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
heauen keeping his riches Ergo a Camel keeping his greatnes through a needles eye The Proposition is euident out of our Sauiours words Math 19. v. 24. 26. The Assumption is manifest and approued by S. Austin epist 89. quaest S. Augustin tom 2. 4. And the same S. Austin lib. de spir lit c. 1. and Nazian Orat. 36. affirme that it is S. Gregor Nazianz. possible for God to draw a Camel through a needles eye Thirdly God made the fornace Daniel 3. of Babilon though neuer so hote not to heate yea to refresh the three children why then can he not make a great body to occupy but a smale roome For to occupy place is an effect and accident of quantity as to heate is of heate Moreouer nature by condensation doth make a body to occupy lesse roome then is due vnto it as appeareth in the freesing of water and this it doth with out destroying any quantity therof as many excellent Philosophers euen by natural reason do gather And can not God work the like effect without condensation by some other supernatural meanes Finally Bel teacheth that euery sinne of it nature Bel art 6. p. 81. excludeth grace and yet God of his power maketh some sinne to stād with grace why then can he not make quantity to exclude no body out of the place though of it nature it should so doe And thus much touching Bels reason Now let vs see his authorities CHAP. II. The Authorities alledged by Bel against the Real Presence ansvvered AFTER the forsaid reason he alledgeth Bel pag. 20. some few authorities The first is of Caietan who affirmed as Angles saith he reporteth That ther is no text that conuinceth the Reader to vnderstand these words This is my body properly But Bel greatly wrongeth both Caietan and Angles in changing the word Heretik into Reader For Angles in 4. q. 4. attributeth that opinion to Caietan onely concerning Heretiks and addeth q. 5. that he seemeth to haue recalled it But how conuincent Luther ep ad Argentinenses vid. Bellarm. lib. 1. de Euch. c. 1. the Scripture is in this point let Bel learne of Luther writing That he vvas willing to deny the real presence and endeuored vvithal his povver but could not satisfy the Scripture 2. But suppose Caietan had said as Bel alledgeth what then Doth he therfore deny the real presence or think those words not to be vnderstood properly no surely yea he plainly auoucheth both Or doth Bel think that euety point of faith is so euidētly delyuered in Scripture as the very words suffice to cōuince any reader though neuer so obstinate why then are not al heretiks cōuerted by reading Scripture yea why admytteth Bel p. 134. 135. he a tradition which is not at al in Scripture If not why inferreth he the Scripture not to teach the real presence if it teach it not clearly 3. The second is S. Tho Aquinas whoe S. Thom. 4. d. 10. q. 1. art 1. Bel p. 20. saith he affirmeth constantly Corpus Christi non esse in pluribus locis simul secundum proprias dimensiones that Christs body is not in many places at once according to the proper dimensions therof Whose assertion saith Bel is my flat position But Bel herein 1. contradicteth him Contradict 9. vntruth 32. selfe 2. belyeth S. Thomas 3. vnderstandeth him not He contradicteth him selfe for before he said Aquinas held constantly as an article of the Christian faith that the true body of Christ is truly and really in the Sacrifice of the Masse now he saith that he affirmeth constantly an assertion which is Bels flat position to the contrary How can Aquinas hold constantly two contradictory points He belyeth Aquinas for he is so far from maintayning Bels position as in the very place which Bel citeth his conclusion is this Vnder the Sacrament of the altar is contayned the true body of Christ which he tooke of the virgin and to say the contrary is heresie Lastly he vnderstandeth not Aquinas Bel vnderstandeth not Aquinas For he thinketh that Aquinas by the forsaid words meaneth that Christs body can not be in many places at once with his proper dimensions therupon inferreth that Aquinas thinketh Christs body can not be in many places at once because saith Bel it can not be without those dimensions which naturally pertayne vnto it But to omit Bels impious assertion that God can not keep a body without his natural appurtenances Aquinas meaning is playne and euident vz. That the total cause of Christs body being in two places at once is not his owne dimēsions alone but they together with the dimensions of the body conuerted into his body For he thinketh Christs owne dimensions to be the cause of his being in that place where he is naturally and the dimensions of the body which is transubstantiated the cause of his being where he is Sacramentally Which opinion of his about the cause of Christs being in many places maketh nothing to this purpose 4. Thirdly he citeth Durand whom he Bel p. 20. Contradict 10. vntruth 33. p. 34. saith holdeth the very same opinion But in this also he both contradicteth him selfe belyeth Durand For in the fourth member of this article he telleth vs that Durand holdeth the forme of bread to be changed vz. into the body of Christ True it is that Durand as before I cited thinketh the quantity of Christs body not to be in the Eucharist yet neuertheles most constantly he both affirmeth and proueth the substance of his body to be there 5 Fourthly he alledgeth S. Austin writing pag. 20. S. Aug. epist 57. ad Dardanum De consecrat dist 2. con Prima quidem lib. 20. cont Faustum c. it tom 6. That Christ as man is in aliquo loco Coeli propter veri corporis modum in some place of heauen for the manner of a true body Again His body must be in one place Item He can not be at once in the Sun Moone and on the crosse according to corporal presence But in al these places he speaketh of the natural manner of bodies being in place as appeareth both by those words propter veri corporis modum and because he disputeth against the Manichists who Ex August epist cit douted as the Protestant vbiquists doe now that because Christs body was vnited to his Godhead it therby became euery where as God is which saith S. Austin Ibid. is to destroy the nature of a true body nether follovveth it saith he that vvhat is in God be euery vvhere as God is 6. But that Christs body being naturally in one place might be Sacramentally in an other S. Austin neuer doubted yea expresly S. Augustin tom 8. affirmeth ser 1. in psal 33. where he saith That Christ at his last supper carried him selfe in his ovvn hands secundum literam that is truly and properly and as no other man can carry him selfe And lib
as a flynte conteyneth fyer and euery cause his effecte These things supposed 2. First Conclusion is Al such pointes of Christian faith as are necessarie to be actually beleeued of euery one that hath vse of reason though he be neuer so simple are actually conteyned in Scripture either clearely or obscurely This is nothing against traditions because wel may they be and are pointes of Christian faith though they be not such as the actual and explicite beleefe of them be so necessarie as none whatsoeuer can be saued without it For it sufficeth that they be such as the implecite and virtual beleefe of them is necessary to euery ones saluation and may be denyed of none vnder payne of damnation And the conclusion is taught of Bellarmin lib. 4. S. Augustin lib. de doct Christian c. ◠to 3. de verbo non scripto cap. 11. Where expounding these wordes of S. Austine In these which are plainely set dovvne in scripture are al those thinges founde vvhich conteyne faith and maner of life he answereth that S. Austine speaketh of those pointes of doctrine which are necessary simply to al as they saith he are which are conteyned in the Apostles Creed and tenne cōmaundements Likewise Stapleton Staplet Relect Contract 5. q. 5. i◠explic Artic affirmeth that the Apostles wrote al or almost al that parte of faith which is necessary to be explicitely beleeued of al and euery one And it seemeth euident because such pointes of faith as are precisely necessary to be actually knowen of euery one what so euer be both fewe and are the fundamental and most notorious pointes of Christianity as the mysterie of the Trinity the incarnation and passion of Christ and such like which are al actually at least obscurely conteined in scripture For surely the prophets and Euangelists writinge their doctrine for our better remembrance would omitte no one point which was necessary to be actually knowen of euery one especially seeinge they haue writen many things with are not so necessary And this cōclusion teacheth S. Austin when he saith S. Augustin tract 49. in Ioan. to 9. that those thinges are written which seemed sufficient for the saluation of the faithful Where I note that he sayd not vvhich seemed sufficient to Christian faith but which seemed sufficient to saluation because fewer pointes suffice to saluation then the Christian faith conteineth againe In these things which are plainly L. 2. de doct l. cit sup sett downe in scripture al those thinges are founde which conteine faith and maner of life Where I also obserue that he saied not absolutely al things as Bel translateth him but al those Bel pag. 94. 110. 11. False translation things insinuatinge that he speaketh not of al things belonging to Christian faith but onely of those which are necessary to be beleeued and done of euery one which he calleth precepts of life and rules of faith And yet more plainely I beleeue also that herein S. Augustin lib. 2. de pec mer. remis cap. vlt. to 7. there would be most cleere authority diuinorum eloquiorum of Gods word if man could not be ignorant of it without losse of his promised saluation Where if by diuina eloquia we vnderstand holy writte as Bel translateth pag. 95. and S. Augustin seemeth to meane because immediatly before he spake of scriptures me thinks he plainely auoucheth that God hath procured euery thinge to be clearely written which to knowe is necessary to euery mans saluation The same teacheth S. Cyril saying Not al things S. Cyril lib. 12. in Joan. cap. 68. vvhich our Lord did are written but what the vvriters deemed sufficient as wel for manners as for doctrin that by right faith and vvorks vve may attayne to the kingdome of heauen And S. Chrisostome 2. Thess hom 3. vvhat things soeuer S. Chrysost are necessary are manifest out of Scripture 3. Here by the way I must aduertise the Reader of Bels euil dealing with his maister Bellarmin and other Catholiques For because Bellarmin affirmeth That the Apostles Bellarm. lib. 4. de verbo Dei c. 11. wrote al things vvhich are necessary for al men and which they commonly vttered to al but not al the rest Bel inferreth That al things written Bel p. 114. are necessary for al. As if it were al one to say Al things necessary for al are written and al things written are necessary Perhaps he thinks to turne propositions as easely as he did his coate And if al things written be necessary for al as Bel gathereth surely as S. Hierom sayd to the Pelagians teaching S. Hierom. dial 1. cont Pelagian as Bel doth that none can be without sinne but they that are skilful in the law a great part of Christendome must needs be damned yea Luther and Caluin who professe Luther praefat in psalm Caluin 3. instit c. 2. parag 4. their ignorance in diuers points of Scripture I omit that the vttering of some things to some fewe who were perfect spiritual and fit to teach others and capable of strōg meate as is manifest S. Paule did 1. cor c. 2. v. 6. c. 3. v. 1. 2. Heb. 5. 14. 2. Timoth. 2. v. 2. Bel scorn fully calleth preaching in corners Bel p. 114. and such hearers Iesuited Popelings 4. And Catholicks he falsly chargeth Bel p. 139. 141. with denying that baptisme of infants consubstantiality of God the Sonne with his Father and the mistery of the B. Trinity are in Scripture or can be proued thence For Bellarmin proueth baptisme of Infants Bellarm. lib. 1. de baptis c. 8. to 2. by as many arguments out of Scripture as Bel doth vz. by three out of the figure of circumcision gen 17. out of Christs words Ioan 3. and out of the practise of the Apostles act 16. and 1. cor 1. wherof Bel borrowed the first and last The mistery of the Trinitie Bellarmin proueth by six arguments Bellarm. lib. 2. de Christo c. 6. to 1. out of Scripture and and the consubstantiality of Christ he proueth lib. 1. de christo c. 4. out of eleuen places of the olde testament to which he addeth c. 5. nyne more and c. 6. fifteene places out of the new testament 5. Better he might haue charged his good maisters Luther and Caluin with this matter Luther lib. cont Iacob Iatomum Caluin in Ioan. 10. See Staplet Antidat Euangel in Io. 10. v. 30. For Luther said his soule hated the vvorde omousion or consubstantial and Caluin expoundeth these places which make most for the consubstantiality as the olde Arrians did Likewise Luther lib. cont Cochleum an 1523. said Infants are not at al to be baptized if they do not beleeue And lib. de capt Babil c. de bapt Sacraments profit no body but faith alone And Caluin wil not haue the Caluin Io. 3. words Ioan 3. v. 5. which made the very Pelagians to graunt necessity of baptizing Ex
August l. 1. de pecc mer. remiss c. 30. Infants to be meant of baptisme Hereupon the Anabaptists who deny baptisme Balthasar Pacimontan apud Coclâ—um in ostis Lutheri See Posseâ—in de athâ—ismis Haerâ—ticorum of children professe that they learnt their doctrine from Luther and the new Arrians in Transiluania who deny the Trinity and consubstantiality of Christ in their disputation with Protestants appealed to Caluins iudgement professed they receaued their doctrine from him And Smidelin a Smidelin in refutat blasphemae apolog Danaei 1583. great Protestant writeth That it is no maruel that very many Caluinists in Transiluany Poleland and Hungary became Arrians and of Arrians soone after Mahometans 6. But sport it is to heare Bel answer an Bel p. 140. obiection which is the grouÌ„de of the Anabaptists Infants haue no faith Ergo they are not to be baptized First he saith they haue faith that their faith profession is to be baptised of faithful parents in vnity of the Catholique Church After he denyeth them to haue faith in act but to haue faith fundamentally and by inclination How these answers agree let the Reader iudge I would know of him First whence he hath this new point of faith that baptized infants haue to be borne of faithful parents Are none borne of heretiks or Infidels Secondly How they make profession of it by words or deeds and whether Bel by their profession could discerne a baptised infant from one vnbaptized Thirdly how infants can be iustified by faith alone and haue no Inclination to faith iustifyeth Infants according to Bel. Scripture containeth virtually al points of Christian faith See Staplet Relect. controu 5. q. 5. art 1. S Austin l. 1. cont Crescon c. 33. Nullum mihi sacrameÌ„tum aut sermo aliquis admodum obscurior de sacris literis aperitur vbi non eadem praecepta reperio August epist 119. Propter duo praecepta charitatis sensisse Maist quicquid in illis libris sensit nisi crediderimus mendacem facimus Deum August 12. confess c. 25. tom 1. faith in act but only an inclination therto Surely they can haue instification no otherwise then they haue faith and therfore if they haue not faith in act they can haue no iustification in act but only be inclined to it as they are inclined to faith 7. Second conclusion Al points of Christian faith are vertually conteyned in Scripture First because it teacheth vs to belieue the Church which teacheth actually al points of Christian faith and therfore Scripture vertually teacheth vs al. Hereupon wrote S. Austin That in doing what the Church teacheth we holde the truth of Scriptures albeit they afforde no example thereof because we therin follow the Church which the Scripture vndoubtedly sheweth Secondly because the end of al Gods worde whether written or vnwritten is loue of him selfe aboue al things and of our neighbour as our selfe as appeareth by that 1. Timoth. 1. v. 5. The end of the precept is charity and Rom. 13. v. 8. who loueth his neighbour hath fulfilled the law and to the better comprehending and obtayning of this end he referreth al whatsoeuer he reuealed and this end being contayned in Scripture it followeth that the Scripture doth vertually contayne as a cause doth the effect al points of faith 8. And hereupon also it followeth that al the rest of Gods worde whether written or vnwritten may be called an explication of the foresaid coÌ„mandements because it contayneth nothing but which is vertually contayned in these commandements thereto referred by God as to their end which our Sauiour meant when he said In Matth. 22. v. 40. these tvvo commandements al the lavv and Prophets hange because of them depend as of their end al the rest which the law and Prophets contayne And hereupon said S. S. Epiphan Epiphan haer 65. That we may tel the inuention of euery question out of the consequeÌ„ce of Scriptures He said not out of scripture For al can not be taken thence as him selfe writeth haer 61. but of the consequence of them because al questions are resolued out of the Scriptures or out of that which followeth of them as the effect of rhe cause And according to these two conclusions we may expound other Fathers when they say al things are contained in Scripture For either they meane not absolutely of al points of Christian faith nor of actual containing as appeareth by that other where they manifestely defend Traditions but either only of points necessary to be knowne of euery Christian or of vertual containing 9. Third conclusion Al points of Christian faith are not actually coÌ„tained in scripture Al points of Christian faith are not actually in the Scripture neither clearly nor obscurely neither in plaine words nor in meaning This conclusioÌ„ Bel seemeth to graunt pag. 118. where he admitteth of a thing although not expresly written yet vertually saith he and effectually contained in Scripture And the whole English Article 6. Cleargy defyne That what may be proued out of Scripture is necessary to be beleeued though it be not read But what can be proued what not they alone wil be iudges But whatsoeuer Protestants say I proue the conclusion For no where in Scripture it is sayd either in plaine words or in meaning That al the books chapters verses and sentences which in the Bible are admitted for Canonical are truly Canonical and Gods pure worde without the mixture of mans worde If Bel can finde any such place from the first of Genesis to the last of the Apocal let him name it And yet this is a point of Christian faith yea thereupon depende al the Articles we gather out of Scripture S. Austin For as S. Austin said epist 9. and 19. If any vntruth be founde in Scriptures vvhat authority S. Hierom. con Heluid S. Augustin haeres 84. 82. S. Epiphan haer 78. S. Hilar. in 1. Math. Can. 1. can they haue So if any part or parcel of the Bible be doubtful what certainty can the rest haue Secondly the perpetual virginity of our B. Lady is a matter of faith as appeareth by S. Hierom and S. Austin who accounted Heluidius and Iouinian heretiks for denying it and Protestants VVillet Tetract 2. piller part 3. p. 76. 77. confesse it And yet it is no where testifyed in Scripture Thirdly that the seauenth day coÌ„manded by God to be kepte holy is transferred lawfully from Saterday to Sunday is a matter of faith and yet no where actually warranted by Scripture For albeit S. Ihon Apoc. 1. 10. speake of our lords day yet he no where warranteth the said transferring See more in Bellarmin tom 1. lib. 4. de verbo Dei 10. Fourth Conclusion Al points of Al points of Christian faith can not be proued sufficiently and immediatly out of Scripture Christian faith can not be sufficiently and immediatly proued out of Scripture In this conclusion I say not
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
but authority of Scriptures and command of God teaching Answer In the first place S. Hierom speaketh of a perticuler opinion vz That Zacharias who was slaine betwene the Temple and the Altar was S. Ihon Baptists father which he supposeth to haue bene no Apostolical Tradition and therfore of it saith because it is not proued out of Scripture it is as easely reiected as affirmed But what S. Hierom writeth of a particuler opinion helde without tradition Bel can not iustly extend to certaine Traditions The second place maketh nothing against vs. Because the Traditions of the Church were taught by the Apostles and not by any other afterward And S. Hieroms meaning is to deny that any man may teach of his owne worde and authority any new doctrine as Montanus and such like Hereticks did but only that which they receaued from the Apostles who were as S. Paul saith Eph. 2. v. 20 our foundation The thirde place maketh les to the purpose For tradition is no error of Ancestors And Scripture we graunt to be followed but not it alone but as S. Hierom saith the commandment of God teaching whether it be by writing or tradition As for traditions S. Hierom plainly alloweth them Dialog cont Lucif where he confesseth it to be the custome of the S. Hierome Church to obserue many things by tradition as if they were written laws And epist ad Marcel receaueth lent and lib. cont Heluid defendeth our Ladies perpetual virginity only by tradition 16. Many more Fathers I might alleadge for traditions But I content my selfe with the testimonies of them whom Bel brought for the contrary Let the indifferent Reader weigh the places cited by him and me and vprightly iudge as he tendreth his saluation Whether the holy Fathers reiected or imbraced ecclesiastical traditions Perhaps Bel wil answer That the Fathers contradict them selfes and say as the false mother did Let them be nether myne nor thine but be deuided 3. Reg. 3. v. 26. But who remembreth Salomons iudgment wil by this alone perceaue to whom of right the Fathers belong I haue answered al that Bel hath brought out of them and most of the authorities alleadged by me especially those of S. Dionis S. Epipha S. Chrisost S. Basil admit no answer at al Now let vs come to Bels arguments out of Catholique writers CHAP. V. Bels arguments out of late Catholique vvriters touching sufficiency of Scriptures and Traditions ansvvered THE first he alleadgeth is the learned Bel p. 100. Roffensis artic 37. Luther and holy Bishop Fisher whom he vntruly tearmeth a canonized Saint with vs Because in one place he calleth Scripture the storehouse of al truthes necessary to be known of Christians And in an other saith when heretiks Veritate 4. cont art Lutheri contend with vs we ought to defend our cause with other help then Scripture Because saith Bel Popery can not be defended by Scripture and auoucheth vntruth 81. Papists to confesse That they can not manteine their faith by Gods written word Answer How Scripture may be called a Store-house of al truths necessary to Christians appeareth out of the first and second Conclusion And Sup. c. 1. parag 2. 7. in the said place B. Fisher writeth of Purgatory That though it could not be proued out of Scriture yet it ought to be beleeued for Tradition And in the secōd place he nether saith absolutly That we ought not to proue our faith out of Scripture at al nether to Catholiks nor to Heretiks Nor that we ought not to proue it out of Scripture euen against Heretiks For him selfe so proueth it against Luther And much lesse saith That we can not proue it out of Scripture as Bel falsly forgeth But his meaning is That when we dispute with Heretiks we ought to haue aliud subsidium quam scripturae other proofs beside Scripture hereof he geueth foure reasons 2. First because Luther professed to beleeue Purgatory though it were not in Scripture 2. Because Scripturs in some points at the first sight and in words seeme to fauor Heretiks more then Catholiques as appeareth in the controuersy between S. Hierom Heluidius about our Ladies perpetual virginity 3. Because Heretiks deny many parts of Scripture 4. Because though they admit the words yet they peruert the sense and meaning of Scripture which is as much saith Tertullian as if they denied the words And oftentimes the true sense is not so euident that it alone sufficeth to conuince an Heretik when to contend about it wearyeth as the same Tertullian writeth the constant ouer turneth the weak and scandalizeth the midle sort Wherupon he aduiseth Sup. cap. 19. vs wisely That in disputing vvith Heretiks before vve come to proofs out of Scripture vve try vvhose the Scriptures are to whose possession of right they belonge For that being cleared it vvil soone appeare saith he vvho hath the true Christian faith the true vnderstanding of Scripture and al Christian Traditions And the same meant B. Fisher who also citeth Tertul. his words make rather for Traditiōs then against them And if this course were taken with Protestants they wold be quickly confounded For they as Doue confesseth and it is euident Doue of Recusancy p. 13. had the Scripture from vs not by gift or loan For we nether gaue nor lent them to Protestants but by theaft and stealth as Turks and Infidels may haue them and therfore are wrong vsurpers of our goods and possessions and iustly may we say to them with Tertullian VVhen whence came Supra c. 37. you vvhat do you in my possession being none of myne By vvhat right Marcion Luther doest thousel my vvood vvith vvhat lycence Valentine Caluin doest thou turne a vvay my fovvntains VVith vvhat authoryty Apelles Beza doest thou moue my limits It is my possession vvhat do you others sovve and feed at your pleasure It is my possession I possesse it of ould I possesse it first I haue strong originals from the Authors vvhose the thing vvas Thus Tertullian And here I omit that Bel citeth an apocriphal sentence out of Esdr 3. 4. vnder the name of the wise man as if it were Salomons 3. Next he alleadgeth Canus his words Bel p. 101. Seeing the Canon of Scripture is perfect and most Canus de locis lib. 7. c. 3. sufficient to al things what need the vnderstanding and authority of Saints be adioined therto But Bel forgot to tel that Canus proposeth this only as an obiection which he answereth by denying the illatiō therin included Because saith he the Fathers are needful to right vnderstand the Scripture Nether denying nor graunting the Antecedent concerning the perfection and sufficiency of Scripture But how sufficient he thought Scripture to Canus be appeareth l. 3. c. 6. where after S. Ignatius epist ad Heronem he calleth them wolues Heretiks which refuse the Churches Traditions and c. 7. solueth the best arguments Protestans bring
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
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.
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
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
touched And these kind of speaches we learnd of the holy Fathers For S. Chrisostom speakinge S. Chrysost hom 24. in 1. Cor. to 4. Hom. 83. in Math. to 3. of the sacrament saith expresly that Christs body is broken In other place we see feel eate and haue Christ within vs. Agayne Christ gaue him selfe to vs to touch to eate and Hom. 46. in Ier. to 3. 61. ad populum to 5. Tertul. l. de Idolatria fasten our teeth marke Bel on his flesh Tertullian inueighinge against vnworthy receauers saith Corpus Christi lacessunt They vex Christs body S. Ciprian of the same affirmeth They vse violence to Christâ— body and S. Ciprian serm de lapsis blood and with their mouthes do offend him And they learnt these speeches of Christ him selfe saying This is my body which is broken 1. Cor. 11. v. 24. in the greeck Wil Bel now condemne Christ and these holy fathers of wickednes villany blasphemy and horrible impietie Surely they vse the very wordes of touching breaking and fasteninge or chewing with teeth Nay Bel pag. 30. wil he condemne both English and many forrayne Protestants whose constant doctrine Bel admitteth Christs body to be consumed saith he is that Christs body is broken torne consumed with mouth and teeth Behold good reader for Papists to say Christs body is touched broken and torne is villany wickednes blasphemy and horrible impiety but for Protestants to say the same and â—dde consuming too is good doctrine 4. But Bel wil say that he addeth that al Bel pag. 29. these are to be vnderstood significantly and sacramentally True And the same adde wee For as him selfe citeth out of Bellarmin lib. 2. de Concil c. 8. It is and al wayes Bellarm. was certayne that Christs body being now vncorruptible can be nether broken nor torne but in a signe or sacrament But the difference is in the vnderstanding For we say Christs body is Catholiques and Protestants agreement and difference about the breaking of Christs body broken in a signe which really and truely contayneth it and Protestants say it is broken in a signe from which Christ is as far as heauen is from earth and to expresse this difference and to exclude the sense which Berengarius vsed and the Protestants haue learnt of him the Pope and Councel made him to professe That he beleeued this to be in rei veritate in the verity of the thing Not as if Christs body weare in it selfe so handled for therof there was neuer doubt but that it was not handled so in a bare signe but in such a signe as in rei veritate truely contayneth Christs body As the woman Luc. 8. did in rei veritate truely touch Christ when she touched his garment in S. Luke which he truely was as appeareth by his words ib. v. 46. Some body hath touched me But the Crucifiers when they parted the S. Ihon. 19. v. 23. same garments did not touch him in rei veritate truely because then he was not truely in them And hereby appeareth how the contrariety which Bel noteth betwixt the pag. 29. Councel and Bellarmine is none at al and how protestants can not verifie the breakinge of Christs body so wel as Catholiques can and least of al can as Bel imagineth verify Christs wordes of his body giuen blood shed for remission of sinns because neuer was any bare figure giuen or shed for remission of sinnes 5 But a singuler note saith Bel and pag. 30. worthy to be marked is gathered out of the glosse vpon the foresaid decree when it aduiseth vs That vnles we vnderstand Berengarius words soundly we may fal into worse heresie Marke these words saith Bel for thâ—y teach vs playnly that it is a most dangerous thing to rely vpon Popish decrees euen then when they pretend to reforme the Church and condemne heresies But better may we saye marke this note for it discouereth Bels malice and folly teacheth vs plainly that it is a most dangerous thing to rely vpon heretikes euen when they promise to auouch no vntruth of any man as Bel did a litle before For pag. 22. what aduiseth the glosse against the relying vpon Popes decrees and not onely against misunderstanding them May we not in like manner say of the scripture that vnles we soundly vnderstand those wordes â—hon 6. except you eat the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his blood you shal haue no life in you but grosly as the Capharnaits did of eating it sodde or rosted or cut in peeces as testify Ciprian de caena Domini S. Augustin tract 27. in Ioh. S. Ciprian and S. Austin we shal fal into greater heresie then that of Berengarius was What now Syr Thomas may we therfore infer that it is a most dangerous thing to rely vpon scripture 6. Finally Bel concludeth this third Bel pag. 30. 31. S. Augustin tract 59. in Ioan. member of his article with an argument drawne out of S. Austins words Illi manducabant panem Dominum illi panem Domini contra Dominum They the Apostles eat the bread our lord he Iudas eat the bread of our lord against our lord Out of which wordes Bel frameth an argument so inuincible in his conceypt as he promiseth to subscribe and neuer more to write against any parte of Papists doctrine if it be answered Marke therfore I pray thee gentle reader his argument and my answer and iudge whether he be not bound to turne his coate the third tyme if he wil performe his promise The argument he proposeth out of forme but it may be reduced to this Iudas receaued but Panem Domini the bread of our lord and not Panem Dominum the bread our lord therfore in the Eucharist is not Dominus our Lord. The Antecedent saith he is playnly auouched by S. Austin the consequence is cleere because if in the Eucharist weare our lord doubtles Iudas in receauing of it should haue receaued our lord Before I answer this argument I must aduertise the reader of three things first â—ow slenderly this fellow is grounded in his faith who promiseth to subscribe to the contrary if one onely argument grounded vpon one saying of one father can be solued Euident it is that he hath neyther playne scripture nor conuincent reason nor the testimony of other fathers for his religion who for answering of one fathers word wil forsake it Albeit this be les maruelous in Bel because hauing already twise altered his religion he wil find les difficulty to change the third tyme. 2. I note the extreame blindnes of this fellow who biddeth vs note and marke seriously that S. Austin Bel noteth a point quite against him self telleth vs that the bread vvhich the Apostles eate vvas our lord I would Bel had marked this him selfe for it is the very vpshot to vse his owne tearme of this controuersy and vnaswerable by any
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
chron 96. Euseb chronic 97. he maketh the 14. yeare of Domitian to be about 100. years after Christs ascension which was but about the 97. yeare after Christs natiuity as is euident by al Chronicles or supputators of tymes and so wanted almost 40. of an 100. after his ascension Omitting also an other manifest error in affirming S. Ihon to haue written his Ghospel almost an 100. years after Christs ascension who dyed the 68. yeare after his passion See Baron An. 101. Eusebius in chron S. Hieron in Scriptur Ecclesiast in Ioanne in chron as Eusebius and S. Hierom testify and therfore could not write almost an 110. years after Christs ascension vnles he wrote many years after his owne death 3. But omitting these errors as testimonies of Bels ignorance in histories which I regard not To his argument I answer That See S. Cyril l. 12. in Ioan. c. 61. those words These are written are meant only of signa miracles done by Christ and written by S. Ihon to moue vs to beleeue that Christ was God Reinold thes 1. Reinolds pag. 60. confesseth That they are referred properly to signa myracles yet wil haue them also meant of precepts doctrine written by S. Ihon because myracles are to confirme and persvvade doctrine and precepts But I proue that they are meant only of miracles Because S Ihon hauing recorded diuers miracles of Christ afterward immediatly before those sayd words saith Many other miracles did Iesus in the sight of his disciples vvhich v. 30. are not vvritten in this booke And then addeth but These are written that you may beeleue that Iesus v. 31. is Christ the sonne of God c. Who seeth not here that the demonstratiue pronowne These is referred only to miracles For S. Ihon hauing said that many miracles were vnwritten streight after with the aduersatiue or exceptiue particle But which Bel guilefully leaft out excepteth these which he had written from the condition of others which he had not written saying But these are written c And Reinolds reason is so far from prouing his purpose as it proueth the quite contrary For because Reinolds proof against him self Christs doctrine and faith was the end of S. Ihons writing and myracles the meanes and motiues to bring men to Christs faith as him selfe professeth in the forsaid words euideÌ„t it is that he meaneth both of Christs doctrine and miracles in the foresaid verse but differently and vnder different words For of myracles he meaneth as motiues and meanes vnder the words These are written c. And of doctrine he meaneth as the end of his writing the myracles vnder the other words That you may beleeue c. 4. But suppose that S. Ihon by These vnderstood both myracles doctrine can Bel therfore infer that S. Ihon meant of thâ— whole canon of Scriptures Surely no because he hauing before said That many other myracles of Christ were not written in this booke and immediatly adding But these are written c. can not be vnderstood but of his owne writing and in his owne Ghospel wheruppon if Bel inferre any thing he must inferre that S. Ihons Ghospel alone is absolutly sufficient and conteineth al things necessary Which I hope he wil not doe Reinolds graunteth Io. Reinolds apol p. 216. that S. Ihons Ghospel is sufficient supposing that we heare of no other But this is nothing to the purpose For they out of this place inferre the Scripture to be absolutly sufficieÌ„t so as we may reiect al other things though we heare of them And therfore seeing S. Ihon in this place can not be vnderstood but of his owne Ghospel if hence they proue absolute sufficiency of Scripture against Traditions they must inferre absolute sufficiency of S. Ihons Ghospel against al other what soeuer I omit a place Bel alleadgeth out of S. Cyril with an other S. Cyril lib. 12 in Io. cap. vlt. S. Augustin tract 49. in Ioan. Sup. c. 1. parag 2. Bel pag. 91. out of S. Austin which I cited in the first conclusion For they proue no more then is there affirmed 5. His second place out of the new testament is act 20. v. 27. I haue not spared to shew vnto you the whole counsel of God Therfore saith he the whole counsel of God touching our saluation is conteined in holy Scripture Omitting his needles proofs out of Lâ—â—a and Carthu that S. Paul meaneth of al counsâ—l touching our saluation I answer that this place ether maketh directly against Protestants or not at al against Catholiques For seeing S. Paul speaketh of his owne shewing vnto the Ephesians if he be vnderstood of shewing only by writing it followeth that his epistle to the Ephesians conteineth al Gods counsel and is absolutly sufficient which is against Protestants But if he be vnderstood as he should be of shewing in general ether by worde or writing nothing followeth to Bels purpose or against Catholiques 6. But saith Bel it wil not suffice to ansvver pag. 91. That al Gods counsel was preached but not written because S. Paul was an Apostle of that Rom. 1. Act. 26. Ghospel vvhich was promised by the Prophets taught no other thing then that the Prophets had foretolde But this proueth no more of S. Paul then of al the Apostles For they were al Apostles of the same Gospel and taught the same doctrine which he did and yet some of them wrote neuer a worde Some shew it hath to proue that al which S. Paul preached was written by the Prophets Sup. c. 1. parag 7. 8. which how it is to be vnderstood hath bene before explicated 7. And because Bellarmin saith That the Bellarm. lib. 1. de verbo Dei cap. 1. 2. Scripture is an infallible and most secure rule of faith And That he is mad who reiecting Scripture followeth inward inspirations Bel chargeth Bel pag. 93. vntruth 77 him to contradict him selfe teaching els vvhere the contrary but cyteth no place because none is to be found and to confound vntruth 78 himselfe because he wil not rely vpon Gods vvritten testimonies but seeke after vnvvritten vanities and ground his faith vpon them Here Bel slandereth Bellarmin For when did euer he or any Catholique refuse to rely vpon Gods written testimony when did they not account it a most infallible rule of faith vpon what vanities do they ground their faith we confesse Scripture to be an infallible rule but not the total rule but as Bellarmin Bellarmin saith lib. 4. de verb. dei c. 12. the partial rule Let Bel improue this Hic Rhodus hic Saltus 8. Moreouer he alleadgeth S. Austin Bel pag. 93. S. Augustin cont Adimant cap. 3. to 6. writing That there are no precepts or promises in the doctrine of the Ghospel and Apostles which are not in the old Testament True But as S. Austin afterward in expresse words recalled S. Augustin lib. 1. Retrac c. 22.
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
against them 4 Out of S. Thomas he citeth That we Bel p. 102. S. Thom. 1. part q. 36. art 2. must speak nothing of God which is not in Scripture by vvords or sense But this is nothing against Tradition of other things An other place he citeth out of â— p. q. 42. ar 4. VVhatsoeuer Christ vvold haue vs read of his doing and sayings he commanded the Apostles to vvrite as vvith his ovvne hands This also maketh nothing against vs. Both because S. Thomas saith not what Christ wold haue vs beleeue but what he wold haue vs read and Traditions be such as Christ wold haue vs beleeue though we read them not as appeareth by his Apostle 2. Thess 2. v. 15. Hoâ—d the Tâ—aditions vvhich you haue learnt ether by speech or by my epistle As also because S. Thomas speaketh not of al points of beleefe but only of Christs sayings and doings besids which the very sayings and doings of the Apostles recorded in their acts epistles or testifyed by Tradition are to be beleeued I omit a pettie vntruth which Bel vntruth 82 often repeareth That vve nether vvil nor can deny S. Thomas doctrin But S. Thomas his S. Thomas mynd concerning Traditions appeareth by his words 2. Thess 2. It is euident that there are things vnvvritten in the Church taught by the Apostles and therfore to be kept For as S. Dionis saith The Apostles thought it better to conceale many things 5. He citeth also Victoria saying I am Bel p. 103. Victoria de sacrament not certaine of it though al say it vvhich is not conteined in Scripture But Victoria meaneth of things spoken not by Tradition but by probable opinion as the conception of our lady without original sinne and such like or he meaneth of things nether actually nor vertually conteined in Scripture as Traditions be according to our 2. Conclusion cap 1. An other place he alleadgeth out of Victoria writing That for opinions Victor de augmento charitatis relect 8. vve ought no vvay to depart from the rule of Scriptures What is this to the purpose Let Bel proue that we ether for opinions or any thing els depart from Scripture and let him not slander vs as he doth That vve beleeue Bel p. 103. 83. vntruth vvhatsoeuer the Pope telleth vs though it be neuer so repugnant to Scripture For who shal be innocent if it suffice to accuse 6. Lastly he quoteth S. Anselme 2. Timoth 3. and Lyra Math. 19. but omitteth their words because they make litle for him S. Anselm saith that Scripture and meaneth the old Testament can make one sufficiently learned to get saluatioÌ„ to keape the commandements and what is more is not of necessity but of supererogation Which how litle it maketh against the beleefe of Traditions were supererogation to declare And thus much touching the sufficiency of Scriptures now let vs entreat of their hardnes or difficulty CHAP. VI. Of the Difficulty or easynes of Scriptures SCRIPTVRES are difficult and hard Scriptures to vnderstand This is against Bel pag. 107. but expresly taught by S. Peter 2. Pet. â— Peter 3. v. 16. where speaking of S. Pauls epistles he saith In vvhich are some things hard to be vnderstood To this Bel frameth three answers Bel p. 107. First that S. Peter saith not the vvhole Scripture is hard to vnderstand but some things in S. Pauls epistles This is not to the purpose because we say not that the whole Scripture that is euery part thereof is hard to vnderstand But graunt with S. Chrysostom 2. S. Chrysost Concion 3. de Lazaro Thessal hom 3. VVhatsoeuer is necessary to euery mans saluation is manifest out of Scripture And with S. Austin lib. 2 doct Christ S. Austin c. 9. Al those things vvhich concerne faith and manners are plainly set dovvne in Scripture And lib. 2. de pec mer. remiss c. vlt. tom 7. I beleeue euen in this point vve shold haue most cleare testimony of Gods word if man could not be ignorant of it without losse of saluation Yet Lex partim in aperto est partim etiaÌ„ inuelatis tegitur Nazianz orat â— de Theolog withal affirme with the same holy Doctor in psal 140. If Scripture were no where obscure it vvold not exercise vs. And the like he saith serm 13. de verb. Apost Only we affirme that absolutly the Scripture is hard and to The Scripture absolutely hard though not euery place thereof this it sufficeth that some places are hard As for away to be dangerous it sufficeth that some places be perilous though others be secure 2. His second answer is That S. Peter only saith some places are hard to the vnlearned vvhich are vnstable And like is his third answer That they are hard to the vvicked vvhich depraue them But to answer thus is in deed to depraue Scriptures and to shew him selfe to be one of the vnlearned and vnstable wherof S. Peter speaketh For S. Peter absolutly saith some things in S. Pauls epistles are hard not respectiuely to these or other kind of men In vvhich epistles saith S. Peter S. Peter some things are hard to be vnderstood vvhich the vnlearned and vnstable depraue to their owne perditioÌ„ Behold he saith not some things are hard to the vnlearned and vnstable but absolutly some things are hard which hard things the vnlearned and vnstable depraue And as S. Austin saith lib. de fid oper c S. Augustin tom 4. 14. one special hardnes meant by S. Peter in S. Pauls epistles is his difficult speech and high commendation of iustifying faith which now Protestants depraue to their owne perdition in gathering therof that faith alone doth iustify as some gathered in the Apostles tyme against which opinion especially as the same holy Doctor witnesseth S Peter S Ihon S. Iames and S. Iude S. Augustin cit writ their epistles An other special difficulty meant by S. Peter saith S. Austin 10. c. 16 are his words 1. corinth 3. If any build vpon the foundation c. 3. Againe if Scripturs be not hard what See S. Chrysost hom 3. de Lazaro tom 2. S. Hierom. meant S. Philip to ask the Eunuch who was as holy studious a man as S. Hierom ae he him selfe testifyeth epist ad Paulin If he vnderstood them What meant the Eunuch Act. 8. v. 30. v. 31. to answere 6 How can I if some do not shew me Could not an holy man so wise as he was being Treasurer to the Q of Ethiopia vnderstand easy matters If Scripturs be so easy what need had K. Dauid to pray for Psalm 118. v. 34. Ib. v. 18. vnderstanding to search Gods law for opening his eyes to consider the wonders of it what hapned to the Apostles that they could not vnderstaÌ„d Christs parables what Math. 13. v 36. c. 15. v. 16. needed the gift of interpretation giuen to some 1. corinth 12.
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
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
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.
parag 13. and arâ— 7. c. 9. parag 19. vntruth 92 made oftentymes of coblers tinkers and taylers who may thanke the Lord as one of them did that they know nothing of the Romish tongue 4. That in the Churches vve read vnto the common people latin sermons In deed we read such in our seruice but read them to the common people no more then we read the Masse to them But read both in honour and seruice to God who vnderstandeth as wel latin as english And thus much touching Scripture now let vs come to Traditions CHAP. IX Of Apostolical Traditions vvhether there be any or none OF the Traditions which the Church manteineth some were instituted by Christ some by his Apostles by the inspiration of the holy Ghost and others by the Church it selfe The question is whether there by any of the two former kinds of Traditions instituted or deliuered by the Apostles and therupon called Apostolical vvhat â—ind of traditioÌ„s Bel impugnâ—th without writing which concerne things as Bel saith in the beginning of this article pag. 86. necessary to mans saluation For though as I said before the Scripture conteine al Chapt. 1. things which are necessary to be knowne actually of euery one yet because euery one is bound to deny no point of christian faith but at lest vertually and implicitly to beleeue al such traditions as concerne matters of faith or manners may as Bel speaketh be said to concerne things necessary to mans saluation This supposed I affirme with the vniforme consent of al holy Fathers that there are such traditions and it followeth of that which we proued in the first chapter that the Scripture conteineth not actually al points of christian faith and otherwise I proue it because S. Paul 2. S. Paul S. Basil de Spirit c. 29. S. Chrysost 2. Thessalon hom 4. S. Epiphan haer 61. S. Damascenus 4. de fid c. 17. Thess 2. v. 15. saith Hold the Traditions which you haue learned whether it be by worde or by our epistle therfore he deliuered some Traditions only by worde as S. Basil S Chrisostom S. Epiphanius S. Damascen out of this place do gather 2. Secondly S. Ihon the last writer of Scripture said Hauing many things to vvrite to 3. Ioan. v. 13. you I vvould not by paper and inke Ergo many things which were to be told to christians S. Shon left vnwritten yea thought it not expedient to write them Bel answereth Bel p. 117. That the Apostles taught no needful doctrin which they did not after commit to vvriting This answer insinuateth that the Apostles taught some needles matter contrary to S. Paul 2. Timoth. 2 Tit. 3. and that which S. Paul commanded the Thessalonicenses to hold S. Ihon said he had to write were needles things which is but to blaspheme the Apostles Thirdly in the law of nature there were traditions as is euident and testifyed Gen. 18. v. 19. Likewise in tyme of the Conference at Hampton Court p. 68. Valer. Max. lib. 3. c. 319. de scauro vario seuero S. Dionis l. 1. eccles hier c. 1. S. Ignat. ep ad Heron. S. Iren. lib. 3. c. 3. S. Ciprian l. 2. epist 3. S. Basil lib. de Spirit 6. 27. 29. law written as English Protestants confesse why not therefore in tyme of the Ghospel 3. Fourthly I wil propose to the Reader a choise som what like to that which a Roman made to his Citizens when being accused of his aduersary in a long oration he stept vp and said my aduersary affirmeth I deny it whether beleeue you citizens And so in few words reiected his aduersaries long accusation For S. Dionisius Areopag S. Ignatius both schollers of the Apostles S. Ireney S. Cyprian S. Basil S. Chrisostom S. Epiphanius S. Hierom. S. S. Chrysost 2. Thessal hom 4. S. Epiphan haer 61. S. Hierom. dial contr Lucif S. Augustin epist 118. l. 10. de Genen ad lit c. 23. Austin and others affirme that there are Apostolical Traditions Bel some few new start vp Heretiks deny it Whether beleeue you Christians This choise is far aboue that of the Roman For there was but one against one yea ones bare denyal against the others proofs But here are many against few Saints against to say the lest ordinary fellows Doctors of Gods Church against vnlearned Ministers Catholiques against Heretiks yea manifest proofs against bare denyals And shal we not especially in a matter of fact as is whether the Apostles left any vnwritten Traditions or no beleeue many most holy most learned most incorrupt most antient witnesses yea wherof some were eye witnesses of the matter before a few vnlearned vnconstant iangling new fellowes S. Hierom. epist 61. c. 9. S. Augustin de Symbolo ad Catechumen Ruffin in Symbol S. Hierom. con Heluid S. Augustin haer 55. S. Epiphan haer 78. Locis supra cit c. 3. 4. Moreouer whence haue we the Apostles Creed but by Tradition as testify S. Hierom S. Austin and Ruffinus whence the perpetual virginity of our B. Lady as appeareth by S. Hierom S. Austin S. Epiphanius whence the lawful transferring the Sabbath day from Saterday to Sonday but by Tradition Whence many other things as testify S. Hierom S. Dionis S. Iren. S. Cyptian Tertull. Origen S. Basil S. Epiphan S. Chrisost S. Hierom S. Austin S. Ambrose and others but by Tradition But especially whence haue we the Bible it selfe Whence haue we that euery booke chapter and verse of it is Gods worde and no one sentence therin corrupted in al these 1600. years where haue we that the Gospel bearing the name of S. Thomas who was an Apostle and eye witnes of Christs actions is not as wel or better Christs Ghospel then that which carrieth the name of S. Luke and was written only by heare-say Luc. 1. v. 2. S. Hierom. de Scriptur eccles in Luca. Bel bringeth six ansvvers as is professed in the very beginning but by Tradition This reason so courseth Bel vp and downe as like fox many tymes vn-earthed euen for wearines he runneth into the hunters toyle graunting what the argument would 5. His first answer is That there is great difference Bel p. 134. betvvixt the primmatiue Church and the Church of late daies For the Apostles heard Christs doctrine savv his myracles and were replenished with the holy Ghost and consequently must needs be fit vvitnesses of al that Christ did and taught vvhich adiuncts the Church of Rome hath not Here Bel blasphemeth Christs Church of late daies auouching her to be nether replenished with the holy Ghost Symbol Apostol contrary to our Creed professing her to be holy and Christs promise that the holy Ghost should remaine with her for euer Nor to be a Ioan. 14. v. 16. fit witnes of his truth contrary to S. Paul affirming her to be the piller and strength of 1. Timoth. 3. v. 15. truth and to Gods sending her
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
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.
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