 1. can they haue So if any part or parcel of the Bible be doubtful what certainty can the rest haue Secondly the perpetual virginity of our B. Lady is a matter of faith as appeareth by S. Hierom and S. Austin who accounted Heluidius and Iouinian heretiks for denying it and Protestants VVillet Tetract 2. piller part 3. p. 76. 77. confesse it And yet it is no where testifyed in Scripture Thirdly that the seauenth day coÌ„manded by God to be kepte holy is transferred lawfully from Saterday to Sunday is a matter of faith and yet no where actually warranted by Scripture For albeit S. Ihon Apoc. 1. 10. speake of our lords day yet he no where warranteth the said transferring See more in Bellarmin tom 1. lib. 4. de verbo Dei 10. Fourth Conclusion Al points of Al points of Christian faith can not be proued sufficiently and immediatly out of Scripture Christian faith can not be sufficiently and immediatly proued out of Scripture In this conclusion I say not
to Moyses law nor no otherwise prohibited therby then the rest of Scripture is 5. What hath bene said to the place of Deut. 4. may be applyed to the other place Deut. 12. if it be vnderstood of the moral law which God gaue to the Iewes But rather I thinke it is to be vnderstood of the Ceremonial law Both because it is not said absolutly what I command that only do as it would if it had bene meant of the Moral law but That only doe thou to the lord which words to the lorde insinuate the meaning to be only of the Ceremonial law manner of sacrifice to be done to God As also immediatly before God had forbidden the Iewes in their manner of worshipping him to imitate the ceremonyes of Gentils in worshipping their Gods because they had many abhominable vses as of sacrifizing their children and streight after concludeth what I command thee that only do thou to the lorde nether adde any thing nor deminish Wherby we see that the worde Command he extended only to sacrifices and ceremonyes which before he had prescribed to be done to him selfe and would haue therin no alteration at al. 6. Nether hindereth this that which Reinolds apol thes p. 207. Reinolds obiecteth That mention here is made of sacrificing children which is forbidden by the moral law For mention is made therof not as of a thing forbidden there but as of a reason of forbidding the Iewes in worshipping God to imitate Gentils because saith God they sacrifice children And of this Ceremonial law very likely it is that God absolutly Ceremonial lavv perfectly prescribed to the Ievves and vvhy would haue no addition or alteration at al to be made vntil it were quite abrogated by Christ And the like reason is not of Gods law concerning faith and manners For there being no such difference in the Ceremonies of the law but what some Iewes obserued al might alike expedient it was that al the Ceremonies should be prescribed at once to the end al might worship God after the same manner especially seeing the Iewes were as S. Paul writeth S. Paul Gal. 4. v. 1. 2. 3. litle ones nothing differing from seruants vnder tutours and gouernours and seruing vnder elements of the vvorlde And therfore had al the rudiments and ceremonies of religion most exactly prescribed vnto them by God with commandement to abstayne from any alteration 7. But seeing in matters of faith and VVhy the lavv touching saith and manners not prescribed al at once precepts of manners there is great difference because euen the same men are not capable at once of vnderstaÌ„ding al misteries as appeareth by our Sauiours words to his Apostles Ihon 16. v. 12. I haue many things to say vnto you but you can not carry them novv And much lesse are al men a like capable of the same misteryes And in like manner al men were not a like capable of the same precepts of life And therfore as S. Austin S. Augustin de sermon Domini in â—â—nte saith God gaue by Prophets the lesse precepts to that people vvhich vvas yet to be tyed vvith feare and greater precepts by his Sonne to a people vvhome he had agreed to free vvith loue Therfore it was not expedient that God should at once prescribe vnto men al that they were to beleeue or doe but at such tymes as seemed fit to his dyuine wisdome to adde therunto by his Prophets and Euangelists 8. Moreouer Bel alleadgeth Esay 8. Bel pag. 8â— v. 20. Ad legem magis ad testimonium Quod si non dixerint iuxta verbum hoc non erit â—is matutina lux Rather to the law and to the testimony If they speake not according to this worde ther shal not be morning light to them This place helpeth him nothing First because the Prophet nameth not only the law but testimony also which comprehendeth Gods vnwritten worde as appeareth Ioan. 3. v. 11. Ioan. 1. 7. 8. 15. 18. 1. Timoth. 6. Apoc. 12. Rom. 8 v. 16. Hebr. 11. v. 39. Act. 4. v 33. 1. Ioan. 5. v. 33. and other where and therfore maketh more for vs then against vs. Secondly because Esay doth not absolutly bid vs recurre to the law testimony but magis rather to them then to witches of whom he had immediatly forbidden vs to enquire Wherfore Bel in not englishing the worde magis as he did the rest corrupted of set purpose the Scripture to make it seeme magis more for his purpose Thirdly Corrupt of Scripture though by the law and testimony we vnderstood only Gods writteÌ„ worde the place maketh nothing against vs. For then Esay indeed should bid vs goe to Gods written worde which we refuse not to doe in al doubts wherin it resolueth vs but forbiddeth vs not to goe to any other which is as he saith iuxta verbum hoc agreable to this worde yea God him selfe commanded vs Deuter. Deutr. 32. v. 7. to aske our Fathers and elders Iob. and. Iob. 8 v. 8. to aske the ancient generation seeke out the memory of the Fathers Wherfore ether must Bel proue that the Churches Traditions are not iuxta verbum hoc agreable to Gods written worde which he shal neuer doe or he must know that God not only forbiddeth vs but rather commandeth vs to seeke after and follow them 9. S. Hierome alleadged by Bel only Bel pag. 89. S. Hierom. in c. 8. Esaiae saith absolutly That doubts may be resolued out of Scripture and who wil not seeke Gods worde shal abide in errour which is vndoubted truth but nothing against vs. But affirmeth not That al doubts may be determined out of Scripture and that we ought to seeke nothing els whatsoeuer Yea him selfe epist ad Marcel resolueth lent to be keapt only by Apostolical tradition And l. cont Heluid S. Hierom. bringeth not one place of Scripture to proue our B. Ladyes perpetual virginity against that hereticke though he bring many to shew that the places which the hereticke alledged conuince not the contrary And thus much touching Bels places out of the oulde Testament CHAP. III. Bels arguments out of the nevv Testament touching sufficiency of Scripture ansvvered HIs first place out of the new Testament Bel pag. 90. is Ioan. 20. v. 30. These are written that you may beleeue that Iesus is Christ the sonne of God that in beleeuing you might haue life through his name And biddeth vs obserue that S. Ihons Ghospel was written after al other Scriptures euen when the Canon of Scripture was compleat perfect and fully accomplished vz. about the 14 yeare of Domitian almost an 100. years after Christs ascension and thereby thinketh to auoyde al our sottish cauils as he tearmeth them Meaning forsooth that S. Ihon meant these words These are vvritten of the whole Canon of the Scripture 2. Omitting Bels manifest error where Tvvo grosse errors in Chronographie Baron An. 97. Onuphrius
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
contained Ergo it is truth But perhaps Bels dul head thought it al one to say Al conteined in Scripture is truth wherupon the said Syllogisme dependeth Scripture coÌ„teineth al truth As for S. Athanasius his reuerence of Traditions it is euident by his prouing S. Athanas l. de Nicen. Synod epist ad African apud Theodoret. lib. 1. c. 8. the Godhead of Christ and name of consubstantiality by Tradition by his words lib. de incarn verbi who sticketh to Traditions is out of danger 10. S. Epiphan he alleadgeth writing Bel pag. 98. S. Epiphan haer 65 Chapt. 1. parag 8. S. Epiphan That vve can tel the finding of euery question by consequence of Scripture But these words haue bene explicated before As for Tradition he saith haere 61. VVe must vse it for althings can not be taken out of Scripture For the Apostles haue deliuered some things by writing some things by Tradition The like he saith haere 55. and 75. S. Cyril he citeth where he saith That vve S. Cyrill lib. 2. de recta fid ad Regin must follovv Scriptures in nothing depart from their prescript This maketh not against vs who professe so to doe and yet Withal follow Traditions And what account S Cyril S. Cyril made of Traditions appeareth by his obseruing lent lib. 10. in leuit and vse of the Crosse lib. 6. in Iulian. which are Traditions Apostolical as witnes S. Ambros ser S. Ambros Tertullian 25. 34. 36. Tertul. de corona mil. and others 11. He citeth S. Chrisostome writing Bel pag. 98. Chrysost in psalm 95. That if any thing be spoken without Scripture the hearers mynde wauereth somtymes doubting somtymes asâ—enting otherwhile denying But maruel it is that Bel would touch S. Chrisostome S. Chrysost who hom 42. Thesal vpon these words Holde Traditions saith Hence it appeareth that the Apostles deliuered not althings by letters And the one as vvel as the other are worthy of the same credit wherfore we thincke the Churches Traditions to deserue beleefe It is a Tradition marke Bel aske no more And if Bel had cyted the words immediatly before he had explicated of what kinde of speaking without Scripture S. Chrisostom meant namely sine testibus solaque animi cogitatione vvithout vvitnesses and of his ovvne head But Churches Traditions haue her for witnes descend from the Apostles An other place he bringeth out of the same S Chrisostom as he Author imperf hom 41. in Math. saith but it is out of the Author imperfect who was a flat Arian and therfore his testimony is worth nothing otherwise then he agreeth with holy fathers though his saying cyted by Bel That al is fulfilled in Scripture vvhich is sought to saluation may be explicated by the first or second conclusion 12. Next he bringeth S. Ambrose bidding Bel pag. 98. S. Ambros 1. de fide ad Gratian. c. 4. vs not to beleeue argument and disputations but aske the Scriptures Apostles Prophets and Christ This maketh rather for vs because it alloweth enquiring of others besides Scriptures namely of Apostles from whom the Churches Traditions came And nothing against Traditions because they be no arguments or disputations And indeed S. Ambrose meaneth of humane arguments and reasons such as in the Chapter before he said the Arians vsed to proue Christ to be vnlike to his Father Besides he speaketh only concerning one point vz. the consubstantiality of Christ And therfore though he had bidden vs therin seeke only Scripture he had nothing preiudicated Traditions which plainly he maintaineth ser 25. 34. 36. 38. epist S. Ambros 81. and other where Only I maruel wherfore Bel corrupted S. Ambrose his words Corrupt of Fathers For where he saith vve deny yea abhorre Bel maketh him say vve deny not but abhorre Making S. Ambros teach heresy in graunting Christ to be vnlike his Father which was the matter he spake of and to speake absurdly in abhorring a speech which he doth not deny 13. S. Basil he citeth saying vvhatsoeuer is Bel pag. 99. S. Basil in Ethic. defin vlt ad Eustachium â—icdicum extra scripturam out of the Scriptue seeing it is not of faith is sinne And in an other place Let vs stand to the iudgment of Scripture and let the truth be iudged on their side whose doctrine is agreeable to Gods oracles Answer In the first place by extra scripturam he vnderstandeth things contrary to Scripture as in the same place he vnderstandeth with the Apostle by non ex fide things contrary to faith as appeareth both because he saith such things are sinne which is not true of things which are barely beside Scripture as also because he proueth such things to be sinne because they be non ex fide contrary to faith as the Apostle speaketh Rom. 14. v. 23. Beside by Scripture he vnderstandeth al Gods words as vsually we vnderstand the whole by the cheefest part Which may be proued because before he defined faith to be certaine persuasion of Gods vvorde affirmed it to a rise of hearing Gods worde and therupon inferreth what is beside Scripture is not of faith In which illation if he tooke not Scripture for Gods whole worde as he did in the Antecedent he did manifestly paralogize And thus vnderstood he speaketh nothing against Traditions which are part of Gods worde and as him selfe saieth otherwhere of as equal S. Basil lib. de Spir. c. 27. 29. force as the written worde is 14. The second place maketh nothing to the purpose For he biddeth not vs be iudged by only Scripture yea in allowing those opinioÌ„s for true which are agreable to Scripture he insinuateth that to discerne the truth of opinioÌ„s it is not necessary to proue them out of Scripture so they be consonaÌ„t thereto How earnest a defender of Traditions S. Basil was appeareth lib. de spir c. S. Basil 29 I thincke quoth he it an Apostolical thing to sticke vnto Traditions not written and c. 27. Some doctrine vve haue by writing some vve receaued of the Apostles Tradition and both haue equal force to piety Nor any contradicteth these marke Bel vvho neuer so slenderly haue experienced the rights of the Church And c. 10. he writeth That Hereticks abolish Apostolical Tradition A Trick of Heretiks to reiect tradition Bel pag 99. S. Hierom. and reiect vvritten testimonyes of Fathers as of no account 15. The last Father he citeth is S. Hierom out of whom he alleadgeth three places The first is in math 23. This because it hath no authority from Scripture is as easely reiected as it is affirmed The second is in psal 86. where vpon that verse Dominus narrabit in scripturis populorum he saith God vvil shew not by worde but by Scripture that excepting the Apostles what is said afterward shal haue no authority The third place is in Hierem. c. 4. That we must not follow the error of our Auncestors or parents
to preach and testify his truth to infidels to whom if she be no fit witnes the fault is in God to send such insufficient witnesses as infidels are not bound to beleeue 6. And Bel is far deceaued in thinking that seeing or hearing make men sufficient witnesses of deuine and infallible truth or VVhat maketh sufficient vvitnesses of Gods truth the want of them maketh insufficient For not humane sense vvhich is subiect to error and deceit but Gods deuine assistance maketh men infallible and sufficient witnesses of his truth and the want of this insufficient Wherfore S. Mathew was as sufficient a witnes of Christs natiuity which he saw not as of other things he saw and S. Luke as sufficient a witnes of the things he wrote by hear say as S. Ihon who saw and heard almost al he wrote because they were equally assisted by God in their writing And in like sort the Church of what tyme soeuer is equally a sufficient and infallible witnes of Christs truth though she be not an eye or eare witnes of his speeches and actions as the primatiue Church was Because Math. 28. v. 20. Ioan. 14. Math. 16. Christs promises of his presence and the holy Ghosts assistance and that the gates of Hel should not preuaile against her appertaine equally to the Church of al tymes 7. But suppose that the present Church could not be a fit witnes as the primatiue Bel ansvvereth not to the purpose was what is this to the argument that proueth necessity of Tradition because without testimony of the Church we can not discerne true Scripture from false This Bel should ether graunt or deny if he meant to answer to the purpose and not tel vs of an other matter vz. That the present Church can be no fit witnes whereof if it were true wold follow that we can beleeue no Scripture at al seeing we haue no other infallible external witnes of Scripture 8. His second answer is That as Papists Bel p. 134. admit the Iewes Tradition of the old Testament to be Gods word and vvithal refuse many other Traditions of theirs So Protestants admit this Tradition Bel admitteth tradition of the Bible to be Gods worde and reiect al other And pag. 128. He dareth not deny Traditions absolutly yea admitteth them when they be consonant to Scripture Behold the silly fox in the toyle We contend against Protestants That Scripture is not sufficient to proue al points of Christian faith but that Tradition is necessary for some and Bel here confesseth it where is now the downeful of Popery Me thinks it is become the down fal of Protestantry Where is now Bels first proposition pag. 86. 88. That Scripture conteineth in it euery doctrine necessary to mans saluation Where is now that pag. 87. vve must not adde to Gods vvritten vvorde if this Tradition must needs be added therto where is now that the present Church can be pag. 134. not fit vvitnes if by her testimony we come to know Gods truth Where is now the curse which S. Paul as thou saist pag. 117. pronounceth Bel cursed of S. Paul by his ovvne iudgement against him that preacheth any doctrine not conteined in Scipture where is now That Scripture is the sole and only rule of faith 9 But seeing the fox is in the toyle we pag. 128. must needs haue him preach and tel vs of whome he first had this Tradition Perhaps he wil confesse with his brother Doue that Protestants had the Bible as Gods worde Doue of Recusancy pag 13. from Papists Sure I am he can name no other of whome he first had it Likewise he must tel vs. How he beleeueth this Tradition Whether as fallible and humane truth or as infallible and deuine If as fallible and humane surely he can beleeue nothing in the Bible as deuine truth If as infallible and deuine truth surely the Papists Church for whose only testimony speaking of outward testimonies Protestants first beleeue as an infallible truth that the Bible was Gods worde hath infallible authority 10. Nether is Bels comparison true For we beleeue not the old testamēt to be Gods worde for any Tradition which the Iewes haue but which the Catholique Church hath from the Apostles their successors euen as S. Austin writeth from the very Cont. epist fundam c. 4. to 6. seat of Peter to whom our Lord commanded his sheepe to feed to this present Bishop who deliuered vnto the Church and she to vs as wel the olde as the new testament for Gods worde Let Bel if he list beleeue the old testament for the tradition of Iewes and if he can not finde the like vninterrupted tradition for the new testament but in the Papists Church let him confesse that for her authoriry he beleeueth this tradition as infallible truth and I aske no more 11. But what shift findeth he for this notorious contradiction in admitting one tradition and before impugning traditions in general Forsooth because as he saith and it is his fourth solution VVhen Protestants Bel p. 135. say Scripturs conteine al things necessary to saluation they speake of Scripturs already agreed vpon Protestants admit tradition to be such and so exclude not this tradition but vertually include it in their assertion Behold the fox againe in the toile admitting one tradition ful sore against his wil. O violence of truth saith S. Austin l. cont Donatist post Collar c. 24. stronger then any racke or torment for to wring out confession For here Bel in name of Protestants confesseth that Protestants ouerthrovv their ovvne arguments against traditions they must needs admit one tradition which not only ouerthroweth al their arguments against other traditions For why may they adde one tradition to Gods written worde rather then more why may they beleeue any thing out of Scripture and no more why is one tradition equal to Gods written worde and no more How is one tradition certaine and no more But also sheweth that ether they receaue this tradition for no authority at al but only because it pleaseth them or that they beleeue it as infallible verity for the authority which they account but fallible For I aske why they beleeue this tradition If they answer because it commeth from God I demand how they know that Not by the Bible as is euident If by the Church then I aske why they beleeue the Church rather in this tradition then in other and whether they beleeue her testimony to be infallible in this point or no And whatsoeuer they answer they must needs fal into the toile 12. His third solution is That the nevv Bel p. 135. Testament is but an exposition of the olde and therfore may be tryed and discerned by the same But Syr wil you indeed try the new testament Bel vvil examin Scriptures wil you take vpon you to iudge Gods worde Surely this pride exceedeth Lucifers this is
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
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
original sinne art 4. c. 2 parag 6. Reinolds proofe against him selfe art 7. c. 3. parag 3. Royal power far inferior to Pontifical art 1. c. 9. parag 31. Rome the top of high preisthood art 7. c. 13. parag 6. Romane religion aboue a thowsand years agoe out of Bel art 7. c. 10. parag 9. Romane Church alwaies kept the Apostles Traditions Rule of trying truth prescribed by the Councel of Trent art 7. c. 12. parag 4. S. SAbbath translation not warrented by Scripture art 7. c. â— parag 9. Sabbath translation warrented by Tradition art 7. c. 9. parag 4. Sacrament of Eucharist improperly called Christs body art 2. c. 4. parag 14. B Sacrament boâ—h a sacrifice and a testament art 2 c. 4. parag 6. Sacrifice requireth not killing a. 2. c. 3 par 8. Sacrificing of flesh by Preists hands allowed by Bel art 2 c. 4. parag 13. no Sacriledge to dispute oâ— the Popes power art 1 c 9 parag 34. Sadduces erred for ignorance both of Scripture and Gods power art 7 c. 11. par 3. Salâ—mon deposed not Abiathar art 1. c. 5. parag 10. Samuel cold not discerne Gods word from mans word but by Hely his teachâ—ng arâ— 7. c. 9. parag 13. Saints honor an Apostolical Tradition art 7. c. to parag 11. Satisfaction supposeth remission of sinns art 5. c. 6. parag 5. Search the Scripâ—urs explicated art 7. c. 11. parag 3. Scripturs and the Churches authority differ art 7. c. 9. parag 23. Scripture beleeued both for Gods and the Churches testimony art 7. c. 9. par 18. Scripture how of it selfe worthy of credit art 7. c. 9. parag 18. Scripture the storehouse of truth art 7. c. 5. parag 1. Scripture hath al points actually to be beleeued of euery one art 7. c 1. parag 2. Scripture conteineth virtually not actuâ—lly al points of Christian faith art 7. c. 1. parag 7. 9. Scripture can not sufficiently immediatly proue al points of faith a. 7. c 1. par 10. Scripture how able to make men wise to saluation art 7. â— 3 parag 8. Scripture no poison but food of liâ—e art 7. c. 7. parag 18. Scripture easy in things necessâ—ry to euery ones saluation art 7. c. 6. parag 1. Scripture absolutly hard ibid. Scripture more in sense then in words art 7. c 9. parag 14 Scripture not so clearly discerned as light from darknes art 7. c. 9. parag 15. Scripture why called a lantherne or light art 7. c. 9. parag 17. Scripturs vulgar reading what monsters it hath bred in England art 7. c. 7. parag 2. Seruice of God in the old law some tyme nether heard nor seene of the people art 7. c. 8. parag 3. Seruice in an vnknowne tong discommended only of idiots and infidels art 7. c. 8. parag 2. Sinne habitual what it is art 4 c. â— parag 3. Sinne some of it nature breaketh frendship with God some not art 6. c. 1 par 6. Sinne ordinarily taken only for mortal art 6. c. 2. parag 1. Socrates his error art 7. c. 10 parag 5. S. Steeuen P. defined not the controuersy about rebaptization art 7. c. 12. parag 1. Superior and inferior not contradictions but relatiues and may be verifyed of the same thing art â— c. 6. parag 2. T. S. Thomas how he called our keeping the commandements imperfect art 8. c. 2. parag 3. Traditions of three kinds art 7. chap. 9. parag 1. Traditions which impugned by Bel ibid. which defended in this booke ibid. Traditions ther are conteining things necessary to saluation art 7. c. 9. par 1. Traditions how they are explications of the law art 7. c. 2. parag 4. Tradition admitted by Bel art 7. chap. 9. parag 8. Traditions how they are additions to Scripture how not art 7. c 2. parag 3. 4. Traditions apostolical certain and vndoubted art 7. c. 10. parag 1. Traditions Apostolical not to be examined by Scripture art 7. c. 11. parag 1. Traditions how they may be examined by the Church art 7. c. 11. parag 1. Traditions how to be examined out of Tertullian art 7. c. 11. parag 1. Traditions auouched by the Fathers art 7. c. 4. per tot Traditions defended by S. Paul and S. Ihon art 7. c. 9. parag 1. 2. Traditions in S. Cyprians daies sufficient proofe of doctrin art 7. c. 12. parag 1. Tradition of Easter certein a. 7. c. 10. par 3. Tradition of as equal force to piety as Scripture art 7. c. 4 parag 13. 14. Tradition reiected by old heretiks art 7. c. 4. parag 1. Treason disannulleth not the gift art 1. c. 6 parag 3. Truth euidently knowne to be preferred before authority art 7. c. 9. parag 23. Truth what and how to be tryed art 7. c. 12. parag 4. V. VAlew of the Masse art 2. c. 4. parag 9. Variety of fasting lent rose of ignorance or negligence art 7. c. 10. par 5. Venial sinns admitted by Bel art 6. chap. 1. parag 1. Venial sinne why not against the law art 6. c. 1. parag 8. Venial sinne such of his nature art 6. c. 1. parag 2. Voluntary in the origen what it is art 4. c. 1. parag 11. Voluntary motion of euil why expresly forbidden in the tenth commandement art 4. c. 3. parag 10. Vse and abuse of a thing to be distinguished art 7. c. 10. parag 11. W. VVItnesses sufficient of Gods truth by what made art 7. chap. 9. parag 6. Wemen ought to be instructed of men art 7. c. 7. paragr 5. Wemen may teach in case of necessity or perticuler inspiration art 7. chap. 7. parag 13. Words of consecration when and how they worke their effect a. 2. c. 6. parag 5. Worshipping an vnconsecrated host vpon ignorance no offence art 2. c. 6. par 8. Wiats rebellion defended and praised by Protestants art 1. c. 3. parag 6. X. XArisma wel translated by grace art 5. c. 4. parag 4. FINIS
Controuersies handled in this booke 1. Of the Popes supremacie Article 1. through out 2. Of the real presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the Alter Article 2. chap. 1. 2. 3. Of the Sacrifice of Masse Art 2. chap. 3. 4. 5. 6. 4. Of the Popes dispensations Article 3. through out 5. Of Original sinne concupiscence Article 4. through out 6. Of merit of good workes Art 8. through out 7. Of the distinction of mortal and venial sinns Art 6. through out 8. Of the sufficiencie of the holy Scripture Art 7. cap. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 9. Of the difficultie of Scripture Ibid. chap. 6. 10. Of the vulgar peoples reading of scripture in vulgar tonges Ibid. c. 7. 11. Of the translating of holy Scripture into vulgar tonges Ibid. c. 8. 12. Of Traditions Art 7. chap. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. Of the authority of late general counsayles ibid. chap. 13. 14. Of the oathes of Bishops Ibid. chap. 14. 15. Of the possibility of keeping Gods commandments Art 8. through out TO THE MOST HIGHE AND MIGHTIE PRINCE IAMES By the grace of God King of great Britanie France and Ireland Defendor of the Faith YF S. Paul Most Gratious Soueraigne being accused of the whole Synagog of the Iewes by their Orator Tertullus of diuers heynous crimes both against Gods and the Princes lawes found notwithstanding such equitie in the heathen President Festus as that he answered his aduersaries that it was not the Romans custome to coÌ„demne Act. 2â— any man before he haue his accusers present and place to make his answer and also such fauour at the The like reporteth Plutarch of K. Alexan. the great Act. 26. Iewish King Agrippa his hands as he both licenced him to speake for him selfe afforded him fauorable audience Much more cause haue your Maiesties Catholique Subiects being accused of the ministers by a hyred spokesman Bel to expect the like yea greater fauor equitie at your Graces handes For if the Romans though Heathens thought it iniustice to condemne any particular man at the clamors of a whole nation before his accusers were present and his defence were heard And if King Agrippa albeit He killed S. Iames and emprisoned S. Peter Act. 12. a Iew persecutor of Christians deemed it notwithstanding a Princes part to geueÌ„ audience to one accused of that Religion which he both hated and persecuted How much more wil a Christian Prince forbeare to condemne the vniuersal cause of his Catholique subiects at the slaunders and outcries of ministers one hyred Proctor before their accusers be brought face to face and they haue time and place graunted to answer for them selues wherein we shal account our selues more happy then S. Paul because we shal plead our cause not before a Iewish but a Christian King such a one as better knowerh the questions and customes of the Christians then King Agrippa did of the Iewes VVherfore seeing that of late Thomas Bel a fugitiue once from Protestants religion as he is now from Catholiques hath not only accused but also malitiously slaÌ„dered the vniuersal Catholique cause in a booke which he hath dedicated to your Maiestie termed it the Dovvnefall of Poperie and withal challengeth dareth yea adiureth in which case our B. Sauiour Matth. 26. though with danger of his life made answer al English Iesuits Seminary Priests and as he speaketh Iesuited Papists to answer him I haue presumed vpon your Gratious fauour to accept his chaleng and am ready to performe it hand to hand if your Maiestie graunt licence and in the meane time to dedicate to your Name this my confutation of his arguments and slaunders VVherin I speake not for my selfe as S. Paul did before King Agrippa but for the religion of your owne Progenitors and Predecessors for the faith of our Forefathers for the cause of al Catholiques and for the good I dare say of your Maiesties owne person kingdoms For though Bel calumniate Christian Kinges and pag. 17. Emperors with opening the window to al Antichristian tyranny and Catholiques generally with thinking p. 1. 22. Christ to be killed a thousand times a day and the like yet especially he slandereth the Popes with vsurping power proper to God and to depose Princes and dispose of their kingdomes at his pleasure therby to alienate your mind from the Sea Apostolike wherin he not onely abuseth your patieÌ„ce with telling you vntruths but greatly harmeth and endamageth your selfe and Realme by endeuoring through Vir Apostata prauo corde machinatur maluÌ„ omni tempore iurgia Seminat â—ouer c. 6. his false slanders to auert your minde from the Popes who haue bene the most ancient most assured and most beneficial frends which the Kinges Realme of England euer had VVhich thing that I may make manifest vnto your Grace I humbly beseech you geue me leaue to set downe some praticular examples of the mutual amitie kind offices benifites which haue euer bene betwixt the Popes and the Princes of this land VVherein if I be somewhat longer then men in Epistles The loue benefits of Popes to England and Kings therof S. Peter P. vse to be I hope that the varietie and profit of the matter wil make requital Not long after the Apostolike Seat was settled in Rome S. Peter the first Pope about the 63. yeare of Christ came hither as not only Gretians but Metaphrast tract de Pet. Paul apud Lippoman Cambden in descrip Britanâ—â— p. 52. And Nicephor as he saieth Protestants also confesse stayed here a long time conuerted many Nations to Christs faith erected Churches ordered Bishops and Priests and being admonished of an Angel returned from hence to Rome to suffer Martyrdome Neither was this loue to our Countrie extinguished by death but as he promised to some so he had it 2. Pet. 1. also in mind after his death and miraculously assisted it in the greatest distresses So that truly wrote S. Sergius Malmesbur lib. 1. Pont. Angl. p. 209. 1. Pope vnto our Kings of England almost a thousand yeares agoe that S. Peter was mindful of them Pope Alexander 3. to King Henry 2. â—ugubin de donat CoÌ„st that England was vnder S. Peters protection euer since Christs name was glorified there For when our country about the yeare 611. began to Apostatate from the faith of Christ and the Bishops were determined to forsake the land S. Perer appearing to Sainct Laurence Arch-bishop of Canturbury did seuerly rebuke and scourge him because he would abandon the flocke which I said S. Peter coÌ„mitted vnto thee This miracle is so certaine as some ProtestaÌ„ts confesse it though Gadvvin in the life of S. Laurence some others wil not beleue it because they haue neither seene nor put their singers into S. Laurence his wounds yet it may suffice any indifferent man that it was auouched by S. Laurence beleeued by King Edbald his people lib. 2. hist
had once deceaued you in a mony matter you wold beware how you trusted them again and wil you beleeue them stil they hauing by their owne confession hitherto deceaued you both in your Church seruice Bible commending the one to you as diuine seruice and the other as Gods pure word and now condemning them both Open your eyes for the passion of Christ and seeing publike conference wil not be graunted where we might lay open vnto you the deceits of your Ministers help your selfs as wel as you may read with indifferency such books as are written for this purpose make earnest intercession to God to see the truth grace to follow it when you haue found it which God of his goodnes graunt Farewel 2. Februar 1605. Thy seruant in Christe IESV S. R. A TABLE OF THE ARTICLES AND CHAPTERS ARTICLE I. Of the Popes Superiority BELS argument against the Popes superiority answered diuers his vntruths and dissimulations therin discouered Chapt. 1. The opinion of Protestants touching Princes supremacy set down Chapt. 2. The opinion of Protestants touching deposition of Princes Chapt. 3. The practise of Protestants touching deposition of Princes Chapt. 4. Bels proofes of his assumption against the Popes superiority answered Chapt. 5. Bels answer to an argument of Catholiks for the Popes superiority confuted Chap. 6. Some of Bels slaunderous vntruths disproued Chapt. 7. Certain fals steps of a ladder which Bel imagineth the Pope had to clime to his superiority disproued Chapt. 8. The rest of Bels fals steps and slaunderous vntruths in this article disproued Chap. 9. ARTICLE 2. Of the Masse Bels reason against the real presence of Christ in the B. Sacrament answered his vntruth and dissimulation therin discouered Chapt. 1. Authorities alleadged by Bel against the real presence answered Chapt. 2. Masse proued Bels argumēt against it answered his manifold vntruths therin disproued Chap. 3. The rest of Bels arguments against the Masse confuted Chap. 4. Berengarius his recantation explicated and S. Austins authority answered Chap. 5. Bels imaginary contradictions in the Masse answered and true contradictions in his communion shewed Chap. 6. ARTICLE III. Of the Popes Dispensations Chapt. 1.  ARTICLE IIII. Of original concupiscence in the regenerate The Catholike doctrin touching concupiscence explicated and proued Chap. 1. Diuers vntruths of Bel disproued his arguments out of S. Paul against the doctrin of the former Chapter answered Chap. 2. Bels arguments out of S. Austin touching concupiscence answered Chap. 3. Bels arguments out of S. Ambros S. Bede S. Thomas touching concupiscence answered Chap. 4. ARTICLE V. Of the merit of good vvorks Of the Protestanis enmity to good works and frendship with euil Chap. 1. Of Bels positions touching good works Chap. 2. The Catholiks doctrin touching merit particulerly set downe and proued Chapt. 3. Bels arguments out of Scripture against condigne merit answered Chap. 4. Bels arguments out of holy Fathers against condigne merit answered Chap. 5. Bels arguments out of late Catholik writers against condigne merit answered Chap. 6. ARTICLE VI. Of the distinction of mortal and venial sins The true distinction proued and Bels obiection answered Chapt. 1. A text of S. Ihon epist 1. explicated Chap. 2. ARTICLE VII The Catholike doctrin touching sufficiency of Scripture propounded proued certaine vntruths of Bel disproued Chap. 1. Bels arguments out of the old testamēt concerning the sufficiency of Scripture answered Chap. 2. Bels arguments out of the new testament touching sufficiency of Scripture answered Chap. 3. Bels arguments out of Fathers touching sufficiency of Scripturs and Traditions answered Chap. 4. Bels arguments out of late Catholik writers touching sufficiency of Traditions and Scripture answered Chap. 5. Of the difficulty or easynes of Scripture Chap. 6. Of the vulgar peoples reading Scripture Chap. 7. Of the translation of Scripture into vulgar tongs Chap. 8. Of Apostolical Traditions whether ther be any or none Chap. 9. Of the certainty of Apostolical Traditiōs Chap. 10. Of the examination of Traditions Chap. 11. Bels arguments out of Fathers about the examination of Traditions answered Chap. 12. Of the authority of late general Coūcels Chap. 13. Of the oath which Bishops vse to make vnto the Pope Chapt. 14. ARTICLE VIII Of keeping Gods commandements The possibility of keeping Gods commandements explicated and proued out of Scripture Chap. 1. The possibility of keeping Gods commandements proued out of Fathers and reason Chap. 2. Bels arguments out of Scripture against the possibility of keeping Gods commandements answered Chapt. 3. Bels arguments out of Fathers against the possibility of keeping Gods commandements answered Chapt. 4. THE FIRST ARTICLE OF THE POPES SVPERIORITY CHAPT I. Bels arguments against the Popes Superiority ansvvered diuers his vntruthes and dissimulations therin discouered BEL like a man in great choler and very desirous to encounter with his enemie beginneth his chalenge very abruptly hastily yet not forgetting his scholerschip or ministerie he geueth the onset with a syllogisme ful charged with vntruthes dissimulacions You Papistes saith 3. Vntruthes 2. dissimulations he tel vs that the Pope is aboue al powers and potentates on earth that he can depose Kinges Emperours from their royal thrones and translate their empires and regalities at his good wil and pleasure But this doctrin is false absurde nothing else but a mere fable And conseqently Romish Religion consisteth of meere falsehoods fables flat leasinges 2. Not without cause gentle Reader hath Bel proposed these bloudy questions of the Popes supremacie and deposition of Princes in his first article and placed them in the forefront of his battel for he hopeth that they wil be his best bulwarke and surest defense in the combate that in such lystes he shal not fight alone but assisted with the Princes sworde wherein he dealeth with Catholiques as Puritanes which Conference at Hampton Court pag. 82. 83. his Maiesty prudently obserueth doe vvith protestants vvho because they could not othervvise make their partes good against protestants appeale to his supremacie And as the old Arians Ambr. epist 32. victor lib. 1. de preste◠vandol did who euermore accused the Catholiques as iniurious to the Prince which they al learne of the Iewes who being vnable to disprooue Christs doctrine endeuoured to bring him into the compasse of treason and Matth. 22. v. 17. at last procured his death as enemy to Cesar Wherfore ymitating the example of our Sauiour when the like question was propounded to seeke his bloud I answere Bel briefelie That what is Cesars we ought to Luc. 20. v. 25. geue to Cesar and what is Gods to God and what is Gods Vicars to Gods Vicar Onely because Bel in his said syllogisme chargeth Catholiques most falsely withal dissembleth the opinion of protestantes touching the supremacie and deposition of Princes I wil disproue his vntruthes and discouer his dissimulations and afterward compare the opinion and practise of Protestants Catholiques touching this matter
heauen keeping his riches Ergo a Camel keeping his greatnes through a needles eye The Proposition is euident out of our Sauiours words Math 19. v. 24. 26. The Assumption is manifest and approued by S. Austin epist 89. quaest S. Augustin tom 2. 4. And the same S. Austin lib. de spir lit c. 1. and Nazian Orat. 36. affirme that it is S. Gregor Nazianz. possible for God to draw a Camel through a needles eye Thirdly God made the fornace Daniel 3. of Babilon though neuer so hote not to heate yea to refresh the three children why then can he not make a great body to occupy but a smale roome For to occupy place is an effect and accident of quantity as to heate is of heate Moreouer nature by condensation doth make a body to occupy lesse roome then is due vnto it as appeareth in the freesing of water and this it doth with out destroying any quantity therof as many excellent Philosophers euen by natural reason do gather And can not God work the like effect without condensation by some other supernatural meanes Finally Bel teacheth that euery sinne of it nature Bel art 6. p. 81. excludeth grace and yet God of his power maketh some sinne to stād with grace why then can he not make quantity to exclude no body out of the place though of it nature it should so doe And thus much touching Bels reason Now let vs see his authorities CHAP. II. The Authorities alledged by Bel against the Real Presence ansvvered AFTER the forsaid reason he alledgeth Bel pag. 20. some few authorities The first is of Caietan who affirmed as Angles saith he reporteth That ther is no text that conuinceth the Reader to vnderstand these words This is my body properly But Bel greatly wrongeth both Caietan and Angles in changing the word Heretik into Reader For Angles in 4. q. 4. attributeth that opinion to Caietan onely concerning Heretiks and addeth q. 5. that he seemeth to haue recalled it But how conuincent Luther ep ad Argentinenses vid. Bellarm. lib. 1. de Euch. c. 1. the Scripture is in this point let Bel learne of Luther writing That he vvas willing to deny the real presence and endeuored vvithal his povver but could not satisfy the Scripture 2. But suppose Caietan had said as Bel alledgeth what then Doth he therfore deny the real presence or think those words not to be vnderstood properly no surely yea he plainly auoucheth both Or doth Bel think that euety point of faith is so euidētly delyuered in Scripture as the very words suffice to cōuince any reader though neuer so obstinate why then are not al heretiks cōuerted by reading Scripture yea why admytteth Bel p. 134. 135. he a tradition which is not at al in Scripture If not why inferreth he the Scripture not to teach the real presence if it teach it not clearly 3. The second is S. Tho Aquinas whoe S. Thom. 4. d. 10. q. 1. art 1. Bel p. 20. saith he affirmeth constantly Corpus Christi non esse in pluribus locis simul secundum proprias dimensiones that Christs body is not in many places at once according to the proper dimensions therof Whose assertion saith Bel is my flat position But Bel herein 1. contradicteth him Contradict 9. vntruth 32. selfe 2. belyeth S. Thomas 3. vnderstandeth him not He contradicteth him selfe for before he said Aquinas held constantly as an article of the Christian faith that the true body of Christ is truly and really in the Sacrifice of the Masse now he saith that he affirmeth constantly an assertion which is Bels flat position to the contrary How can Aquinas hold constantly two contradictory points He belyeth Aquinas for he is so far from maintayning Bels position as in the very place which Bel citeth his conclusion is this Vnder the Sacrament of the altar is contayned the true body of Christ which he tooke of the virgin and to say the contrary is heresie Lastly he vnderstandeth not Aquinas Bel vnderstandeth not Aquinas For he thinketh that Aquinas by the forsaid words meaneth that Christs body can not be in many places at once with his proper dimensions therupon inferreth that Aquinas thinketh Christs body can not be in many places at once because saith Bel it can not be without those dimensions which naturally pertayne vnto it But to omit Bels impious assertion that God can not keep a body without his natural appurtenances Aquinas meaning is playne and euident vz. That the total cause of Christs body being in two places at once is not his owne dimēsions alone but they together with the dimensions of the body conuerted into his body For he thinketh Christs owne dimensions to be the cause of his being in that place where he is naturally and the dimensions of the body which is transubstantiated the cause of his being where he is Sacramentally Which opinion of his about the cause of Christs being in many places maketh nothing to this purpose 4. Thirdly he citeth Durand whom he Bel p. 20. Contradict 10. vntruth 33. p. 34. saith holdeth the very same opinion But in this also he both contradicteth him selfe belyeth Durand For in the fourth member of this article he telleth vs that Durand holdeth the forme of bread to be changed vz. into the body of Christ True it is that Durand as before I cited thinketh the quantity of Christs body not to be in the Eucharist yet neuertheles most constantly he both affirmeth and proueth the substance of his body to be there 5 Fourthly he alledgeth S. Austin writing pag. 20. S. Aug. epist 57. ad Dardanum De consecrat dist 2. con Prima quidem lib. 20. cont Faustum c. it tom 6. That Christ as man is in aliquo loco Coeli propter veri corporis modum in some place of heauen for the manner of a true body Again His body must be in one place Item He can not be at once in the Sun Moone and on the crosse according to corporal presence But in al these places he speaketh of the natural manner of bodies being in place as appeareth both by those words propter veri corporis modum and because he disputeth against the Manichists who Ex August epist cit douted as the Protestant vbiquists doe now that because Christs body was vnited to his Godhead it therby became euery where as God is which saith S. Austin Ibid. is to destroy the nature of a true body nether follovveth it saith he that vvhat is in God be euery vvhere as God is 6. But that Christs body being naturally in one place might be Sacramentally in an other S. Austin neuer doubted yea expresly S. Augustin tom 8. affirmeth ser 1. in psal 33. where he saith That Christ at his last supper carried him selfe in his ovvn hands secundum literam that is truly and properly and as no other man can carry him selfe And lib
That no points of Christian faith nor that al can not by some way or other be proued by some similitude congruity or probable illation nor that immediatly by testimony of the Church whose testimony in al doctrine of faith can be immediatly proued out of Scripture But only deny that al can be immediatly proued out of scripture by the very words of Scripture and so sufficiently as it sufficeth to captiuate our vnderstanding Articles 39 decreed by Bishops and Ministers 1562. and 1571. into obedience of faith This is directly against the sixt Article of Protestants faith and against Bel in this whole Article But I prooue it as I did the former conclusion For there is no place of al the Scripture which sufficiently proueth al the test Al thinges can not be taken out of Scripture Epiphan haer 61. to be Canonical our B. Lady to be a perpetual virgin and the Sabbath to be lawfully translated from Saterday to Sunday And it shal be more euident out of that which we shal say of Traditions and in answer to Bels arguments For the present it sufficeth that it is so cleare as our very aduersaries do somtime confesse it As See Couel art 4. p. 31. Hooper vvith him Bel p. 134. 135. Luther See Roffens con Luther verit 4. Bellarm. lib. 4. de verb. Dei c. 4. col 164. Luther certaine of Purgatory Bel pag. 134. and 135. art 7. admitteth one point of faith which is not in the Bible professeth that they meane not of it when they say al things necessary to saluation are contained in Scriptures And Luther art 37. said That purgatory can not be proued out of Scripture and yet in the assertion of the same he said That he was certaine there was Purgatory nor cared much what Hereticks babled to the contrary Now let vs come to Bels obiections which albeit for the most part be against Traditions yet because the matters of sufficiency of Scripture and of Traditions are connexed and because we wil keepe his order as much as we can we wil here answer them in that order as they are propunded by him CHAP. II. Bels arguments out of the oulde Testament concerning the sufficiency of Scripture ansvvered Bel citeth dyuers places which make Bel pag. 86. 87. 88. 89. nothing for absolute sufficiency of Scriptures or against Traditions but only bid vs obey and follow the law as Iosue 1. v. 7. and 23. v. 6. Malach. 4. v. 4. omitting therfore these places I answer to other as Deuter. 4. v. 2. and Prouerb 30. v. 6. where God forbiddeth vs to adde to his worde and Deuter. 12. v. 32. where we are bidden to doe to the lorde onely that which he commandeth without adding or taking avvay First that these places make as much against Protestants as Catholicks For they admit one vnwritten Tradition as Bel confesseth and appeareth Bel p. 134. 135. Brent in prolegom Kemnit in examin Conc. Trid. by Brentius Kempnitius the Deane of the chappel and the places cyted by Bel forbid as wel the adding of one thing as of many to Gods worde 2. Secondly I answer that they make nothing against these Traditions which Bel impugneth vz. such as are necessary to Bel pag 86. in praesat Articuli mans saluation for such are indeed Gods worde though vnwritten For the two first places only forbid adding to Gods worde any thing of our owne head or which is mans worde as may be proued First by the reason of the forbiddance prouerb 30. cit vz. least we be disproued and fownde lyers as no doubt we might by adding mans worde which is subiect to lye but not by adding Gods Worde which can neuer proue vntrue though it be not written Secondly because the Iewes did euer adde one thing to Gods written worde as Bel confesseth Conference at Hampton Court p 68. pag. 134. and the Deane of the chappel affirmed they added both signes and words vnto the institution of the Passouer prescribed vnto them by Moyses which addition and Tradition of Ievves added signes and vvords to Gods vvord and their addition confirmed by Christ. theirs saith he was approued by our Sauiour at his last supper And this doctrine was exceeding wel liked in the conference at Hampton Court Thirdly because the Prophets and Euangelists did adde to Moyses law without breaking of the commādement in the aforesaid places 3. Bel answereth That the doctrine of the Bel pag. 89. Prophets is nothing els but an explication of the law But if by the worde explication he vnderstand only such as adde nothing to the sense or meaning of the law but only explicate in other words types or figures the bare meaning of the law he speaketh most absurdly For beside that it is spoken without any reason at al it is against reason and sense to say that al the books of Iosue Iudges Kings and Prophets adde no sense to the law of Moyses For where doth the law of Moyses tel vs of euery worde or action of euery particuler man or woeman recorded in the books of the oulde Testament written since the law was giuen where is euery worde or deede of euery perticuler person in the new Testament And although dyuers actions of Christ especially his death and passion was prefigured in the law yet the like can not be thought of euery action or speech of euery perticuler person so that the words or figures of Moyses law actually tolde whatsoeuer perticuler things ether Prophets or Euangelists euer wrote Wherfore S. Austin S. Austin lib. 1. retract c. 22. recalled what he had said lib. cont Adimant c. 3. That al the precepts and promises in the new Testament are in the oulde For certaine precepts there be saith he not figured but proper which are not found in the oulde Testament but in the new And for this cause Tertullian lib. cont Hermog Tertullian called the Ghospel a supply of the oulde Testament 4. But if Bel by the word explication Hovv traditions are explicatiōs of the lavv comprehend al such additions as though they adde to the sense and meaning of the law yet are ether of their nature or of the intention of the adder referred to the better vnderstanding comprehension and fulfilling of the law as al the reasons similitudes comparisons examples and sentences in an oration are explications of the theame therof because though they adde sense to the sense of the theam yet they al tend to the perfect comprehension of the theame I graunt al the writings of Prophets and Apostles to be explications of the law as hath bene explicated in the second conclusion Chapt. 1. parag 7. 8. but withal adde that the Traditions of the Church are such like explications For what they containe is in like sort referred as a meane to the end to the perfect vnderstanding and fulfilling of the said law and so they are no other additions
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.
bene a meere humane and mistaken tradition he saith Cometh it from our Lord or the Gospels authority Cometh it from the Apostles precepts or epistles For God witnesseth that the things are to be done which are written and proposeth to Iesus Name saying Let not the booke of this law depart from thy mouth but thou shalt meditate therin day and night that thou mayst obserue to doe al things that are written in it If therfore it be commanded in the Ghospel or contayned in epistles of Apostles or acts that who came from any heresy be not baptized but hands imposed vpon them for pennance let this diuine and holy Tradition be kept 6. These words at the first view seeme to make for Bel but if the cause and circumstances of S. Cyprians writing be considered S. Cyprian they make rather against him S. Cyprian neuer reiected al Traditions yea by it l. 2. epist 3. he proued water to be mingled with wyne in the sacrifice and in the epistle cited by Bel biddeth vs recurre to Apostolical Tradition but only the foresaid Tradition because he thought as he saith epist ad Iubaian that it was neuer before commanded or written but as he writeth epist ad Quint mistaken for an other Tradition of not rebaptizing such as fal into heresy Wherfore Bel pag. 118 most falsly affirmeth 79 vntruth S. Cyprian Epist ad Iubaian ad Pompeium ad Quintinum Euseb lib. 7. c. 3. that he sharply reproued P. Steeuen for leaning to Tradition For he reproued him only for leaning to a mistaken as he supposed Tradition And as it is euideÌ„t out of his epistles and the histories of that tyme the question betwixt him and S. Steeuen pope was not whether Tradition were to be obserued or no but whether this were a true Tradition or no. Wherin S. Cyprian erroniously thincking it to be a mistaken tradition argued against it as he did demanding Scripture for proofe therof which he would neuer haue done if he had not thought it to haue bene mistaken The most therfore that Bel hath out of S. Cyprian for him selfe is that what is not true tradition must be proued by Scripture which I willingly graunt but it maketh nothing for his purpose as is euident S. Augustin lib. de vnic bapt c. 13. l. 1. de bapt coÌ„t Donat. c. 18. 39. epist 48. Vincent Lyrin contr â—aeres 7. But many things I obserue in S. Cyprian which make against Bel. 1 He admitteth dyuers Traditions Bel reiecteth al. 2. He impugneth one only Tradition Bel impugneth al. 3. He erred in impugning one and much more Bel in impugning al. 4. He recanted his error before his death as S. S. Augustin l. 6. de bapt c. 2. S. Hieron dial contr Luciferian Austin thincketh and of his fellow bishops S. Hierom testifyeth Bel persisteth obstinatly 5. He erred in a new question and not determined in a ful Councel saith S. Austin Bel erreth in antient matters decyded S. August l. de vinc baptism c. 13. lib. 5. de bapt c. 17. S. Cyprian epist ad Iubaian S. Hieron contr Lucifer August sup S. Cyprian epistol ad Pompei Euseb lib. 7. c. 3. Vincen. coÌ„t haeres S. Cyprian l. 1. epist 3. by many general Councels 6. He although he thought the Pope did erre yet seperated not him selfe as Bel doth from his communion as him selfe and S. Hierom testifyeth 7. He condemned none that followed the Popes opinion against his as Bel doth 8. He thought the Pope to erre in a coÌ„mandment onely of a thing to be done Bel condemneth him of errors in his iudicial sentences of faith where as S. Cyprian professeth that false faith can haue no accesse to S. Peters chayre 9. He disobeyed for a tyme the Popes commandement concerning a new and difficult question Bel disobeyeth obstinatly his definatiue sentence 8. Hereby we see how litle S. Cyprian maketh See S. Austin lib. 2. contr Crescon c. 31. 32. to 7. S. Austin for Bel and though he had made more for him let him know from S. Austin lib. de vnic bapt c. 13. and lib. 1. de bapt cont Donatist c. 18. and epist 18. that this error was in S. Cyprian an humane and venial error and like a blemish in a most vvhite breast because it vvas not then perfectly defyned by the Church But in his followers saith he lib. 1. cit c. 19. it is smoake of hellish filthines and as Vincent Vincent Lyrin Lyrin writeth The author vvas Catholicque his follovvers are iudged heretiks he absolued they condemned he a child of heauen they of hel And let the Reader gather by this example the Example of the force of tradition and the Popes iudgement authority of Tradition and Pope For if one Tradition preuailed then against S. Cyprian and a whole Councel of Bishops alleadging dyuers places of Scripture much more it wil preuaile against Protestants And if the Popes iudgement euen then when it seemed to many holy and learned Bishops to be against Scripture was supported only by Tradition did preuaile and they at last condemned as Heretickes who resisted much more it wil praeuaile against Protestants being vpholden not only by Tradition but by manifest Scripture also And Bel in blaming S. SteeueÌ„ Pope for preteÌ„ding 80 vntruth as he saith false authority sheweth him selfe to bee a malepert minister seeing S. Cyprian neuer reprehended him for any S. Cyprian such matter yea lib. 1. epist 3. acknowledgeth in the Church one Priest and iudge who is Christs Vicar meaning the Pope as is euident because lib 2. epist 10. he saith that the NouatiaÌ„s in making a false Bishop of Rome made a false head of the Church and l. 1. epist 8. and epist ad Iubaian that Christ builded his Church vppon S. Peter And as for S. Steeuen Vincent Lirin highly Vincent Lyrin con haereses S. Augustin lib. de vnie bapt cont Petil. c. 14. Bel pag 97. S. Athanas commendeth him and the very Donatists as S. Austin writeth confessed that he incorruptly gouerned his Bishoprike 9. Next he cyteth S. Athanasius cont Idol saying That Scriptures suffice to shew the truth True But that truth wherof S. Athanasius there disputed against Gentils to wit that Christ was God as he him self explicateth in these words I speake of our beleefe in Christ But saith Bel. He had made a foolish argument and concluded nothing at al if any necessary truth had not bene fully contained in Scripture As though S Athanasius had in these words argued against Gentils in which he only gaue a cause why he wrote that treatise Because saith he Though Scriptures suffice to shevv the truth and dyuers haue written of the same matter which argueth that he spake of some determinate truth yet because their writings are not at hand I thought good to vvrite But suppose he had argued what folly is in this argument Al contained in Scripture is truth Christs godhead is there
against them 4 Out of S. Thomas he citeth That we Bel p. 102. S. Thom. 1. part q. 36. art 2. must speak nothing of God which is not in Scripture by vvords or sense But this is nothing against Tradition of other things An other place he citeth out of â— p. q. 42. ar 4. VVhatsoeuer Christ vvold haue vs read of his doing and sayings he commanded the Apostles to vvrite as vvith his ovvne hands This also maketh nothing against vs. Both because S. Thomas saith not what Christ wold haue vs beleeue but what he wold haue vs read and Traditions be such as Christ wold haue vs beleeue though we read them not as appeareth by his Apostle 2. Thess 2. v. 15. Hoâ—d the Tâ—aditions vvhich you haue learnt ether by speech or by my epistle As also because S. Thomas speaketh not of al points of beleefe but only of Christs sayings and doings besids which the very sayings and doings of the Apostles recorded in their acts epistles or testifyed by Tradition are to be beleeued I omit a pettie vntruth which Bel vntruth 82 often repeareth That vve nether vvil nor can deny S. Thomas doctrin But S. Thomas his S. Thomas mynd concerning Traditions appeareth by his words 2. Thess 2. It is euident that there are things vnvvritten in the Church taught by the Apostles and therfore to be kept For as S. Dionis saith The Apostles thought it better to conceale many things 5. He citeth also Victoria saying I am Bel p. 103. Victoria de sacrament not certaine of it though al say it vvhich is not conteined in Scripture But Victoria meaneth of things spoken not by Tradition but by probable opinion as the conception of our lady without original sinne and such like or he meaneth of things nether actually nor vertually conteined in Scripture as Traditions be according to our 2. Conclusion cap 1. An other place he alleadgeth out of Victoria writing That for opinions Victor de augmento charitatis relect 8. vve ought no vvay to depart from the rule of Scriptures What is this to the purpose Let Bel proue that we ether for opinions or any thing els depart from Scripture and let him not slander vs as he doth That vve beleeue Bel p. 103. 83. vntruth vvhatsoeuer the Pope telleth vs though it be neuer so repugnant to Scripture For who shal be innocent if it suffice to accuse 6. Lastly he quoteth S. Anselme 2. Timoth 3. and Lyra Math. 19. but omitteth their words because they make litle for him S. Anselm saith that Scripture and meaneth the old Testament can make one sufficiently learned to get saluatioÌ„ to keape the commandements and what is more is not of necessity but of supererogation Which how litle it maketh against the beleefe of Traditions were supererogation to declare And thus much touching the sufficiency of Scriptures now let vs entreat of their hardnes or difficulty CHAP. VI. Of the Difficulty or easynes of Scriptures SCRIPTVRES are difficult and hard Scriptures to vnderstand This is against Bel pag. 107. but expresly taught by S. Peter 2. Pet. â— Peter 3. v. 16. where speaking of S. Pauls epistles he saith In vvhich are some things hard to be vnderstood To this Bel frameth three answers Bel p. 107. First that S. Peter saith not the vvhole Scripture is hard to vnderstand but some things in S. Pauls epistles This is not to the purpose because we say not that the whole Scripture that is euery part thereof is hard to vnderstand But graunt with S. Chrysostom 2. S. Chrysost Concion 3. de Lazaro Thessal hom 3. VVhatsoeuer is necessary to euery mans saluation is manifest out of Scripture And with S. Austin lib. 2 doct Christ S. Austin c. 9. Al those things vvhich concerne faith and manners are plainly set dovvne in Scripture And lib. 2. de pec mer. remiss c. vlt. tom 7. I beleeue euen in this point vve shold haue most cleare testimony of Gods word if man could not be ignorant of it without losse of saluation Yet Lex partim in aperto est partim etiaÌ„ inuelatis tegitur Nazianz orat â— de Theolog withal affirme with the same holy Doctor in psal 140. If Scripture were no where obscure it vvold not exercise vs. And the like he saith serm 13. de verb. Apost Only we affirme that absolutly the Scripture is hard and to The Scripture absolutely hard though not euery place thereof this it sufficeth that some places are hard As for away to be dangerous it sufficeth that some places be perilous though others be secure 2. His second answer is That S. Peter only saith some places are hard to the vnlearned vvhich are vnstable And like is his third answer That they are hard to the vvicked vvhich depraue them But to answer thus is in deed to depraue Scriptures and to shew him selfe to be one of the vnlearned and vnstable wherof S. Peter speaketh For S. Peter absolutly saith some things in S. Pauls epistles are hard not respectiuely to these or other kind of men In vvhich epistles saith S. Peter S. Peter some things are hard to be vnderstood vvhich the vnlearned and vnstable depraue to their owne perditioÌ„ Behold he saith not some things are hard to the vnlearned and vnstable but absolutly some things are hard which hard things the vnlearned and vnstable depraue And as S. Austin saith lib. de fid oper c S. Augustin tom 4. 14. one special hardnes meant by S. Peter in S. Pauls epistles is his difficult speech and high commendation of iustifying faith which now Protestants depraue to their owne perdition in gathering therof that faith alone doth iustify as some gathered in the Apostles tyme against which opinion especially as the same holy Doctor witnesseth S Peter S Ihon S. Iames and S. Iude S. Augustin cit writ their epistles An other special difficulty meant by S. Peter saith S. Austin 10. c. 16 are his words 1. corinth 3. If any build vpon the foundation c. 3. Againe if Scripturs be not hard what See S. Chrysost hom 3. de Lazaro tom 2. S. Hierom. meant S. Philip to ask the Eunuch who was as holy studious a man as S. Hierom ae he him selfe testifyeth epist ad Paulin If he vnderstood them What meant the Eunuch Act. 8. v. 30. v. 31. to answere 6 How can I if some do not shew me Could not an holy man so wise as he was being Treasurer to the Q of Ethiopia vnderstand easy matters If Scripturs be so easy what need had K. Dauid to pray for Psalm 118. v. 34. Ib. v. 18. vnderstanding to search Gods law for opening his eyes to consider the wonders of it what hapned to the Apostles that they could not vnderstaÌ„d Christs parables what Math. 13. v 36. c. 15. v. 16. needed the gift of interpretation giuen to some 1. corinth 12.
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
conuinceth that we can doe it without deadly breaking it As for our confession we doe not confesse that our daylie offences are most great faults but daily confesse our most great fault whether it were done then or before Besides that humble and penitent mindes accompt themselues greatest sinners and their offences greatest faults So S. Paul 1. Timoth 1. v. 15. accounted S. Paul himselfe the chiefest sinner Yea good souls as S. Gregory saith acknowledge sinne where S. Gregor epist ad August Cant. cap. 10. Iob cap. 9. S. Gregor in Psalm 4. Paenitent none is and with Iob feare al their works And as the same holy Doctour noteth the reprobate accompt great sinns litle and the elect litle sinns grear and which before they thought were light straight they abhor as heauy and deadly And S. Hierom S. Hieron epist ad â—â—lant obserueth that it increaseth warines to take heed of litle sinnes as if they were great For with so much the more facility we abstaine from any sinne by how much more we feare it 6. And hence Bel may see why we in dayly confessions confesse our most great fault which I would God he would imitate and both confesse and amend his heynous fault of sinning against the holy Ghost and impugning the Catholique Church which he knoweth to be Gods Church Otherwise let him assure himselfe that shame wil be his end in this life and endles punishment his reward in the next Wel he may beat against this rocke but like the waues he shal without hurting it beat himselfe in pieces and be resolued into froth and foame Let him write books let him spend himselfe and make nets with the Spider of his owne guts they wil proue only spider webbes apt to cath or holde none but such as like inconstant and fleshly flyes are carrayed about with euery mynde of new doctrine and following their carnal appetites and licentiousnes seaze vpon fleshly baite And so Bel though he could become an other God Bel he should but be Beel zebub the God of flies Be myndful therfore Bel from whence thou art fallen and do penance Apocalip 2. FINIS Al praise to Almightie God A TABLE Of the things coÌ„teined in this booke vvherin a signifyeth article c. chapter and parag paragraph ADDITION of one tradition as much forbidden as of many ar 7. c. 2. parag 1. Addition to Scripture which forbidden which not ar 7. c. 2. pareg Anomia how it may signify transgression of the law ar 6. c. 2. parag 2. Antichrists true hinderance meant by S. Paul ar 1. c. 9. parag 4. Antichrists hinderance not taken away in Pipius tyme a. 1. c. 9. parag 3. Angles falsly charged by Bel art 5. c. 5. parag 6. S. Antonin falsly charged by Bel art 3. c. 1. parag 1. and 13. Apostataes may teach true doctrine art 7. c. 10 parag 9. Apostles Creed conserued by Tradition art 7. c. 9. parag 4. S. Athanasius explicated and his reuerence of Traditions art 7. c. 4. parag 9. S. Austin as a Christian said he wold not beleeue the Ghospel without the Church art 7. c. 9. parag 22. Sainct Austin wold not beleeue Maniche though he had had expresse Scripture ar 7. c. 9. parag 24. S. Austin how he compared Concupiscence with blindnes of hart art 4. c. 3. parag 1. S. Austins opinion of habitual Concupiscence art 4. c. 1. parag 18. S. Austins opinioÌ„ of inuoluntary motions art 4. c. 1. parag 13. S. Austin preuented Bels obiections art 4. c. 1. parag 18. S. Austin how he meant that we loue not God altogether art 8. c. 4. parag 2. S. Austin how he called our keeping the commaundements defectuous art 8. c. 1. parag 9. S. Austins teuerence and rule to know Traditions art 7. c. 4. parag 3. S. Austin said the Apostles eat bread our lord art 2. c. 5. parag 8. S. Austin said Iudas eat our price art 2. c. 5. paragr 8. S. Austin why he said Iudas eat bread of our lord art 2. c. 5. parag 8. S. Austin wold not credit the Scripture if the Catholiques were discredited art 7. c. 9. parag 22. S. Austin and S. Prosper Papists out of Bel. art 2. c. 4. parag 13. B. S. Basil explicated and his reuerence of Traditions art 7. c. 4. parag 13. S. Bede a Papist art 4. c. 4. parag 4. Bellarmins doctrin of merit the common doctrin of Catholiques a. 5. c. 6 parag 9. Beleefe in al points not prescribed at once art 7. c. 2. parag 7. Bel a right Apostata from Preisthood art 1. c. 9. parag 31. Bel against Caluin art 5. c. 2. parag 3. Bel admitteth Tradition a. 7. c. 9. parag 811. Bels answer about Tradition of the bible refuted art 7. c. 9. parag 5. Bel admitteth venial sinns art 6. c. 1. parag 1. Bels beleefe of venial sinne beside Gods booke art 6. c. 1. parag 2. Bel a Papist by his owne iudgement art 4. c. 1. parag 10. Bel against al Gods Church which liued in the first 200. years art 7. c. 10. parag 2. Bel alleadgeth authority against him selfe a. 7. c. 10. parag 5. Bel answereth not to the purpose art 7. c. 9. parag 7. Bels argument returned vpon him self art 2. c 6. parag 3. Bels blasphemy against God art 8. c. 2. parag 1. against his Church a. 7. c. 9. par 5. against iustification a. 4. c. 2. parag 1. Bels blasphemy accursed by S. Hierom art 8. c. 2. parag 1. Bels blindnes discouered art 1. c. 9. parag 6. Bel bound to recant art 3. c. 1. parag 13 a. 2. c 5. parag 9. Bels buckler the Princes sword art 1. c 1. parag 10. Bels challeng is Bellarmins obiections art 4. c. 3 parag 2. Bels complaint against Catholiques art 5. c 1 parag 1 Bel condemneth as blasphemy in the Pope which he iudgeth treason to deny to Princes art 1. c. 9. parag 23 Bels contradictions arâ— 1. c. 5. parag 4. c. 8. parag 5 a. 2. c 2. parag 4. a. 4 c 1. parag 12. 13. c. 2. parag 6. art 5. c. 3 parag 3. c. 5. parag 7. art 7. c. 7 parag 19 art 8. c. 1. parag 5 7. c. 2. par 4. Bâ—l câ—rrupted Scripture art 7. c. 2. parag 8 c. 7. parag 3. 12. corrupteth S. Ambros art 7 c. 4. parag 1â— Bel cursed of S. Paul by his owne iudgement art 7. c. 9 parag 8. Bel discredited him selfe art 1. chap. 9. parag 10. Bels dissimulation art 1. c. 1. parag 1. a 2. c 1. par 5 art 3. c. 1 parag 2. Bâ—l denyeth deuine faith to proceed from mans teaching art 7. c. 9 parag 20. Bel disproueth him self art 5. c. 6. parag 6. art 4. c. 1. parag 17. Bel exceedeth Pelagius art 7. c. 7. parag 1. Bels faith grownded vpon reason art 2. c. 1. parag 7. Bel slenderly grownded in faith art 2. c. 5. parag 6. Bels false translation art 2. c. 3. parag 8. c. 4. parag 13 a. 4 c. 2. parag 4. 7. 10. c. 5.
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
7. c. 9. parag 19. Church within 200. years after Christ highly esteemed Traditions a. 7. c. 10. parag 2. Church may iustly abridg any liberty giuen by S. Chisostom art 7. c. 7. parag 8. Church of late daies as infallible witnes of Gods truth as the primatiue art 7. c. 9. parag 5. 6. Church present only infallible external witnes of Scripture art 7. c. 9. parag 7. Church beleeueth not the old testament for any tradition of Iewes art 7. c. 9. par 10. Church of the east acknowledgeth the Popes primacy art 7. c. 13. parag 6. S. Cyprian wherin he erred a. 7. c. 4. par 6. 7. S. Cyprian reiected one only Tradition art 7. c. 4. parag 7. S. Cyprian opposit to Bel about Traditions in most things art 7. c. 4. parag 7. Commandement may be substiantially kept by Gods grace art 8. c. 1. parag 1. Commaundements truly kept of the man Math. 19. art 8. c. 1. parag 3. Commaundements can not be truly kept and deadly broken art 8 c. 1. parag 2. Communion book made out of the Missal and Portesse art 2. c. 6. parag 10. Councels acknowledge the Popes primacy art 7. c. 13. parag 6. Councels determination not needles art 7. c. 14. parag 4. Councels in our daies as certain as before tyme art 7. c. 13. parag 1. Councels in some sort like to Parlament art 7. c. 13. parag 4. In Confiteor why we say our great fault art 8. c. 4. parag 5. Concupiscence diuersly named art 4. c. 1. parag 3. Concupiscence how commanded not to be at al according to S. Austin art 8. â— 4. parag 2. art 2. c. 3. parag 6. Concupiscence actual though inuoluntary is euil art 4. c. 1. parag 4. Concupiscence actual inuoluntary no formal sinne art 4. c. 1. parag 7. Concupâ—â—cence actual if voluntary is formal sinne art 4. c. 1. parag 5. Concupiscence if neuer inuoluntary nothing is inuoluntary art 4. c 1 parag 10. Concupiscence habitual both positiue and priuatiue euil art 4 c. 1. parag 1. Concupiscence habitual in the not regenerate materially original sinne art 4. c. 1. parag 2. Concupiscence habitual in the regenerate no formal sinne art 4. c. 1 parag 14. Concupiscence how it need for giuenes a. 4 c. 3 parag 3. Concupiscence habitual and actual in whomsoeuer may be called sinne art 4. c. 1. parag 6. Concupiscence indirectly voluÌ„tary known by the law to be true sinne art 4. c. 3. parag 9. Concupiscence directly voluntary not executed hardly knowne to be sinne without the law art 4. c. 2. parag 9. Condigne merit no point of faith art 5. c. 3. parag 4. Condigne merit proued art 5. c. 3. parag 4. 6. 7. Condigne merit what it requireth art 5. c. 3. parag 7. Condigne merit of man explicated by the labors of a slaue art 5. c. 6. parag 2. Condigne merit denyed by some Catholiques but differently from Protestants art 5. c. 6. parag 10. Condigne merit of man not absolute but conditional art 5. c. 3 parag 5. Condigne merit of man not arithmetically equal but proportionate to the reward art 5. c. 3. parag 5. Condigne merit riseth not merely of Gods acceptance art 5. c. 3. parag 5. Condignity riseth partly of our work as it is the fruit of the holy Ghost art 5. c. 3. parag 5. Condigne merit honorable to God and to Christs merits art 5. c. 3. parag 7. 8. CoÌ„digne merit only true merit a. 5. c. 3. par 6. Coniugal copulatioÌ„ may be meritorious giue grace art 3. c. 1. parag 9. Copulation rather Ministerish then Popish art 3. c. 1. parag 7. Consciences timorous feare litle sinnes as great art 8. c. 4. parag 5. Constantins departure from Rome no step to the Popes primacy art 1. c. 8. parag 3. Constantin honored the Pope a. 1. c. 6 par 6. Constantins humility in the Nicen Councel art 7. c. 13. parag 5. Consumption may be without killing art 2. c. 3. parag 6. Curse of the law pronounced only against heynous crymes art 8. c. 3. parag 2. D. DAnger in not crediting Romane Traditions art 7 c. 10. parag 11. Dealing with heretiks we must haue other help beside Scripture and why art 7. c. 5. parag 1. 2. Denyal of the coÌ„mandements to be possible iniurious to Gods grace a. 8. c. 2. par 4. Deposition of Princes first decreed by S. Gregory the great art 2. c. 5. parag 4. Difference of the doctrin in pulpit and schoole art 7. c. 7. parag 9. Dilemma about the Popes superiority ouer Emperors art 1. c. 6. parag 3. Dilemma for Bel art 1. c. 9. parag 21. Disagrement of Authors about tyme and circumstances disproueth not the fact art 1. c. 9. parag 17. Disagreement of school men far different from that of Protestants a. 4. c. 4. par 7. Differences betwene S. Chrisostom Protestants about reading Scripture art 7. c. 7. parag 5. E. EAst Empire when it began to decay art 1. c. 9. parag 1. Eckins foyled Luther art 5. c. 6. parag 4. Emperors called the Popes arbitrement celestial art 1. c. 9. parag 28. Emperors haue confessed the Popes superiority ouer them art 1. c. 6. parag 4. Emperors subiect to Bishops according to S. Gregory Nazianz. art 7. c. 13 parag 5. Emperors subiect to the sea of Rome according to S. Gregory the great a. 1. c. 5. par 2. Emperors who haue humbled them selfs to Popes named art 1. c. 6. parag 6. 7. Emperors of the East why offended with Charles creation art 1. c. 9. parag 19. England named feasts of the Masse art 2. c. 3. parag 5. English bybles al hitherto il translated art 7. c. 8. parag 1. English bybles conteine vntrue and seditions notes art 1 c. 3. parag 7. S. Epiphanius S. Cyril explicated their reuerence of Traditions art 7. chap. 4. parag 10. Epistles of S. Peter S. Ihon S. Iames and S. Iude written against solifidian iustice art 7. c. 6. parag 2. Eternal life sower waies grace and yet true reward art 5. c. 4. parag 2. Eternal life may signify iustification art 5. c. 4. parag 6. F. FAith can not discerne any thing clearly art 7. c. 9. parag 15. Faith in al points not actually in Scripture art 7. c. 1. parag 9. Faith in al points not sufficiently and immediatly proued by Scripture art 7. c. 1. parag 10. Faith in al points vertually in Scripture two waies art 7. c. 1. parag 7. Faith why not so perfectly prescribed to Iewes as ceremonies art 7. c. 2. parag 7. Faith in no point may be denyed of any art 7. c. 1. parag 1. Faith in diuers points need not be actually beleeued of many art 7. c. 1. parag 1. Fathers proued consubstantiality by Tradition art 7. c. 12. parag 2. Fale of the western Empire no step to the Popes primacy art 1. c. 8. parag 4. Figure or represent one thinge may it selfe art 2. c. 6. parag 2. Figure what inferior to the thinge figured what not art 2. c. 6. parag 1.
Figuratiue exposition vsual shift of heretiks art 2. c. 1. parag 9. 10. First Protestants haunted of Diuels art 2. c. 1. per â—ot Formal obiect of faith art 7. chap. 9. paragâ— 24. G. GOds precepts both possible and easy to them that loue him art 8. c. 1. paragr 10. God how he can put a great body into a litle how not art 2. c. 1 parag 13. 14. 1â— 16. God not imputing sinne taketh it away art 4. c. 3. parag 4. Gods worde by it selfe can not be discerned as easely as light art 7 c. 9. parag 13 Gods worde how an explication of the two precepts of loue art 7. c. 1. parag 8 Gods worde why called a light lanthern art 7. c. 9. parag 17. Good gotten of Protestants by English bibles art 7. c. 8. parag 1. Good workes are condigne merit art 5. c. 3. parag 2. 4. Good workes follow not euery parson iustifyed art 5 c. 2. parag 1. Good workes giue no security of saluation art 5. c. 2. parag 3. Good works possible and vsual meane to saluation art 8. c. 1. parag 7. Gods worde not knowne at first to Samuel Gedeon Manue S. Peter art 7. c. 9. parag 13. Ghospel a supply of the ould testament art 7. c. 2. parag 3. S. Gregory a saint with Luther and Caluin a Papist with Bel art 1. c. 5. parag 5. S. Gregory accounted Kinges subiect to him and how he called the Emperour lord art 1. c. 5. parag 2. 3. S. Gregory first decreed deposition of Princes art 1. c. 5. parag 4. S. Gregory said Masse in honour of Martyrs art 1. c. 5. parag 5. S. Gregory Nazianz. discommended common peoples reading Scripture art 7. c. 7. parag 19. Greater authority may be contested by lesser art 7. c. 9. parag 23. H. HEretiks shift is to expound Scripturs figuratiuely art 2. c. 1. parag 9. Heretiks reiect Traditions art 7. c. 4. parag 14. S. Hieroms high esteeme of the Popes definition art 7. c. 12. parag 1. S. Hierom whome and how he exhotteth to read Scripture art 7. c. 7. parag 17. Hatred of Masse whence it first rose art 2. c. 3. parag 3. I. S. Iames epistle contemned by Luther art 7. c. 9. parag 16. S. Iames c. 2. v. 2. meaneth of venial sinns art 8. c. 3. parag 1. Iewes added signes and words to the law according to Protestants a. 7. c. 2. par 2. Ignorance of it selfe no holines art 7. c. 7. parag 18. Ignorance what better then what knowledge art 7. c. 7. parag 18. Ignorance of Scripture not the whole cause of the Sadduces error a. 7. c. 11. par 3. S. Ihon what he bid vs try a. 7. c. 11. parag 5. S. Ihon c. 20. v. 30. meaneth of miracles art 7. c. 3. parag â— S. Ihon ep 1. c. 3. v. 4. meaneth of mortal sinne art 6. c. 2. parag 2. Impossible to be guilty of sinne to haue sinne forgiuen art 4. c. 1. parag 15. Imputing of sinne what with S. Austin art 4. c. 3. parag 4. not Imputation of Protestants meere contradiction art 6. c. 1. parag 4. Inclination to faith iustifyeth infants with Bel art 7. c. 1. parag 6. Iniquity formal sinne differ a. 6. c. 2. par 6. Iniquitas vsed in a different sense 1. Ioan. a. 6. c. 2. parag 5. Inuoluntary motions are not voluntary in their origin from Adam a. 4. c. 1. par 11. Inuoluntary motions though they were voluntary in their origen could be no sinne art 4. c. 1. parag 12. S. Ioseph called rather keeper then husband of our Lady art 3. c. 1. parag 11. S. Ireney his high account of the Romane Church art 7. c. 10. parag 4. Italy not al possessed of Barbars from 471. til Carolus Magnus art 1. chap. 8. parag 5. Iustice of man how imperfect art 5. chap. 5. parag 3. K. KEepers of the commandements auouched more then twenty tymes in one psalme art 8. c. 1. parag 5. Kings of Lombardy called Kings of Italy art 1. c. 9. parag 7. Kings not so much as ministerial heads of the Church with ProtestaÌ„ts a. 1. c. 2. par 1. L. OVr Ladies conception without sinne no point of faith art 7. c. 10. par 10. Latin sermons not readde to common people art 7. c. 8. parag 4. Law of the Ghospel includeth law of nature art 8. c. 1. parag 10. Law fulfilled by not consenting to Concupiscence art 4. c. 3. parag 6. Lay men when and how forbidden to dispute of faith art 7. c. 8. parag 4. Lent an Apostolical Tradition art 7. c. 10. parag 5. 6. Lent fast lawfully broken in diuers cases art 7. c. 10. parag 6. Loue of God as we ought possible to men art 8. c. 1. parag 10. Loue of God how imperfectly kept according to S. Thomas art 8. c. 2. parag 3. Luther begun Protestantisme art 7. c. 1. parag 16. Luther instructed of a Diuel by his owne confession art 2. c. 1. parag 2. Luther hated the word homousion art 7. c. 1. parag 5. Luther conuinced by Scripture to confesse the real presence art 2. c. 2. parag 1. Lutherans opinions of the Caluinists art 2. c. 1 parag 10. M. MAriage broken for six causes amongst Protestants art 3. c. 1. parag 3. Mariage contracted why it can not be broken by the parties art 3. c. 1. parag 10. Mariage a sacrament before consummatioÌ„ art 3. c. 1. parag 8. Mariage contracted is dâ—â—ure diuino and of the continuance thâ—reof a. 3. â— 1 parag 6. Mariage perfected by consummation art 2. c. 1. parag 8. Massâ— honored in the whole world art 2. c. 3. parag 5. Masse said of the Apostles and Saints art â— c. 2. parag 4. Mâ—n rather do not then do what is against their wil art 4 â— 2. parag 4. Men al sinners but not deadly a 8 c. â— par 4. Men can be wiâ—hout cryme not without sinne arâ— 8. c. 1. parag 2. Merit far different from impetration art 5. c. 3. parag 2. Mâ—rit no more iniurious to Câ—rists merit then prayer to his prayer a 5 c 3 parag 8. Merit why no sinne out of S. Austin art 4. c â— parag 4. Merit in resisting Concupiscence art 4 c. 1. parag 13. Ministers subscribe against their conscieÌ„ce art 1 c. 2. parag 2. More required to formal sinne then to euil art 4. c. â— parag 4. Mortal and venial sinns such of their own nature art 6. c. 1. parag â— N. NIcholas 1 words of earthly heauenly empire expounded a. â— c. 9. par 34. Not only predestinate do good art 5 c. 2. parag 3. None ought to deny any point of faith art 7 c 1 parag 1. Not to perfect good is not to siâ—nâ— art 4. c. 3. parag 5. O. Oâ—d Romane religion Catholik sound and pure art 6. c. 2. parag 8. Omission or alteration what doth hinder consecration art 2. c 6 parag 8 Original â—ustice what it is a. 4. c. 1. parag 2. Original sinne what art 4. c. 1. parag 2. Original lust made actual
to make your selfe iudge aboue the highest And if you wil try Gods word by what wil you try the old testament Surely by tradition or by nothing Thus we haue heard Bel twise plainly cōfessing some tradition to be necessary now the third tyme supposing it For magna est vis veritatis praeualet 13. Yet because his stomacke could not pag 135 al. 117. disgest any one tradition at al he flyeth to a Fift solution commonly giuen by Protestants vz. That Canonical Scripture may be discerned Psalm 119. v. 105. 1. Pēt 1. v. 19. 2. Cor. 5. v. 3. 1. Cor. 2. v. 15. 1. Ioan. 2. v. 27. Ioan. 10. v. 3. 4. 1. Reg. 3. from not Canonical by themselues as light is from darknes This he proueth because Gods worde is called a light and a lantherne sayd to shyne to men spiritual men sayd to iudge al things the vnction to teach al things and Christs sheepe sayd to heare and know his voyce But this is easely refelled First because though Samuel were a faithful holy man and God spake thrise to him yet he tooke his worde for mans worde vntil Hely the high Priest tolde him it was Gods worde 1. Reg. 3. Gedeon was faithful and yet knew not at first that it was God that spake vnto him by an Iudic. 6. Angel and therfore demanded a miracle in confirmation of it Iudic. 6. The like may be said of Manues wife Iud. 13. and perhaps of Manue him selfe For though in his prayer he professe that God had sent the Angel whom he tooke to be a man yet doth he not professe that God had sent him especially and perticulerly to do that message and seeing he knew not that it was an Angel vntil he ascended in the flame of the sacrifice yea seemed to doubt whether his words would proue true when he sayd If thy speech be fulfilled likely it is that he was not certaine that it was Gods worde before he was certaine that it was his Angel Likewise S. Peter was faithful and yet at Act. 12. first he knew not that it was an Angel that spake and deliuered him act 12. 14. Secondly the true sense and meaning of Gods worde is not so euident to the faithful for to discerne it from the false sense as light is discerned from darknes Ergo nether Gods true worde is so euidently discerned by them from the false worde The consequence I proue because Gods worde consisteth more in his meaning then in letters Let vs not thincke saith S. Hierom S. Hierom. in Calat 1. dialog con Lucif that the Ghospel is in the words of Scripturs but in the sence Againe Scripturs consist not in reading but in vnderstāding And therfore if it be discerned by it selfe it is rather discerned by the sense then by the letters or words The antecedent I shal proue hereafter and it is euident by the example of the Apostles who though they were faithful oftentymes vnderstood not Christs meaning especially when he spake in parables or of his passion by the example of the faithful Eunuch and by the testimony of S. Peter 2. Pet. 3. v. 16. 15. Thirdly the distinction of Scripturs from not Scriptures is not so euident as the distinction of light from darknes is Ergo they are not so easely discerned The consequence is euident The Antecedent I proue because then no man could erre in it as none can erre in the distinction of light from darknes Bel saith That only faithful can discerne Scriptures But this conuinceth that their distinction is not so euident as that of light from darknes for this al men yea beasts of sight can discerne Nether can Faith can not discerne any thing clearly faith be needful to discerne light or any thing which is so euident because as S. Paul saith Hebr. 11. v. 1. It is an argument of things not appearing and it breadeth certainty not euidency in the beleeuer 16. Beside if faithful could as clearly discerne Scriptures as they can light they should no sooner here a sentence of Scripture then they should discerne it to be Scripture as they no sooner see light then they discerne it from darknes which experience teacheth to be false yea Luther a faithful man in Bels opinion could not discerne yea could not beleeue S. Iames epistle Luther edit Iennen Surius Ann. 1522. to be canonical but called it absolutly a strawish thing as his books first printed and diuers others testify and Whitaker VVhitaker lib. 1. contr Duraeum p. 22. dare not deny yea confesseth that he calleth it strawish in respect of other epistles which is more then to deny it to be Gods worde Wherfore let Bel make his choyse whether Luther was not faithful or S. Iames epistle not so euidently discerned by the faithful to be Gods worde as light is Finally Protestants admit one Tradition as necessary to discerne Scriptures or Bel lyeth pag. 135. Ergo Scriptures are not so euidently discerned by them selues as light is For what neede is there of an other thing to discerne light or any thing so euident 17. Nether haue Bels arguments any difficulty to answer For Gods worde is called a lantherne or light not because it is so euident as light is but because being once beleeued to be Gods worde it sheweth vs the way to heauen as light doth to earthly places and thereupon it is called of the Psalmist a lantherne to our feete And for the Psalm 118. same cause faith is called light though it be an obscure knowledge Hebr. 11. v. 1. and by it we see God only in aenigmate 1. Cor. 13. v. 12. and not clearly And in like sort S. Paul 2. Corinth 4. v. 4. where Bel citeth 2. Corinth 4. v. 4. amisse c. 5. saith the Ghospel shineth not because it is euident and cleare but because it expelleth the ignorance of infidelity which metaphorically is called darknes That of the spiritual man 1. Corinth 2. v. 15. is nothing to the purpose both because al faithful are not spiritual but some carnal 1. Corinth 3. v. 1. 2. 3. and Galath 6. v. 1. and therfore may we better infer that the Ghospel is not euident to al faithful As also because S. Paul explicateth not by what means the spiritual man iudgeth al things whether by the euidency of the things as Bel wold haue him to iudge Scripture or by some outward testimony Moreouer S. Ihon saith the vnction teacheth 3. Ioan. 2. v. 27. vs al things which we deny not but no where that it alone teacheth vs without the testimony of the Church which is that we deny Bel should proue Finally Christs sheep heare and know his voice Ioan. 10. Ioan. 10. v. 3. 4. v. 3 4 which no man doubteth of but the question is whether they heare it of him selfe alone or of the Church and whether they know it by it selfe or by testimony of the Church to which purpose