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
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
aduersary enter the field and like Vergils Bul. A Eneid 12. beates the winde withal his might And casting sand doth florish to the sight it is admirable For omitting particuler coÌ„tradictions almost in euery Article he flingeth down the very main point which he wold establish As art 1. he wold proue that the Pope hath no superiority ouer Princes nor power to depose them and yet affirmeth that some Kings and Emperors haue humbled pag. 17. them selues yeelded their soueraign rights to him and that Popes liued in duetiful obedience pag 2. vnder Emperors vntil the year 603. which he proueth by S. Gregory and yet no les then S. Fabian S. Innocent 1. Symmachus S. Felix 2. Anastasius 2. Vigilius six Popes did in that tyme excommunicate their Emperors S. Gregory was the first that decreed the deposition of Kings and Princes In the second article after he had talked long against the real presence and sacrifice of the Masse he falleth to cal the sacrificing of Christs flesh with Preists hands p. 26. 27. golden words and to say that if we wold be iudged by a doctrin of Bellarmins which a litle before he had said was the Popes doctrin the controuersy about the real presence wold be at an end In the fourth article after he had long labored to proue inuoluntary motions of the flesh to be formal sin and called the contrary damnable doctrin he both affirmeth and proueth such inuoluntary motioÌ„s in S. Paul to haue bene no sin because they pag. 48. were against his wil. In the fift Article after he had spent many leaues to fling down condigne merit at the last he auoucheth that if we wold be iudged by Bellarmins p. 78. 79. others doctrin published in print that controuersy wold be ended yet immediatly before he had affirmed that Bellarm. taught his doctrin of merit which is the very some which commonly al Catholiks hold after mature deliberation and graue consultation with al the best learned Iesuits in the world and with the Pope him self What is this but to confesse that in vain he impugneth the Popes doctrin of merit Such is the force of truth saith S. Austin that it is more forceable to Lib. cont Donat. post collat c. 24. pag. 81. wring out confession then any rack or torment In the sixt Article he admitteth the distinction of mortal and venial sin in a godly sense as he saith and yet streight after concludeth absolutly that al sins are mortal and saith that we flatter our selfs in our cursed deformed venials In the seuenth article after he had spent 27. leaues to fel down Traditions called them falshoods and vanities p. 93. and pronounced them accursed of S. Paul who receaue them at last him self p. p. 134. 135. 134. and 135. accepteth one Tradition about the Bible whither it be Gods word or no wherby he beateth down whatsoeuer before he had set vp against the Traditions of the Church In the last he graunteth that Gods commandements are possible to be kept in a godly sense and yet afterward absolutly concludeth that we can not possibly keep them Thus we see this silly fellow p. 149. as he hath bene of opposit religions and professions so playing ambedexter now the minister now the Priest now the Protestant now the Catholik what aduersary need such a challenger who is so great an aduersary to him self what successe is he like to haue of a mean aduersary who hath this euil euent of his own brauado He promiseth to subscribe if one argument pag. 31. Preface to Iesuits Seminary Preistes which he maketh vpon S. Austins words be answered or if any could conuince him ether to haue alleadged any writer corruptly or to haue quoted any place guilfully or to haue charged any other falsly But al this is fraudulently done only to gain credit with the simple and ignorant Reader of a sincere and inuincible challenger For himself wel knoweth how often that argument out of S. Austin hath bene solued by Catholiks against which solution because Bel cold not reply he wold quite dissemble it And his allegations of See S. Hilary lib. ad Constant S. Hierom cont lucifer vincent lyrin cont hereses Authors is too too shamful as shal appeare in the processe of this answer Scripture he alleadgeth but as the Diuel did when he brought it against our Sauiour corrupting ether the words or meaning Fathers he bringeth but quite against their wil and meaning and no maruel for he forbeareth not his professed aduersaries such as in our daies haue written against Protestants and wil make them wil they nil they turne Protestants as he hath done like the spider suck poison out of sweet flowers And I doubt nothing more then that if he find this answere to strong for him to impugne he wil ether proclaime me a Protestant as Daue of Recusancy pag. 22. his breethren do Bellarmin or procure him self as his Father Iewel did to be quit by proclamation against my book But Bel if thou didst meane sincerely to repent if thou beest conuinced remember whence thou Apoc. 13. art fallen and do penance or if thou intendest obstinatly to fight it out harken to S. Hierome Hieron apolog cont Ruffinum and take some shame becoming a man if thou wilst haue none belonging to a Christian and deale plainly set downe the Catholike doctrin truly alleadg Authors incorruptly cite the places rightly answer directly yea or no to euery thing obiected and then in Gods name verte omnes tete in facies contrahe A Eneid 12. quicquid siue animo sine arte vâ—les and I dare warrant thee it shal be answered But thee my dear Countryman seduced by Bel such like who walking in craftines adulterate Gods worde for whose sake al this 2. Cor. 4. v. 2. pain is taken I beseech for Christs sake haue some care of thy saluation consider how of late your Church seruice and discipline hath bene condemned by more then Petition exhibited in April 1603. a thowsand ministers of enormities abuses not agreable to Scripture and want of vniformity of doctrin al your English Bibles the very foundation of your faith adiudged to be il translated and some to contein very partial See Conference at Hampton Court vntrue and seditious notes and too much sauoring of dangerous and traiterous conceits and order taken to make a new translation Alas pag. 45. 46. 47. what certainty can you haue of that religion which more then a thowsand of your Ministers professe to haue no vniformity of doctrin and abuses contrary to Scripture what goodnes can there be in that faith which is builded of an euil foundation as by your owne iudgmeÌ„ts your Bibles hitherto haue bene yea what faith at al can there be in this mean tyme whiles the old Bibles are condemned as naught and a new not yet made If these Ministers
liuely body to want in the Sacrament his quantity and figure and considering better of the nature of quantity found that no commensuration to place was essential vnto it but onely a natural propriety and therefore separable by Gods power from it as light is from the Sunne taught that Christs hath his quantity in the Sacrament as a natural accident accompaning his body And albeit this be a certaine truth and not onely the common opinion of Schooles but seemeth also to be the common sense of Catholiques yet saith Suarez a learned author Tom 3. in 3. part Suarez disput Si stec 2. It is to hard a censure to condemne the contrary of heresie For saith he I find nether expresse definition nor irrefragable testimony of Scripture against it nor yet any thing which can be conuinced out of reuealed principles and al the reasons made against it are deduced out of Philosophical Principles true and certaine but not altogether euident In like sorte Claudius de Sainctes repetit 4. de Euchar c. 4. testifieth Sainctes that this matter is not clearly defined by the Church or Scripture What shame therfore must it be to Bel to auouch that al Catholiks hold as a point of their faith that Christs body is organical in the Eucharist and declining the principal question about the being of Christs body in the Sacrament which is an vndoubted point of our faith and against which his cheefe argument which as he saith al the Papists in England can not answer taketh no hold to impugne the being of Christs quantity in the Eucharist 7. Neuerthelesse because it is a thinge most true and most agreable to our faith I willingly vndertake the defense therof Let vs see therfore how Bel disproueth it Forsooth because it implyeth contradictiō for a greater body as Christs is to be cōtained in a lesser as in a cake pag 20. Reason the ground of Bels faithe Behould the foundation of Bels faith the best weapon of this stout challenger the strong reason which al English Papists can Scripture Matth 26. v. 26 28. Marc. 14. v. 22. 24. Luc. 22. v. 19. 20. 1. Cor. 11. v. 24. 25. not solue We bring Christs expresse words auouching that what he gaue to his Apostle at his last supper was his body giuen and his blood shed for remission of sinnes which vndoubtedly he ment of his true body and blood For he neuer gaue bred nor shed wine for remission of sinnes We obiect also his other words where he calleth his flesh truly meat and his blood drinke as it were preuenting Ioan. 6. v. 55. the figuratiue exposition of Caluinists Besids the words of S. paul testifying that who receaueth vnvvoorthily the B Sacrament is guilty 1. Cor. 11. v. 29. not of bread and wine il receaued but of the body and blood of our Lord. 8. To these testimonies of holy writte Fathers we adioyne the vniforme consent of Fathers who not onely continually cal the Eucharist the body and blood of Christ and not once a bare figure but withal some Damasc l. 4. de fid c. 14. 7. Synod Act. 6. of them affirme that it is no bare figure but the very body and damne the contrary as abhominable and extreme madnes contrary to tradition of Apostles and Fathers and against the Chrysosto hom de Euchat in Eucenijs Cyril catech 3. verity and propriety of Christs vvords Others deny it to be bread albeit our taste so iudge Others say that the nature of bread is changed Nissen orat mag catech c. 37. Cipria serm de Caena Cyril Alex ad Calosyr Chrysosto hom cit Damas sup August lib. 2. cont aducrs legis Prophet c. 9. tom 6. Leo serm 6. de ieiun 7. mensis Aug. serm 1. in psalm 33. tom 8. Hilar. 8. de Trinitat that bread changed in nature not in shevv is by the omnipotency of God made flesh that bread and vvine are turned supernaturally into the verity of Christs proper flesh Others say vve eate Christs flesh and drink his blood vvith our mouthes that vvhat we beleue with faith we receaue vvith mouth Others auouch that Christ at his last supper carried him selfe secundum literā that is truly really in his hands Finally others say that as Christ is the true sonne of God so is it true flesh blood vvhich vve receaue and drinke These kind of speeches and many other of the like sort can neuer be verified vnles the real presence of Christ in the B. Sacrament be defended 9. Against al these irrefragable testimonies Quod intelligimus debemus rationi quod credimus authoritati Aug. l. de vtil cred c. 11. Heretiques shift to expound scriture figuratiuely Ioan. 10. v. 30. Heretiks be figure slingers 10. 1. v. 14. of Gods word and holy Fathers Bel opposeth humane reason though he expound them figuratiuely because he dare not deny them in bare words which hath bene cuer the shift of heretiques For so the Arrians being vrged with these words I and the Father are one expounded them figuratiuely because they durst not deny them and their reason could not conceaue how two persons should be one nature Likwise the Marcionits vnderstood those words The vvord vvas made flesh figuratiuely because by reason they could not vnderstand how two natures shold be in one person And for the self same cause Bel and Protestants Tantum ritati obstrepit ad ulter sensus quantum corrupt or stilus Tertull lib. de praescript Scripture teacheth more plainly Christs real presence in the Sacrament then it doth his Godhead and humanity S. Augustin lib. 3. de doctrin Christian cap. 10. tom 3. Caluin 4. instit c. 17. parag 20. 23. vnderstand these words This is my body giuen for you my blood shed for you in remission of sinns figuratiuely For these words doe as playnly teach the verity of Christs body and blood in the Eucharist as those other teach the verity of his Godhead or humanity yea more plainly because in these words it is expressed what body and blood is in the Eucharist vz. that which was giuen for vs and shed in remission of sinnes which kind of addition is not in those other words 10. But as S. Austin saith If an opinion of error haue preoccupated the mind vvhatsoeuer is othervvise affirmed in Scripture men vvil vnderstand it figuratiuely Hereupon Caluin said that the reuerence of Gods vvord vvas no sufficient pretence to reiect his reasons And calleth it foolish stubbernes to contend vpon the vvords of Scripture and them catchers of sillables foolish superstitious vvho stick fast to Christ vvords What is this good Reader but to make reason the rule of faith and not to captiuare our vnderstanding to Gods word but to captiuate it to our reason and make it speake properly or figuratiuely according as reason Magdeburg in praefat centur ad reginam Elizabeth can comprehend it Truly therfore wrote the Magdeburgian Protestants of
Aug. lib. 2. cont Crescon cap. 26. to 7. Apoc. 22. v. 8. c. 19. v 10. S. August q. 61. in Gen. â—â— 4. Genes 29. v. 24. sinneth therin greeuously but the people worshiping erroniously vpon inuincible ignorance offend no more then did S. Ihon when he worshiped an Angel as God thinking as saith S. Austin it had bene God him self or as did Iacob when he lay with Lia who was not his wife thinking verely it had bene his wife Rachel But to say that there is no consecration when the Priest omitteth any word at al or miscalleth any words so as the sense be not altered thereby is not Catholique doctrin but Bels vsual false dealing 9. His last contradiction is that vvhen pag. 34. many Priests are made together in Rome they al pronounce the vvords of consecration This is true but what then Papists saith he can not tel hovv many Gods or hovv many times God is made in a peece of bread O accusator fratrum Where didest thou heare of many Gods amongest Papists Where of making of God we say after S. Hierom and S. S. Hieron eâ—ist ad Helâ—odor S. Pontian epist 1. Decretali Pontian that Priests conficiuni Corpus Christi make Christs body but dreame not of making God These be the slanders malitiously obiected to Catholikes against thine owne knowledge and Conscience But where is the contradiction Forsooth because Inocentius hâ—ldeth that al such Priests do consecrate Durand thinketh that he only who first pronounceth the words and Caietan is of an other opinion I graunt these contradict one an other But what is this to the Massâ— are these contradictions in it You promised to shew vs Bel deceaueth his Reader contradictions in â—he Masse and twise you haue told vs of durand Caietans contradictions as often of other matters which had no shew of Contradiction Besides that the matter in which these three Authors contradict one an other is no point of faith For with Catholiques it is no more matter of faith whether al the said Priests or one only consecrate then it is with Protestants whither al or one should christen a child if many at once should dippe him into the font pronounce the words of Baptisme So the letter be wel sealed it skilleth not whither one or many be thought to make the print when many together put their hands to the seale 10. But if Bel when he looked vpon the Masse booke had looked on his communion booke and with the like eyes and affection Gilby admonition to England and Scotland fol. 70. he should haue found other stuffe in it then he did in the Masse For besyde that it is made out of our breuiary and Missal wherupon Gilby called King Edward the sixt his booke an English mattins patched forth of the Popes Portesse more then a thousand Ministers whome the vniuersity of Oxford acknowledged to be Ansvver to the PetitioÌ„ their brethren and fellow laborers in the Lords haruest in their petition exhibited Exhibited in April 1603. to his Maiesty say that they groan vnder a burden of humaine rites and ceremonies finde enormities in their Church discipline A thousand ministers censure of the communion booke and in their Churches seruice want of vniformity of doctrin Popish opinions and honor prescribed to the name of Iesus with diuers abuses which they are able say they to shew not to be agreable to Scripture Thus Syr haue your owne ministers deminished the credit of your communion booke And Reynolds an excellent ornament saith Ansvver to 8. reasons Confer p. 63. 86. pag. 25. pag. 59. Buckley in the conference at Hampton court 1. proued the communion booke to contradict twise the Byble the Bishops were faine to amend it 2. he argued it to contradict the 25. Article of their faith 3. to conteyne manifest errors directly repugnant to Scripture 4. he requested it to be pag. 23. fitted to more encrease of piety 5. professeth that vrging men to subscribe vnto it pag. 58. is a great impeachment to a learned ministery wherof he giueth diuers reasons as the repugnancy therin to Scripture the corruption of Scripture the interrogatories and ceremonies in baptisme and certayne D. Râ—inolds censure of the communion booke words in matrimony Thus syr the excellent ornament of your Church hath adorned your communion booke and this black verdict hath he giuen therof 11. And if I should but reckon the contradictions Protestants contradictioÌ„s about their communion in Protestants doctrin about the Eucharist I shold neuer make an end only I wil requite Bel with some few 1. how Christs body saith Willet shold be verily 1. VVillet Tetrostyl col 2. part 3. p. 82. present and yet not really Can there be verum and not res or ens vere and not realiter 2. how there can be a real presence 2. Perkins Reform Cath. p. 185. 189. of Christ in the Sacrament as saith Perkins and yet Christ no otherwise present then a thing to it name 3 How God giueth Christ 3. Perkins sup in this Sacrament saith the same Minister as really and truly as any thing can be giuen to man and yet he is giuen by only faith 4. 4. Caluin 4. instit c. 17. paragr 10. How as Caluin teacheth the Eucharist is no empty signe but hath the verity of the thing vnited to it and yet Christ is only in heauen 5. How there is saith Caluin 5. Caluin sup parag 19. 15. a true and substantial communication of Christs body and blood in the Eucharist and yet Christ no more there then he was 6. Sainctes de Euchar. repetit 6. c. 1. p. 208. Mich. Fabrit ep de Beza in the Sacraments of the Iews which were before his body was any substance 6. How Christs body is truely really and substancially in the Eucharist as Beza wrote in his confession exhibited to the Count Palatine and vttered publikly in the disputation at Surius An. 1556. Poysi and yet withal as far from the Eucharist as heauen from earth Surely such fellows as these haue yea no in their religion 2. Cor. 1. v. 17. 2. Cor. 4. v. 2. or els walking in craftines adulterat as the Apostle speaketh Gods worde For if their words be vnderstood as they signify purport they include manifest contradiction and thus much of the second Article VVherfore be myndful Apotal Bel from wheÌ„ce thou are fallen and do penance Apoc. 2. THE THIRD ARTICLE OF THE POPES DISPENSATIONS CHAP. I. BEL beginneth this Article as he did Bel pag. 36. the two former with vntruthes and dissimulatioÌ„s His vntruths appeare in that he chargeth S. Antonin and Austin of Ancona Antonin 3. part tit 22. c. 5. parag 8. vntruth 42. vntruth 43. with teaching the Pope to haue equal powre with God Because S. Antonin writeth That seeing the Pope is Christs vicar none can lawfully withdraw him self from his
obedience And that Christ hath giuen him most ful powre as S. Cyril saith he teacheth lib. thesaur which proofe out of S. Cyril this honest challenger left out Austin of Ancona affirmeth Augustin do Ancona in summa p. 152. that The Pope as Christs vicar hath vniuersal iurisdiction ouer al Kingdoms and Empiers Did euer man see greater impudency what word is here of equal powre with God Nay expresse word of inequality if vicars be vnequal to principals deputies to Kings Did Christs humanity when it receaued most ful powre Math. 28. v. 18. and authority S. Mathevv ouer al kingdoms and bounds of the earth psal 2. v. 8. receaue equal powre to Dauid God And if the powre of Christ as man though neuer so ful and vniuersal were create and vnequal to Gods powre who can imagin the powre giuen by Christ as man to a pure man to be equal to Gods I omit Bels error in affirming that Austin of Ioan. 12. liued 956. August de Ancona 1305. Onuph in chron Ancona dedicated his booke to Pope Ihon the twelft who was dead almost 400. years before him But he shold haue said Ihon 22. and this error can not be laid vpon the Printer seeing the number is set downe not in cyphers but letters 2. His dissimulation is euident First because Dissimulati◠4. he concealeth that the opinion That matrimony only contracted may be vpon vrgent occasion dissolued is held but of some Canonists and of very few deuines who commonly hold the contrary But impugneth Bel impugneth an opinion of Canonists and of Protestants as a matter of faith 5. Dissimulation Surius Ann. 1540. Vid. Lindan l. de concordia Haereticor p. 69. it as if it were held of al Catholiques and as a point of their faith Secondly he imposeth the said opinion vpon Catholiques only dissembling that Protestants think not only matrimony contracted but also consummated by carnal copulation may be dissolued impugne Catholiques for not admitting any cause of dissoluing such matrimony 3. Luther the Protestants first Father writ a booke 1540. where he auoucheth it to be hard and vniust that the innocent person may not marry an other after separation made for adultery Caluin calleth it a Caluin 4. instit c. 19. paragr 37. most vniust law Likwise Bucer in cap. 19. Math. Melancht de loc tit de coniugio Kemnitius in 2. part exami And Willet in VVillet controu 15. q. 2. p. 526. 527. name of English Protestants Al these affirme that adultery is a iust cause why euen consummated marriage may be dissolued and a new contracted Luther addeth other Luther in c. 7. ad Corinth edit 1523. causes as the one persuading the other to sinne much debate betwene them and long absence of the one party which if it be done of malice seemeth iust cause to willet and therto he citeth Beza 1. Corinth VVillet sup 7. and other Protestants And this was practized in K. Edward 6. tyme when Syr Ralf Sadler hauing maried one Mathew Baro his wife in his absence though Baro had begotten children of her yet could not recouer her but by Parlament she was adiudged to Sadler Caluin addeth want of Caluin Bucer sup consent of parents if the parties be yong and Bucer addeth incommodious behauior of ether party to be a sufficient cause 4. Wherfore if the Pope by dissoluing Bel pag. 37. contracted matrimony which he doth very seldom and vpon vrgent occasion weighty cause challenge as Bel saith powre equal to God Surely Protestants by dissoluing consummated matrimony often and vpon so many causes wherof some are very smale and not sufficient to dissolue a meere ciuil contract do challenge powre aboue God But let vs see how he against some Catholiques and generally al Protestants proueth that contracted matrimony can not be dissolued but by God alone for any cause whatsoeuer 5. His reason is because Christ said Math. pag. 38. c. 19. v. 6. what God hath ioyned let not man seperate and Luc. 16. v. 18. Euery one that putteth away his wife and marieth an other committeth adultery And S. Paul 1. Corinth c. 7. v. 10. Those that are ioyned in matrimony command not I but our lord that the wife depart not from the husband but if she depart abide vnmaried or be reconciled to her husband To this the Canonists answer That Christ and his Apostle spake only of consummated matrimony because Math. 19. Christ forbiddeth seperation of such as immediatly before he had said to be made one flesh which is by consummation of matrimony And likewise Luc. 16. prohibiteth mariage after dismission of a wife carnally known as is gathered out of Math. 5. v. 32. where he vseth the same words and citeth the law of diuorce Deut. 24. v. 1. which speaketh of a woman carnally known saying If a man haue taken a vvife and had her and she haue not found fauor in his eyes for some filthines he shal c. And hereby are answered the words of S. Paul in which he referreth him self to the precept of Christ Besids that S. Thecla virgin was by him soluta à nuptijs losed from mariage as writeth S. Epiph. haer 78. which S. Epiphan fact S. Ambros lib. 2. de virg commendeth S. Ambros and it argueth that the Apostle tought vnconsummated mariage might be dissolued 6. Against this answer Bel bringeth many replies in number but none of force 1. That if contracted matrimony were not de iure pag. 38. diuino the greatest Popish Doctors vvold not deny the Popes dispensation therin Lo here when it maketh for his purpose he confesseth the greatest Catholique Doctors to think contracted matrimony to be indissoluble Why then doth he impugne the contrary as an Article of our faith To his argument I answer that though al Catholiques beleeue the institution of contracted matrimony to be of God and Deuines for the most part probably thinke the continuance also therof to be iure diuino and commanded by God yet neuertheles Canonists do probably teach that the continuance of it is not absolutly and in al cases commanded by God but may vpon great and vrgent causes be dissolued by the Church 7. Secondly he replyeth that Christ speaketh absolutly and maketh no mention of copulation or popish consummation Answer Though in that verse he spake absolutly yet immediatly before he made mention of copulation And wil Bel forbid vs to expound a sentence of Scripture by the antecedents or consequents But I maruel much why he tearmed consummation or copulation popish Me thinketh he shold rather cal it Ministerish For Papists can say with S. Austin lib. de bono coniug c. 13. tom 6. VVe S. Austin see lib. 5. cont Faust c. 9. haue many brethren and companions of the heauenly inheritance of both sexes vvho are continent ether after experience of mariage or are free from al such copulation such are innumerable But for Ministers their first
of Protestants touched in their late Conference of dissention amongst them gathered out of the conference at Hampton court as 1 whether baptisme by vvoemen be allowable pag. 8. 14. 15. 17. 18. 2. vvhether confirmation be lawful pag. 10. 3. vvhether baptisme be necessary pag. 16. 4. vvhether after receauing the holy Ghost we may totally depart from grace pag. 28. 5. vvhether the communion booke contradict the 15. article of their faith pag. 25. 6. vvhether there ought to be any Bishops pag. 36. 7. vvhether the intention of the Minister be essential to the Sacrament pag. 38. 8. vvhether a man once iustifyed remaine truly iust before God whatsoeuer sinne he commit pag. 41. and 14. 9. vvhether a iustifyed man falling into greeuous sinnes shal be saued without repentance for them 16. 10. vvhether the English Byble be truly translated pag. 45. 46. 11. vvhether the communion booke corrupt the Byble in two places pag. 63. 12. vvhether the Crosse be to be vsed in baptisme pag. 65. 13. VVhether the Church can institute an external significant signe pag. 67. 14. vvhether the Churches institution can bynde in conscience pag. 70. 15. VVhether the communion booke containe errors repugnant to Scripture pag. 59. 8. Moreouer more then a thousand Ministers In their Supplicatiō exhibited in April 1603. Ansvver to the Supplication whom the whole vniuersity of Oxford calleth their brethren and fellovv laborers in the Lords haruest in the supplication to his Maiestie exhibited in April 1603 professe That there is not in their Church an vniformity of doctrin This the Oxonians deny against their owne knowledge and the knowlege of al England For what vniformity is there where a thousand Ministers their fellow laborers professe them selues to disagree in points of religion from the rest yea his Maiestie witnesseth him selfe to haue receaued Conference p. 5. 22. many complaints through the dissentions in the Church and purposeth as he saith to setle an vniforme order through the vvhole Church and to plant vnity Wil now the Oxonians say there are no dissentions wil they make his Maiestie actum agere in setling vniformity and planting vnity where none wanteth And in like sort of the Scottish Church he testifyeth That there is such dissention euen in Conference p. 44. the Catachisme doctrin as vvhat vvas Catachisme dostrin in one congregation vvas scarsly accepted as sound and orthodox in an other And this dissention amongst Protestants about matters of religion is with such obstinacy as notwithstanding proclamations disputations conferences and decrees or Canons of their Church it remaineth stil amongst them and wil as long as heresy remayneth in them which teacheth them to expound Scriptures according to their priuate spirits and to recant nothing because as his Maiestie Conference p 102. saith of the Scottish Ministers it standeth not vvith their credits 9. The fourth note which Bel gathereth out of S. Thomas his words is more to the purpose vz. That motions of concupiscence preuenting reason are venial sinnes But if Bel had amongst his important obseruations obserued also that S. Thomas spake immediatly before of deliberate reason he might haue noted that he meant only of such motions as preuent perfect but not imperfect deliberation and therfore are as he saith imperfect or venial sinnes VVherfore be myndful Bel from vvhence thou art falne and do penance Apocalip 2. THE FIFT ARTICLE OF THE MERIT OF GOOD WORKES CHAP. I. Of the Protestants enmity to good vvorks and friendship vvith euil BEL beginneth this Article Bel pag. 60. with a greeuous complaint against Papists who saith he most vnchristianly slander the professors of Christs Ghospel as though they vvere enemies to good vvorks of vvhich they thinke speak teach and vvrite more christianly and more religiously then Papists do Both these points he proueth no otherwise then with an I say I say saith he that good vvorks though they can not go before yet do euer follovv iustification are necessary to saluation and true effects of predestination As if Bel were al the new Ghospellers or they al agreed with him concerning good works We alleadge their words produce their deeds shew the fruits and effects of their enmity to good works and Bel thinketh to answer al this with an I say Surely he presumeth of beneuolous and partial iudges or he wold neuer answer thus He with an I say may slāder Popes Princes Papists whatsoeuer and an I say yea manifest proofe to the contrary wil not suffice him Such force his I sayes haue Dixit facta sunt But Syr I both say wil proue by words and deeds that both you and your Ghospellers are not only enemies to good works but great frends to euil works And as for enmity to good works 2. First they bid vs beware of good works Let vs bevvare saith Luther of sinne Luther sermon de nouo testamēto seu de Missa Colloquiū Attenburg but much more of lawes and good works And some of his schollers in the conference of Altenburg teach vs to pray that we perseuer vnto the end in faith vvithout good vvorks 2. they teach good works to be harmful Good vvorks said the forsaid Lutherans are pernitious to saluation Againe Christians vvith good vvorks belong to Sathan And as Surius Surius comment Ann. 1564. Staphil in Apolog. Staphilus and others report a Minister was not allowed in Saxony because he beleeued not this 3. because they say al good works are sinne and vnciean so Luther art 23. Caluin 3. instit c. 14. parag 9. 11. c. 15. parag 3. and 4. whitaker contr Durae l. 1. p. 49. Bucley answer to 8. reasons p. 111. and 109. Perkins tit of merit and Bel art 4. pag. 48. teacheth that sinne is alwaies annexed to Epicur◠vvold seeme to loue vertue though he made pleasure his end good works 4. They teach that good works of their nature deserue damnation There was neuer saith Caluin lib. 3. instit c. 14. parag 11. any work of a godly man which if it were examined by Gods seuere iudgment were not damnable How can Protestants Habentes speciem pietatis virtutem autem eius abnegantes 2. Timoth 4. v. 5. now be friēds to good workes which they bid beware of account hurtful sinne and damnable Surely their friendship can be no better then Ioabs was to Amasa when he kissed him but withal thrust his dagger into his body 2. Reg. 20. 3. And on the contrary side their friendship Frendship of Protestants to euil vvorks to euil works is manifest 1. because they teach that euil works make not an euil man nor any can damne a man but incredulity this Luther teacheth in plaine Luther tearms lib. de libert Christian and lib. de capt Babil c. de baptis 2. because they make God author of sinne Zuinglius saith Zvvinglius sermon de Prouidentia ad Principem Cattorum 1530. c. 5. Caluin in playne termes maketh God author of sinne
only wil I proue 6. That good works are a condigne or worthy merit of heauen in the sense before explicated followeth of that they are a true merit therof because as I thinke only condigne merit is true merit For congrual merit hath no iustice in it as appeareth in good works disposing to iustification which some cal congrual merits and therfore no true merit which can not be without some title of iustice But I proue it other waies First because the Thessalonians suffered to S. Paul â—is to cataZiothenai humas be made or accounted worthy of Gods kingdom 2. Thess 1. v. 5. Ergo sufferances make men worthy or which commeth to one purpose to be truly accounted worthy of Gods kingdom Secondly Apocalip 3. v. 4 They haue not defyled their garments and Apocal. they shal vvalke vvith me in vvhite because they be vvorthy Ergo Saints are worthy to walke with God in glory These places make Protestants confesse that Saincts are worthy of heauen but haue a shift of saying They are vvorthy for Christs merits not for their ovvne But Perkins refor Cathol Of merits p. 113. as plainly as S. Paule affirmeth the Thessalonians to be worthy of Gods kingdome so plainly he affirmeth their worthines to come of their owne sufferances And likewise S. Ihon ascribeth the worthines of Saints to their not defyling their garments which is their owne merit Moreouer Christ speaking of mans labours saith The worker is worthy of his hyer Luc. 10. v. 7. S. Lukâ— S. Paul S. Austin And we worke our saluation Philip. 2. v. 12. And S. Austin epist 105. saith that Eternal life is giuen to the merit of our iustice as death is to the debt of our sinne and that God crowneth our merits And in psal 93. that we buy heauen with labour Therfore the worthines of Saints proceedeth from their owne merits though it proceed also from the merits of Christ For we are branches he Ioan. 15. v. 5. the vyne therfore as grapes which spring out of the branches proceed from the vyne which giueth them their vertue soe al worthines which proceedeth from Saints riseth from Christ as the roote and fountaine thereof 7. Thirdly condigne merit requireth not perfect and arithemetical equality in the worke to the rewarde but only proportion but good workes haue proportion to glory Therfore they are condigne merits thereof The Proposition Bel him selfe pag. 77. alleadgeth and approueth out of Ihon de Combis and it is euident in mens deserts of a Bishopricke which being a spiritual dignity passeth al price and yet may be worthely deserued of men The assumption Infra parag 9. shal be proued a none Nether is our condigne meriting of heauen either blasphemous against Gods free mercy or iniurious to Christs merits as Bel bableth but rather Bel pag 62. Rom. 6. v. 23. Math. 5. v. 12. Math. 11. v. 12. Ioan. 1. v. 16. S. Austin epist 105. Philip. 3. v. 14. 2. Timoth. 4. v. 8. S. Austin ep 105. S. Ambros in c. 6. Rom. S. Chrysost hom 7. Rom. S. Gregor Nazianz. orat 3. in S. lauacrum Our merits honourable to Christ. honourable For though eternal life as it is giuen to good workes be mercy or grace as S. Paul calleth it yet neuer shal Bel proue that it is meere mercy or grace Our Sauiour calleth it a rewarde and saith we get it by violence S. Ihon according to S. Austins exposition calleth it grace for grace that is grace of glory not absolutly but for grace of merits or grace mixt with iustice S. Paul calleth it a goale a crowne of iustice The Fathers cal it a stipend a debt And by whose authority then doth Bel cal it a meere grace or mercy Harken to S. Paul 1. Timoth. 6. Bel and leaue these same nouelties of wordes 8. Likewise it is not iniurious to Christs merits but rather honourable to them For as it is not iniurious to Gods doing good that we by his grace do good for our selfs but rather honourable according to our Sauiours saying In hoc clarificatus est pater Ioan. 15. v. 8. c. In this my father is glorifyed Nor to Christs prayer or impetration that we also through him pray and impetrate for our Our merits no more iniurious to Christs merits then our prayer to his prayer selfs So likewise it is not iniurious to Christs meriting but rather honourable therto that we also through him and as his liuely members do in some sort merit for our selfs What iniury is it to the tree that the branch thereof bringeth forth fruit nether are we therfore more partners with Christ in merit then we are by prayers partners with him in impetration 9. That our merits haue proportion Merits haue proportion to glory and vertual equality to their reward followeth also out of the former For condigne merit requireth at lest due proportion to the reward but especially I proue it First because the reward consisteth in the cleare sight of God face to face and in perfect loue of him and our merit consisteth principally in faith which is a sight or knowledge of God in a glasse and in louing him aboue al things But there is due proportion between the sight of a thinge in a glasse and the cleare sight thereof and betwixt perfect loue and the loue aboue al things Ergo Secondly good workes are fruits of the holy Ghost Galat. 5. v. 22. and of Christs passion for by it we do these good workes Ergo it is iniury to the holy Ghost and to Christ to say that their supernatural fruits haue no proportion to a supernatural rewarde Thirdly glory is grace Rom. 6. Ioan. 1. and our merits are grace but there is proportion between two graces 4. Grace is the seed of glory according to that 1. Ioan. 3. The seed of God remaineth in him therfore in vertue it conteineth glory as the seed doth the tree 5. Glory is a floode making glad the citty of God psal 45. and grace is a fountaine of water leaping into eternal life Ioan. 4. but there is proportion between a floode and a fountaine which springeth into the place of the floode Now let vs come to Bels arguments which beside that they impugne no matter of faith as is before said they disproue no such condignity of merit as Catholiques teach and is already explicated but such as is both absolute and perfectly equal to the rewarde And at last after he had runne him selfe out of breath confesseth that he can not impugne condigne merit as it is defended by Bellarmin who in truth teacheth no other herein then is the common doctrine of the Church CHAP. IIII. Bels arguments out of Scripture against condigne merit ansvvered HIs first argument is taken out of S. Bel pag. 62. Paul Rom. 6. v. 23. To de Charisma tou theou Zoe aionios en Christo Iesou to curio hemon which he citeth in greeke perhaps to make the Reader
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
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
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
v. 10. Nay al are interpreters if the Scripture be cleare to al. 4. Origen saith that Scripture is reuera multis Fathers Origen lib. 7. cont Celsum in locis obscura in very deed obscure in many places And that they take away the key of science who say the Scripture is manifest hom 20. in Math. S Chrysostom noteth S. Chrysost hom 40. in Ioannem â—om 3. That Christ bid not read but search Scriptures because summa indigent diligentia they need great study S. Hierom writeth that al the epistle S. Hierom. epist ad Algosiam q. 8. Epistol ad Paulin. S. Augustin l. 2. de doct Christ c. 6. See 12. Conf. c. 14. serm 4. 5. 13. de verb. Apost Iren. lib. 2. cap. 47. Cyrill praefat lib. thesaur S. Augustin tom 2. to the Romans is nimys obscuritatibus inuoluta wrapped in excessiue obscurities That the Apocalips hath as many misteries as words S. Austin noteth That to tame our pride some things are so obscurely said as densissimam caliginem obducunt they bring ouer a most thick darknes And wil Bel account that cleare which the glistering beam of Gods Church for so Bel tearmeth S. Austin accounted so dark and obscure And epist 119. c. 21. professeth to be ignorant of many more things in Scripture then he knoweth If Bel after our holy Fathers please to heare his owne vnholy syers Luther telleth him Luther praefat in psal that he is most impudently rash who professeth to know one book of Scripture in al points By daily reading of Scripture saith Caluin 3. instit Caluin Quotidie legendo in multos obscuros locos incidimus qui nos ignorantiae coarguunt Bel p. 102. Reason c. 2. parag 4. we fal vpon many obscure places which conuince vs of ignorance Nay to what purpose doth Bel require the commentaries of Fathers for better vnderstanding of Scriptures if there be no difficulty in them 5. Finally if our coÌ„mon lawes handling nothing but buying selling bargaining and such common and vsual matters as are daily practized of men be so hard and difficult as they require great study to be wel vnderstood and Clients wil giue great fees for Lawyers counsel in them what shal we thinke of Gods laws which entreat of deuine and supernatural things far aboue mans reach and capacity Or if as S. Austin S. Augustin tom 6. saith lib. de vtil cred c. 7. He that hath no skil in poetry dare not medle with Terentian Maurus without a maister Asper Cornutus Donatus and infinit others are requisit to vnderstand any Poet and doest thou without a guide rush vpon holy books ful of deuine matters O exceeding boldnes or rather madnes And againe If euery Iâ— cap. vlt. art though base and easy require a teacher or maister to get it vvhat is more foolish heady pride then not to learne the booke of deuine sacraments of their interpreters Now let vs heare Bels reasons to the contrary 6. Salomon saith he Prouerb 8. v. 8. 9. teacheth Bels Arguments p. 108. That the words of wisdom are easy and open to euery one of vnderstanding But let vs heare Salomon him self Al my speeches are iust there is not in them any thing wicked or peruerse They are right to such as vnderstand and euen to such as find knowledge What word is here of easynes or manifestnes of Gods words but only of their vprightnes and equity And let Bel learne of S. Austin in psal 146. to 8. S. Austin That in Scripture there is nothing peruers but some thing obscure But perhaps Bels english Byble deceaued him which to deceaue the Reader vsed the ambiguity of the english Bible printed 1584. word plaine which may signify ether manifest or euen for the latin word aequi 7. After this Bel cyteth dyuers places of pag. 108. Psal 25. v. 9. Ioan. 7. v. 17. Ioan. 8. v. 31. 32. Math. 11. v. 25. S Paul Scripture to proue That God reuealeth his wil to al that fear him to litle ones That the doers of his wil know his doctrin and truth But seeing it is no where said That God reuealeth his wil or the good know it by bare reading his word but rather the contrary because faith commeth of hearing and how shal they heare without a preacher Rom. 10. v. 17. 15. These places make nothing for easines of Scripture Besids that they may be expownded not of Gods wil in al points but in such as are necessary to euery mans saluation which we graunt to be plainly reuealed in Scripture I omit his other places That the Scripture Psalm 119. al. 118. v. 105. 2. Pet. 1. v. 19. 1. Cor. 2. v. 15. Cap. 9. parag 17. Bel p. 108. is a lanthern light or candle and That the spiritual man iudgeth or as he expowndeth vnderstandeth al things for they be answered hereafter 8. He alleageth S. Chrisostom saying what need we a preacher our negligence hath brought this necessity For to what end is a sermon needful Al things are clear and plaine out of Scripturs what things soeuer are necessary are manifest But S. Chrisostom speaketh not of al S. Chrysost hom 3. in 2. Thessalon things in Scripture but only of such as are necessary to euery ones saluation as is euident by his last words And such need no preacher for to be vnderstood though they need to be beleeued as S. Paule testifyeth S. Paul Roman 10. 17. But besides these there are things obscure as the same holy Doctor witnesseth in the same place in these words Thou knowest which are cleare what askest thou the obscure And hom 10. in Ioan. he biddeth S. Chrysost item Concion 3. de Lazaro men note vvich is cleare which obscure in Scripture and to harken the exposition of them in the Church And for such points preachers and preaching is as necessary now to vs as wel for vnderstanding as for beleeuing them as they were to the Eunuch act 8. to the two disciples Luc. 24. Other places he Homil. 9. Coloss and Concion 3. de Lazaro cyteth out of S. Chrysostome concerning reading of Scripture which shal be answered in his proper place 9. What hath bene answered to the words of S. Chrysostom is to be applyed to the like in S. Austin lib. 2. de doct Christ S. Augustin tom c. 9. In these things vvhich are plainly set dovvn in Scripture are found al those things vvhich concerne faith and manners For he saith not absolutly Al things but al those things therby insinuating that he meaneth only of things necessary to be beleeued and done of euery one which Bel perceauing in englishing False translat his words leaft out the word Those But I maruel what he meant to cite S. Aust S. Augustin l. 2. de doct Christ c. 6. writing The holy Ghost hath so tempered Scriptures that locis apertioribus by manifester places Bel translateth manifold places he might prouide for hunger
desire of knowledge and by obscurer wipe away loathsomnes For here he plainly teacheth Scripture to be obscure in some places But perhaps it is because S. Austin addeth Almost nothing is in the obscure places which is not most plainly vttered otherwhere But this helpeth Bel nothing For nether saith he that al obscurities are plainly other where explicated Nor that it is plaine in what places they are explicated And so S. Austin admitting some obscure places of Scripture to be no where explicated in Scripture and supposing it not to be plaine in what places such obscure places as are explicated be explicated admitteth Scripture to be obscure An other place he citeth Bel p. 111. 112. 113. out of S. Austin as also S. Hierom and Theodoret concerning reading of Scripturs which shal be answered in the next chapter CHAP. VII Of the vulgar peoples reading Scripture FIRST conclusion it is not necessary to al sorts of people that desire to attaine to eternal life to read Scripturs The contrary auoucheth Bel pag. 103. 109. wherin he exceedeth the heretike Pelagius who required not reading but only knowledge of Scripture for to be without sinne therby condemned a great part of Christians as S. Hierom writeth dialog 1. cont Pelag. But S. Hierom. it is so manifest as it needeth no proofe For how should they doe that can not read Doth Bel thinke Scripture to be like a neck verse that who can not read it shal be hanged where doth God command euery one vpon paine of death to read Scripturs whence came this new law which Bel proclaimeth But marke Reader Protestants taught at first that no works were necessary to saluation And now Bel auoucheth one more vz. reading of Scripturs then euer Catholiques dreamed on 2. Second conclusion It is not expedient See S. Gregor Nazianzen in Apologet orat 1. de Theolog. for euery one of the vulgar sort to read Scripturs This I proue because vnlearned and vnstable persons depraue the Scripture to their owne perdition Many of the vulgar sort are vnlearned and vnstable Therfore many of them ought not to read Scripture The Minor is euident The Maior is auerred by S. Peter 2. c. 3. v. 16. and proued by Hacket More Ket Hammont See Stovv Ann. 1561. 1579. daily experience of new Christs new Iewes new heresyes daily gathered out of Scripture And in truth the Protestants counselling of common people to read Scripturs is much like to the Diuels perswading of Eue to eat the Apple He asked Eue why God forbad her to eat they aske why the Church forbiddeth vs to read And both answering alike He replyeth you shal not die but become like Gods They say you shal not fal into errors but become like Deuines And the euent is like in both Eue by eating fel out of Paradise and incurred death simple people by reading dye in soule fal out of the Church 3. But saith Bel. A good should not be Bel p. 107. taken wholy from the godly for fault of the bad Answere The godly are not debarred from reading Scripture if they be desyrous and iudged by their Pastors to be such as wil reape good therby Neuertheles they ought not without lycence lest as S. Austin S. Augustin lib. de vtilit credend c. 10. tom 6. writeth in the like case Though they hurt not them selfs by reading they may hurt others by example As he that could fly be made to go lest his example prouoke others to so perilous attempt This saith he is the prouidence of true religion and deliuered from our Auncestors and to alter this course were nothing els then to seeke a sacriledgious way to true religion Moreouer though a thing be good in it selfe yet it is not good but to such as know how to vse it But euery one of the common people knoweth not how to vse Scripture For as Gregory Nazianzen S. Nazianz. orat Quod non liceat semper publice de Deo contēdere In Apologetico S. Hierom. epistol ad Paulin. writeth The vvord of holy vvritt is not so base that it is open to the vnlearned common sort and seely men creeping as yet vpon the ground And againe To some it is better to be taught by others And S. Hierom complaineth that euery one challengeth the knowledge of Scripture and that the chatting old vvife the doating old men and the prating Sophister take it in hand See Theodoret lib. 4. c. 17. What wold he say now if he saw Protestants children reading Scripture and taught to read english by the Byble Now let vs see Bels obiections 4. Bel alleadgeth S. Chrisostom as affirming Bel p. 103. 104. S. Chrysost proaem ep ad Rom. 1. That if we read Scripture seriously vve shal need no other thing ◠That it is a great shame for men charged with wife and children only to heare sermons and not withal to study Scripturs 3. That many euils come of ignorance of Scripture as heresies and dissolute life Answer The first point is not against vs who graunt that in reading Scripture we may find al things necessary But the question now is whither it be better for euery one to find such things him selfe out of Scripture or no. As for the second point S. Chrisostom only saith that it is a shame not to exact more diligence of men in hearing sermons then in gathering mony At lest saith he be ready to heare what others haue gathered and bestovv so much diligence in hearing vvhat is said as in gathering mony For though it be a shame to exact but so much of you yet wil we be content if you performe so much The third point is easely answered because he saith Innumera mala nata sunt quod scripturae ignorantur Christ sup vntruth 84 not That much mischeef commeth of not reading as Bel falsly affirmeth pag. 105 but of not knowing the Scripture vz if men wil nether read it them selfs nor heare it readd and expounded by preachers Nether could he thinke that much mischeef can come of not reading Scripture if so be it be heard seeing he promiseth to be content if men wil heare it 5. An other place he citeth out of S. Bel p. 105. S. Chrysost hom 29. in 9. c. Genes tom 1. Chrisostom where he exhorteth men auscultare lectionem scripturae to harken to the reading of Scripture And againe At home to apply them selfes to read Scripturs Answer The first part maketh nothing for reading Differences betvvixt S. Chrysost and Protestants but only for hearing Scripture as is euident The second exhorteth to reading but 1. not euery man woman child as Protestants do but men and namely such who as he saith proem epist ad Rom. haue wiues charge of children and family And hom 9. Colos Hear you saith he who liue in the vvorld haue care of vviues and children who as he writeth conc 3. de Lazaro haue publicke offices
mantein wiues and children And yet Bel wil haue Bel p. 110. him to speake to both sexes as if both sexes had wiues As for woemen and children Hom. 9. ad Coloss hom 37. 1. Cor. he affirmeth That they ought to be instructed of men 6. Secondly he exhorteth not as Protestants do al kind of secular men to wit vnstable as S. Peter calleth them and inconstant S. Peter 2. c. 8. v. 16. in their faith For such are like rather to depraue Scripturs to their perdition as S. Peter testifyeth then to reape good by reading them Thirdly the secular men whom he exhorteth he exhorteth not as Protestants do to the reading equally of al parts of Scripture but especially such as are plaine and easy namely histories as appeareth by these his words 2. Thess hom 3. S. Chrysost But thou vvilt say they are obscure what obscurity is this I pray thee are there not Histories Thou knowest which are cleare what askest thou of the obscure places There are a thousand Histories in Scripture tel me one of them 7. Fourthly he exhorteth them not absolutly as Protestants do in al tymes without regard of any occasion or circumstance but seeing the people of Constantinople to whom he preached giuen as he saith to dissolute life to idlenes to haunting Proaem ep ad Rom. after dishonest shewes and riot for to withdraw them from such vice and to imploy their tyme better he exhorted them to buy Bybles and to read the Scripture and vpon this occasion he said That the Apostle Homil. 9. Coloss cit commanded to read the Scriptures diligently And in like sort seeing their children to haue learnt diuelish songs and dances as Ibid. he tearmeth them for to take such from them he biddeth men to teach them to sing psalmes But how things ought absolutly to proceed he vttereth in these words vnto men vos oportebat duntaxat à nobis institui Ibid. vxores vero à vobis à vobis liberos you ought only to be instructed of vs but your wiues children of you And 1. Corinth hom 37. he saith That S. Paul appointed S Paul men to reach their wiues as indeed he did in these words If they woemen list learne any thing let them aske their ovvne husbands at home 1. Corinth 14. v. 35. And the like he hath 1. Tit. 2. Behould S. Paul bids woemen learne of their husbands Bel bids them read and learne of Scripture let woemen chuse whether they wil follow 8. Fiftly he exhorteth not secular men to read Scriptures with that mynd and A mayne difference betvvixt S. Chrysost and Protestants purpose which Protestants doe to wit vpon curiosity and to become their owne interpreters following their owne priuate spirits and thereby to iudge of the doctrine of the Church and their Pastors whome Christ hath giuen to expound Scripturs lest they shold be carryed away with al wind of doctrine Ephes 4. v. 14. But S. Chrysostoms meaning was that reading Scriptures for their confort as he writeth hom 9. cit in aduersity for auoyding of vice and such like holy purposes they sâ—ould expound them according to their Pastors instruction you saith See S. Chrysost homil 10. in Ioan. 3. de Lazaro Origen 4. in Leuit. Autor imperfecti he ought to be instructed of vs and the Author imperfect hom 43. in Math. amongst other means which he prescribeth to lay men to know the truth of Scripture one is to aske the Priests whome he calletâ— clauicularios scripturarum key keepers of Scripturs which is the right order prescribed by God him selfe Deutr. 17. v. 9. Agg. 2. v. 12. and Malach Deuter. Aggae Malach. 2. v. 7. And the contrary course obserued by Protestants maketh Christ to haue giuen vs needles Pastors and Doctors bidding Ephes 4. v. 11. 1. Cor. 12. v. 28. Luc. 10. v. 16. vs heare them as him selfe maketh euery one his owne Pastor and to haue the gift of interpretation contrary to S. Paul 1. Corinth 12. v. 10. 30. And by this which hath bene said is answered whatsoeuer Bel alleadgeth out of S. Chrysos pag. 108. 109. 111. and he sound to be quite against Protestants and nothing against Catholiques proceedings And though S. Chrysostom had giuen far more lyberty to common Note this people to read Scriptures then now the Church doth as not hauing then experience of the harme redounding thereof what maruel if the Church finding by the experience of more then a thowsand years since S. Chrysostoms tyme that more harme then good commeth therby hath abridged that lycence For as S. Austin saith S. Augustin tom 2. Epist 50 Experience of many euils maketh many medicins to be found 9. Now let vs heare what Bel replyeth Bel p. 116. against this kind of answering to S. Chrysostoms authority First he saith That the doctrine in the pulpit ought to be as true as in the Schoole This is true but not to the purpose because we reproue not S. Chrysostom of vttering vntruths in the pulpit Next he saith That the doctrin in the pulpit ought to be as exact and absolute as in the schoole and the only difference is that in the pulpit it hath the pricke of exhortation which is wanting in schools What Syr Are these speeches of S. Chrysostom S. Chrysost hom 3. in 2. Thessalon Bel p. 108. cited by your selfe VVhat need a sermon what need a preacher as exact and absolute as can be deliuered in schools Surely then your preaching is needles and consequently the fifty pound pension giuen to you for it may be wel spared Yea if the doctrin of pulpit and schools be of like exactnes certes the auditors in both places are of like capacity and so Bels deuines be no better schollers then his common people 10. But little knoweth he what belongeth Bel knovveth not vvhat belongeth to a sermon to sermons who thinketh them to differ from schoole doctrine in nothing but in exhortation Are amplifications hyperboles and like figures excluded as wel from pulpits as from schools Are the same parts prescribed to be in a lecture by school men which are by Orators to be in a sermon or oration Doth Bel exact as strong proofs and like propriety of words of an orator or preacher persuading probably and accommodating him selfe to the capacity of his hearers as he doth of a Philosopher or Deuine teaching dogmatically Sure I am that both Aristotle and common sense teach Aristotel 1. Ethic. contrary But Bel euery where sheweth him selfe to be one of them who as S. Paul saith vnderstand not what they say or of what 1. Timoth. 1. v. 7. they talke 11. Againe suppose that S. Chrysostom had spoken of this point as exactly in the pulpit as any Dyuine can in schools what followeth thereof Forsooth that Bels proposition pag. 103. vz. That al persons of what sexe state calling or condition soeuer may
and ought to read Scriptures and can not othervvise attaine to eternal life passeth exact speech and albounds of truth Because S. Chrysostom hath no such exact words yea the words which Bel wresteth to his purpose S. Chrysostom him selfe otherwise expoundeth as hath bene shewed And thus much of Bels second reply to the foresaid answer 12. Thirdly saith he Dauid and the Berheans had no regard of this popish distinction of pag. 116. more exact speech vttered in schools then in pulpit Because Dauid Psalm 119. v. 9. affirmeth That a yong man shal cleanse his waies by study meditation and keeping of Gods lavv The Berrheans Corrupt of Script searched the Scriptures and examined the Apostles doctrine by them Ansvver Dauid Psalm 118. al. 119. v. 9. saith A yong man shal correct his waies by keeping Gods lawes But study and meditation are added by Bel I wonder he added not also reading But suppose Dauid had said That a yong man amendeth his life by reading Scripture shal we infer that he thought preachers speake as exactly as Schoolmen The like reason is the other The Berheans examined the Apostles doctrine by Scripture Ergo they thought the doctrine of the pulpit as exact as the schoole O wit whither wilt thou But Chapt. 11. parag 4. of the Berheans fact we shal speake more hereafter 13. After this Bel falleth to entreat in Of vvoemens teaching and reading Scripture perticuler of woemens teaching and reading Scriptures propounding vnto him selfe this obiection of Catholiques S. Paul wil haue woemen to learne in silence and permitteth them not to teach 1. Timoth 2. v. 12. Bel p. 116. answereth That though S. Paul permit them not to teach publikly before men yet he forbiddeth them not to read Scripture nor to teach priuatly Prouerb 31. v. 1. Act. 18. v. 26. 2. Timoth. 1. v. 5. c. 3. v. 15. where due circumstances occurre because Bethsabe taught Salomon Priscilla expounded Scriptures to Apollo Eunice and Lois instructed Timothy in Scriptures Here Bel is ashamed to lycence woemen to teach publikly before men though he was not to make one of them head of the Church which is a far greater matter and necessarily includeth authority to teach the Church publikly but whether Heretical vvoemen hovv malepert vvho dare teache Tertull. l. de praescript Some preached publikly in Germany Sur. An. 1522. they may teach publikly before woemen or priuatly before men and what the due circumstances are when they may teach priuatly he setteth not downe Nether do I thinke his Protestant sisters wold regard them who publikly before men at table and in their assemblies in houses take vpon them to expound Scriptures Surely he should do wel to informe his sisters of his circumstances But as for S. Paul he giueth them no lycence at al to read or to teach Scriptures excepting the case of perticuler inspiration or of necessity when they are permitted also to baptize For he in the foresaid words not only forbiddeth them absolutly to teach but withal appointeth them to learne as if this alone were their duety and belonged to them And lest we should thinke they might learne of them selfs by reading Scriptures he explicateth 1. Corinth 14. v 35. both of S. Paul whome and where they must learne vz. of their husbands and priuatly at home If they list to learne saith he any thing let them not read Scriptures aske their husbands at home Behold woemen appointed not to teach ether publikly or priuatly but to learne and that priuatly at home and of their husbands And the same saith S. Chrisostom S. Chrysost S. Hierom. hom 9. in epist ad Coloss S. Hierom dialog 1. contr Pelag. where he reprehendeth the Pelagians for licensing their woemen to sing with them as Protestants do now and Bel passeth in silence and saying they ought to be skilful in Scripture But no maruel if Protestants being Luther de vo coiug Assert artic 16. vid. serm de matrimon edit VVitemberbergens fol. 126. S. Paul so womanish as they professe they can no more liue without them then without meat or drinke and heresies haue bene euer spred by fauour and helpe of woemen as S. Hietom saith epist ad Cresiphontem be more liberal to woemen then the Apostle who said tt was good not to touch them 1. Cor. 7. v. 1. 14. The examples alleadged by Bel for woemens teaching are partly false partly not to the purpose For Bethsabees words came ether from Gods perticuler inspiration and so her teaching maketh not to the purpose or from her owne head and so she taught not Gods word though what she said being after recorded by Salomon becâ—me Gods worde Priscilla is not said act 18. v. 16. as Bel affirmeth to haue expounded Scriptures but the way of the Lord to Apollo which she might do without expounding Scripture as S. Ihon prepared Luc. 1. v. 76. Math. 3. v. 3. the way of the Lord without preparing Scripture That of Eunice and Lois is vncertaine For albeit it be said 2. Timoth. 1. v. 5. That they vvere faithful vvoemen and c. 3. v. 15. that Timothy vvas instructed from his infancy in Scripture Yet it is not said he was instructed of them but might wel be instructed of some other at their procuremeÌ„t as it is vsual for to hyre maisters to teach children wherfore fondly doth Bel auouch it to be cleare and euident by their example that mothers must teach and yong babes learne Scripture 15. But suppose that they taught their childe or grandchild for want of sufficient men to teach as may be presumed because his father was a Gentil Act. 16. v. 13. what is this to woemen teaching without al necessity priuarly whome soeuer euen their husbands contrary to the prescript and otder sette down by S. Paul yea suppose that Bethsabe Priscilla Eunice and Lois had without perticuler inspiration or necessity which Bel can not proue taught men priuatly Scriptures who seeth not but that S. Paul knew better woemens duety then they and that we ought rather to follow his prescript and order then the example of two or three woemen not the learnedest nor greatest Clerks 16. After this Bel alleadgeth Origen for Bel p. 107. proofe of common peoples reading Scripture and affirmeth him to exhort the people to read Scriptures because he writeth Origen homil 4. in Leuit If we can not al things let vs at lest remember that we are now taught or is rehearsed in the Church But Origen here exhorteth the people only to remembring at lest saith he Bel p. 111. those things which are taught and rehearsed this day in the Church to wit by ecclesiastical persons He bringeth like wise S. Austin exhorting S. Augustin serm 55. de tempore his people not only to heare diuine lessons in the Church but also at home to read them selfs or to heare others Wherupon Bel noteth That we must read Scriptures at
home in our houses Grosse absuraity of Bel. and not heare them read in the Churches which note is more absurd then I need refel yet let the Reader remember it But S. Austins speech was not to al kind of men nor at al tymes but to his owne people whome he knew were like to encrease their deuotion in the holy tyme of lent whereof he spake by reading Scripture And the like exhortation may any Catholique Bishop make to his flocke whome he knoweth not to haue itching ears and 2. Timoth. 4. v. 4. not to be soone conuerted to fables yet withal condemne the promiscual licence graunted by Bel to al sorts of people of what sexe state calling or condition soeuer For so the vnlearned and vnstable be licenced yea necessarily ought saith Bel to read Scripture pag. 103. S. Pet. 2. c. 3. v. 16. though as S Peter testifyeth they wil depraue it to their owne perdition 17. And such constant Catholiques were those men and woemen which as S. Hierom S. Hierom. in psalm 133. Epistol ad Gaudent epist ad Celantiam writeth did striue vvho should learne most Scriptures and vvhome he exhorted to learne the Scripture vvithout booke and to haue it alvvaies in their hands and to teach it their children For as him selfe writeth epist ad Gaudent cit vvhat vve speake vve speake not in general but in part nor say of al but of some And epist ad Paulin. reprehendeth greatly That euery one should take Scripture in hand Wherfore if Bel apply S. Hieroms words to al sorts of persons of what condition Bel like a foolish Phisition soeuer he doth not only against the holy Doctors meaning but sheweth him selfe to be a foolish Phisition prescribing the like diet to al kinde of persons not knowing who can eat milk but not solid meat as the Apostle speaketh 1. Corinth 3. v. 2. Hebr. 5. v. 12. For some as he saith Hebr. 5. v. 11. are weake to heare some part of Gods word and much weaker wold be to read it al. Wherfore the Catholique Church like a prudent nurse permitteth such children as she seeth strong and able to read Scripturs to feed them selfs and cut their owne meat but to such as she perceaueth to be weake and not so able she wil not graunt the like liberty but cheweth their meat or cutteth it her selfe by preaching expouÌ„ding Scriptures to them lest if they were their owne caruers they should hurt them selfs And Protestants like careles nurses let al alike carue them selfs and therby cut their owne fingers yea throats kil them selfs by taking oftentymes poison insteed of meat 18. And hereupon I must aduettise the Bel p. 112. Reader of two vntruths which Bel fathereth vpon Catholiques vz. That they deeme vntruth 85 vntruth 86 them most holy who can by hart no Scripture at al but absteine from reading therof as from poison of their souls For ignorance of Scripture in Ignorance of it self no holynes it selfe we account no holynesse at al and much lesse deeme them most holy who know lest of Scripture But great holines we esteeme it to chuse rather harmles ignorance then curious and disobedient skil As great holines it had bene in Eue 10 Donum ipsum vtiliter aliquando ignoratur S. Augustin l. 6. cont Iul. c. 16. haue made choise rather of ignorance of good and euil then of knowledge therof And the like ignorance of Scripture in Catholiques we preferre before Protestants knowledge For to be thus ignorant saith Tertullian is better lest we know that we should Tertull. l. de praescript not Faith saith he shal saue vs not exercise in Scripture Faith is commanded exercise in Scripture consisting in curiosity hath glory only in study of knowledge Let curiosity giue place to faith let glory yeeld to saluation Thus Tertullian a most antient writer whose counsel I wold to God Protestants did follow And as for Scripture we account it no poison but the food of life and the reading therof good and holsome if it be done as it should not vpon curiosity and disobedience to the Churches precept as the Aple was good in it selfe and the eating therof had not bene hurtful if it had not bene against Gods commandement 19. Bel cireth also Theodoret writing Bel p. 113. That the Hebrevv books are turned into al languages Theodoret. lib. 5. de Graecan affection Againe That we may find ditchers and neatheards and planters reasoning of the Trinity and creation of al things Answer That of the Scripturs translation shal be answered in the next chapter The other proueth no more then that simple people knew the said misteries whereof he saith not they read but reasoned And S. Gregory Nazianzen S. Greg. Nazianz orat 1. de Theol. greatly discommendeth such for it And by the like reason might Bel proue euery Catholique to read Scripture Because as Bellarmin Bellarm. lib. 2. de verbo Dei c. 4. saith truly Catholique rusticks and woemen though they vnderstand not the sentences of Scripture yet they vnderstand the misteries of our redemption and can reason of them yea better then many Protestants who dayly read Scripture But saith Bel why are not al permitted Bel p. 115. to read Scripture if al can vnderstand therein the misteries of our redemption And like to one that hath no thing to doe proueth a needles matter that the knowledge of the misteries of our redemption is necessary and sufficient to saluation though in the next page before he noted that al things Contradict 18. conteined in the written worde which no 18. doubt are more then the misteries of our redemption â—re necessary for al people But omitting Bels contradiction To his argument out of Bellarmin I answer that Bellarmin affirmeth not as Bel imposeth vntruth 87 That al can vnderstand the misteries in the Scripture but rather the contrary when he saith That many vnderstand not the sentences of Scripture And though al could vnderstand the misteries in Scriptures yet al were not to be permitted to read them because al haue not as S. Paul writeth their senses exercised Hebr. 5. v. 14. 1. Cor. 2. v. 5. 1. Cor. 3. v. 1. Rom. 12. v. 3. 1. Cor. 3. v. 2. Hebr. 5. v. 12. to the discerning of good and euil al are not perfect to haue wisdome spoken amongst them al are not to be instructed as spiritual but some as carnal Al wil not be wise to sobriety but some more wise then behooueth them Rom. 12. v. 3. Finally al are not capable of solid meat but some of mikle only CHAP. VIII Of the translation of Scripture into vulgar tongues IT is not expedient to haue or vse commonly Scripture not to be vsed commonly in vulgar tongues Scriptures in vulgar languages This is against Bel p. 106. but it followeth of that which hath bene proued in the former Chapter For if it be not expedient
absolutly for the vulgar sort to read Scripture it is not expedient that it be common in vulgar tongues lest some like foolish Eue be tempted by the sight thereof curiously and against command to read it Secondly because nether the Iewes after their language was corrupted by their captiuity translated the Scripture into their vulgar language Nor the Church euer commanded the Scriptures to be translated into euery vulgar tongue but generally vsed them in Hebrew greeke and latine in which tongs they were written As for the English Bybles translated by Protestants See Conference at Hampton Court pag. 45. 46. 47. they al hitherto haue bene naught as them selfs confesse and are now about a new translation which hereafter perhaps wil be found as faulty as the former Whereby we see that the English faith hitherto hath bene false as builded vpon the English Bible which was false and consequently The good vvhich Protestants haue gotten by English Bibles who dyed in it dyed in a false faith and relyed vpon mans worde in steed of Gods And this is the true death which common people haue incurred and al the good they haue reaped by reading Scriptures in English according to the serpentine counsel of Ministers For where before they knew so much of Gods worde as was sufficient to saluation by reading English Bibles they haue read a lying worde as now after 46. years experience they both see and confesse and because they would not content them selfs with knowledge sufficient to sobriety and saluation but as the Apostle S. Paul writeth Rom. 12. v. 3. be more wise then behooued them God hath sent them as the same Apostle saith 2. Thess 2. v. 11. the operation of error to beleeue lying 2. Against this Bel obiecteth That the Bel p. 106. Apostle calleth them madde who read the Ghospel 1. Cor. 14. v. 24. to people in a language vnknovvne to them and the people also that listen therto as Catholiques doe Answer The Apostle is so far from condemning seruice of God in a tongue vnknowne to the hearers as he saith to such a one Thou doest vvel 1. Corinth 14. v. 17. But indeed he saith That if Ideots and infidels hard vs so doing they wold say we were madde If al the Church meet together saith he Only Idiots and infidels condēne seruice in an vnknovvne tonge and al speake vvith tongues and Ideots or infidels enter vvil they not say that you are madde 1. Corinth 14. v. 23. Wherfore not S. Paul but onely Ideots or infidels cōdemne the Churches seruice in an vnknowne tongue 3. And if the sacrifice and prayer of Zachary Luc. 1. v. 10. 11. which the people did not so much as heare or see did greatly profit them why may not the sacrifice and prayers of Priests which the people both see and heare greatly profit them though they vnderstand them not And if Bel wil excuse Zachary and the Iewes yea God who commanded it Leuit. 16. from madnes though they stood without dores and could nether heare nor see and much les vnderstand the sacrifice and prayers Much better if he please may he excuse Catholiques who both see and heare and parrly vnderstand the Catholique seruice And though Bel scoffe at Catholiques listening to the Ghospel tedde in latine Yet Origen Origen hom 20. in Iosue writeth That with only hearing Scripture though we doe not vnderstand The Diuels vvords not vnderstood vvorke euil Ergo Gods vvords not vnderstood do good it the poison of naughty spirits which besiege vs is driuen away as it were with a prayer and holy spirits are inuited to helpe vs. For saith he If words of coniuration pronounced though not vnderstood worke inchantments how much more vertue thinke we haue the words of holy Scripture And if S. Chrysostom hom 3. de Lazar S. Chrysost might say That though we vnderstand not Scripture yet ex ipsa lectione multa nascitur sanctimonia much holines riseth by very reading Why may we not say the like of very hearing And because Bel vrgeth this obiection no father I answer it no fuller who list see more of it let him read Rhemist 1. Corinth 14. D. Stapleton vpon the same place and Bellar. l. 2. de verb. Dei c. 16. 4. Bel obiecteth out of Theodoret That pag. 113. Theodoret. lib. 5. de Graecan affection the Hebrew books were translated into al languages This is nothing against vs who deny not but Scripture hath bene and may be vpon iust and vrgent causes translated into vulgar languages so it be not vulgarly vsed and common to al kinde of vulgar people Bel p. 106. vntruth 88 Vid. Indic libror. prohibit And here by the way I must aduertise the Reader of dyuers vntruths vttered by Bel concerning this matter 1. That the Pope burneth Scriptures in vulgar tongue This is not so For he burneth only heretical translations and al England knoweth how currant the Rhemists testament is amongst Catholiques 2. That the Pope excommunicateth al lay vntruth 89 vntruth 90 men that reason of matter of faith or dispute of his power citeth 6. decret lib. 5. cap. Quicunque Here be two vntruths For nether is there any worde of reasoning of the Popes power but only of disputing of the Catholique faith without touching whereof we may reason of the Popes power in diuers waies as is shewed art 1. cap. 1. Nether forbiddeth he lay men to reason or At vvhat tyme lay men are for bidden to dispute of faith dispute of faith with whom-soeuer or in what case soeuer but only with Heretiks as is euident out of the whole chapter which instructeth Catholiques how they ought to behaue them selfs towards Heretiks and when Cleargy men may dispute as when that Canon was made they might in al Christendome And in this case it is vnlawful for lay men to dispute of faith both because generally they are not sufficiently S. Greg. Nazianz orat 1. de Theol. in Apologet. orat Quod◠non liceat semper publice de Deo contédere learned to defend the faith against Heretiks as also because disputing of faith is proper them to whome preaching belongeth who are not lay but Cleargy men Whereupon said S. Gregory Nazianz. It is not euery ones part to dispute of God This is not so base matter or pertaining to them vvho as yet creeping on the ground are busyed with earthly study Euery one may thinke of God but not dispute of God Thus S. Gregory for his great knowledge surnamed the Deuine whose counsel I suppose euery wise man wil sooner follow then Babling Bel. And the ciuil Cod. de Sum. Trin. law punisheth al lay men that publikly dispute of faith 3. That Priests oftentymes vnderst and vntruth 91 not the latin vvords of absolution This he might better obiect to his fellow ministers See Bels lacke of latin art 5 c. 4. paragr 10. art 2. c. 4.
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
euident then the holy Fathers when they speake of beleeuing the Ghospel they meane of deuine and Christian faith And what faith should S. Austin meane of but of such faith as he exhorted the Maniches vnto which was deuine And in the place alleadged by Bel he calleth outward teaching helpe to faith and only meaneth that a man can not learne faith of man alone without al inward teaching of God And therfore addeth That if he be not within who teacheth the Tract 3. in 1. Ioan. 10. 9. hart in vayne is our sound and where Gods inspiration is not there in vaine words sound outwardly which is most true and nothing against vs. Lastly it is against reason For the authority of Gods Church is not meere humane but in some sort deuine as a witnes by God him selfe appointed to testify his truth And therfore he said vvho heareth Luc. 10. v. 16. you heareth me therfore the faith that proceedeth from such authority is not humane 22. Wherfore Bel not trusting much to this shift flyeth to an other vz. That S. Austin said not these vvords of him selfe as he vvas then a christian but as he had bene in tymes past a Maniche This he proueth Because in the same chapter he saith That the authority of vntruth 93 1. vntruth 94 2. vntruth 95 3. the Ghospel is aboue the authority of the Churche in the chapter before That the truth of Scriptures must be preferred before authority consent of nations and the name of Catholique and promiseth to yeeld to Maniches doctrine if he shal be able to proue it out of Scripture But both this answer and proofs are most falsly auouched vpon S Austin For if he had meant the foresaid words of him selfe only as when he was a Manichist he wold not haue said Non crederem nisi commoueret c. I wold not beleeue vnles the Church did commoue me But non credidissem nisi commouisset I had not or wold not haue beleeued vnlesse the Church had commoued me Which Bel wel marking made him say so in english though he had not said it in latine Besides False translat 12. in the same chapter he addeth Qua authoritate Catholicorum infirmata iam nec potero Euangelio credere which authority of Catholiques being discredited I shal not be able now marke Bel to beleeue the Ghospel Moreouer cap. 4. he said That besides other motiues the authority of Catholiques tenet doth holde me in the lap of the Church 23. Bels proofs are nothing but his owne vntruths For though it be true That the Scripture is of greater authority then the Church yet nether doth S. Austin say it in that place nether maketh it any thing against vs. For albeit the Scripturs be in it selfe of greater authority yet the authority of the Church is both infallible and more euident to me And what maruel if for an infallible authority more euident I beleeue an other though greater yet not so manifest As S. Ihon was sent to giue testimony of Christ Ioan. 1 v. 8. and yet far inferior to Christ Nether saith S. Austin That truth of Scripture is to be preferred before authority and consent of Catholiques But Bel added the worde Scripturs as though S. Austin meant that their truth could be knowne without the authority of Catholiques or be opposit vnto it which he manifestly denyeth Nether meaneth he of the truth of Scripturs which the Manichist against whom he wrote reiected almost wholy and he him selfe professeth he could S. Austin speaketh of most manifest and euident truth and such is not the Scriptures not take for truth if it were contrary to Catholiques but of any knowne truth in general which he saith and truly is to be preferred before al authority opposit vnto it because such authority is not infallible but false and deceitful And therfore he speaketh vppon supposition that if it were true which other where he auoucheth to be impossible that Manichists taught truth and Catholiques error then their truth vvere to be preferred before the name of Catholiques consent of nations and authority begun with miracles nourished vvith hope encreased vvith charity established vvith antiquity and succession of Priests euen from the seat of Peter to vvhom our Lord after his resurrection commanded his sheep to be fed vnto this present Bishop But saith the glorious Saint vnto maniches I after him to Protestants Amongst you only soundeth the promise of truth vvhich if it vvere so manifest as it could not be doubted of it vvere to be preferred before al things that hold me in the Catholique Church 24. His third vntruth of S. Austins promise is directly contrary to S. Austin in the S. Austin vvold not beleeue Maniche though he had manifest Scripture Sup. paragr 18. same place If saith he thou shalt read any manifest thing for Manichey out of the Ghospel I vvil beleeue nether them nor thee Not them because they lyed to me of thee Not thee because thou bringest me that Scripture vvhich I beleeued through them vvho haue lyed As for Bels reasons to proue that we beleeue nothing with deuine faith for authority of the Church they are easely answered For though the formal obiect of faith be the first verity yet not simply as it is in it selfe but as it is proposed vnto vs by the Church And therfore though we beleeue nothing but because it is spoken and reuealed by God yet because he speaketh not immediatly to vs by him selfe but by the mouth of his Church whome who so heareth heareth God and Luc. 10. v. 16. 1. Thess c. 2. v. 13. whose worde is not mans worde but truly Gods worde therfore faith is not without the testimony of the Church As for S. Austins authority it hath bene answered before as also his arguments which Bel bringeth against Traditions CHAP. X. Of the certainty of Apostolical Traditions THERE are certaine and vndoubted Apostolical traditions This is against Bel pag. 128 129. c. But I proue it because the traditions of the Byble to be Gods worde of the perpetual virginity of our B. Lady of the transferring of the Sabbath and such like are certaine and vndoubted Besids if in the law of nature and Moyses traditions were keapt certaine why not in the law of grace But more euident wil the conclusion be if we descend to perticuler traditions which Bel endeuoreth Bel p. 128. 129. to proue vncertaine First he setteth-downe this Proposition Vnwritten traditions are so vncertaine as the best learned papists are at great contētion about them This he proueth in the tradition of Easter about which contended S. Victor P. the Bishops of Asia aboue 1400 years agoe both earnestly alleadging Apostolical traditions Likewise S. Anicetus and S. Policarpe who liued al within 200. years after Christ when the Church was in good estate and stayned vvith fevv or no corruptions 2. Marke good Reader his conclusion and proofs therof and thou wilt
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.
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.
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 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