had once deceaued you in a mony matter you wold beware how you trusted them again and wil you beleeue them stil they hauing by their owne confession hitherto deceaued you both in your Church seruice Bible commending the one to you as diuine seruice and the other as Gods pure word and now condemning them both Open your eyes for the passion of Christ and seeing publike conference wil not be graunted where we might lay open vnto you the deceits of your Ministers help your selfs as wel as you may read with indifferency such books as are written for this purpose make earnest intercession to God to see the truth grace to follow it when you haue found it which God of his goodnes graunt Farewel 2. Februar 1605. Thy seruant in Christe IESV S. R. A TABLE OF THE ARTICLES AND CHAPTERS ARTICLE I. Of the Popes Superiority BELS argument against the Popes superiority answered diuers his vntruths and dissimulations therin discouered Chapt. 1. The opinion of Protestants touching Princes supremacy set down Chapt. 2. The opinion of Protestants touching deposition of Princes Chapt. 3. The practise of Protestants touching deposition of Princes Chapt. 4. Bels proofes of his assumption against the Popes superiority answered Chapt. 5. Bels answer to an argument of Catholiks for the Popes superiority confuted Chap. 6. Some of Bels slaunderous vntruths disproued Chapt. 7. Certain fals steps of a ladder which Bel imagineth the Pope had to clime to his superiority disproued Chapt. 8. The rest of Bels fals steps and slaunderous vntruths in this article disproued Chap. 9. ARTICLE 2. Of the Masse Bels reason against the real presence of Christ in the B. Sacrament answered his vntruth and dissimulation therin discouered Chapt. 1. Authorities alleadged by Bel against the real presence answered Chapt. 2. Masse proued Bels argumēt against it answered his manifold vntruths therin disproued Chap. 3. The rest of Bels arguments against the Masse confuted Chap. 4. Berengarius his recantation explicated and S. Austins authority answered Chap. 5. Bels imaginary contradictions in the Masse answered and true contradictions in his communion shewed Chap. 6. ARTICLE III. Of the Popes Dispensations Chapt. 1.  ARTICLE IIII. Of original concupiscence in the regenerate The Catholike doctrin touching concupiscence explicated and proued Chap. 1. Diuers vntruths of Bel disproued his arguments out of S. Paul against the doctrin of the former Chapter answered Chap. 2. Bels arguments out of S. Austin touching concupiscence answered Chap. 3. Bels arguments out of S. Ambros S. Bede S. Thomas touching concupiscence answered Chap. 4. ARTICLE V. Of the merit of good vvorks Of the Protestanis enmity to good works and frendship with euil Chap. 1. Of Bels positions touching good works Chap. 2. The Catholiks doctrin touching merit particulerly set downe and proued Chapt. 3. Bels arguments out of Scripture against condigne merit answered Chap. 4. Bels arguments out of holy Fathers against condigne merit answered Chap. 5. Bels arguments out of late Catholik writers against condigne merit answered Chap. 6. ARTICLE VI. Of the distinction of mortal and venial sins The true distinction proued and Bels obiection answered Chapt. 1. A text of S. Ihon epist 1. explicated Chap. 2. ARTICLE VII The Catholike doctrin touching sufficiency of Scripture propounded proued certaine vntruths of Bel disproued Chap. 1. Bels arguments out of the old testamēt concerning the sufficiency of Scripture answered Chap. 2. Bels arguments out of the new testament touching sufficiency of Scripture answered Chap. 3. Bels arguments out of Fathers touching sufficiency of Scripturs and Traditions answered Chap. 4. Bels arguments out of late Catholik writers touching sufficiency of Traditions and Scripture answered Chap. 5. Of the difficulty or easynes of Scripture Chap. 6. Of the vulgar peoples reading Scripture Chap. 7. Of the translation of Scripture into vulgar tongs Chap. 8. Of Apostolical Traditions whether ther be any or none Chap. 9. Of the certainty of Apostolical Traditiōs Chap. 10. Of the examination of Traditions Chap. 11. Bels arguments out of Fathers about the examination of Traditions answered Chap. 12. Of the authority of late general Coūcels Chap. 13. Of the oath which Bishops vse to make vnto the Pope Chapt. 14. ARTICLE VIII Of keeping Gods commandements The possibility of keeping Gods commandements explicated and proued out of Scripture Chap. 1. The possibility of keeping Gods commandements proued out of Fathers and reason Chap. 2. Bels arguments out of Scripture against the possibility of keeping Gods commandements answered Chapt. 3. Bels arguments out of Fathers against the possibility of keeping Gods commandements answered Chapt. 4. THE FIRST ARTICLE OF THE POPES SVPERIORITY CHAPT I. Bels arguments against the Popes Superiority ansvvered diuers his vntruthes and dissimulations therin discouered BEL like a man in great choler and very desirous to encounter with his enemie beginneth his chalenge very abruptly hastily yet not forgetting his scholerschip or ministerie he geueth the onset with a syllogisme ful charged with vntruthes dissimulacions You Papistes saith 3. Vntruthes 2. dissimulations he tel vs that the Pope is aboue al powers and potentates on earth that he can depose Kinges Emperours from their royal thrones and translate their empires and regalities at his good wil and pleasure But this doctrin is false absurde nothing else but a mere fable And conseqently Romish Religion consisteth of meere falsehoods fables flat leasinges 2. Not without cause gentle Reader hath Bel proposed these bloudy questions of the Popes supremacie and deposition of Princes in his first article and placed them in the forefront of his battel for he hopeth that they wil be his best bulwarke and surest defense in the combate that in such lystes he shal not fight alone but assisted with the Princes sworde wherein he dealeth with Catholiques as Puritanes which Conference at Hampton Court pag. 82. 83. his Maiesty prudently obserueth doe vvith protestants vvho because they could not othervvise make their partes good against protestants appeale to his supremacie And as the old Arians Ambr. epist 32. victor lib. 1. de preste◠vandol did who euermore accused the Catholiques as iniurious to the Prince which they al learne of the Iewes who being vnable to disprooue Christs doctrine endeuoured to bring him into the compasse of treason and Matth. 22. v. 17. at last procured his death as enemy to Cesar Wherfore ymitating the example of our Sauiour when the like question was propounded to seeke his bloud I answere Bel briefelie That what is Cesars we ought to Luc. 20. v. 25. geue to Cesar and what is Gods to God and what is Gods Vicars to Gods Vicar Onely because Bel in his said syllogisme chargeth Catholiques most falsely withal dissembleth the opinion of protestantes touching the supremacie and deposition of Princes I wil disproue his vntruthes and discouer his dissimulations and afterward compare the opinion and practise of Protestants Catholiques touching this matter
confirmed the elected touching the apointing of electors is confessed by Bel pag. 14. and touching the confirmation is contested by many histriographers and practized by as many as are crowned Emperors The last parte vz that Emperors haue acknowledged the Popes superiority Bel him self confesseth page 17. where he sayth That some Cbristian Kings and Emperors haue vpon a blynd Zeale humbled them selues to the Pope yea which is more haue yeldeed vp their soueraigne rights to him And shal not the Pope be superior to them who haue humbled them selues yeelded their soueraingties vnto him 5. But what shift hath Bel to auoide this pag. 17. O dolor fraudata sunt tali magisterio tempora antiqua August lib. 1. cont Gaudens c. 19. forsooth that those Christian Princes were blynd O most blynd answerer not seing that he graunteth more then his aduersary requireth Catholiques argue that Kings and Emperors haue acknowledged Popes their superiors this Bel graunteth in confessing their humiliation to Popes which is neuer done but to Superiors and addeth that they haue yeelded vp their Souereigne rights which is more then the obiection contayneth And what he addeth of blynd zeale maketh nothing to the purpose Because the question is not vpon what cause Kings and Emperors humbled them selues to the Popes but whither they did or no. And because they haue so done as Bel confesseth Catholiques infer the Pope to be their Superior Vnles perhaps Bel think blynd zeale to disanul euery fact or gift and so say the Iewes persecuted not the Church because they did it vpon blynd zeale Ro. 10. v. 2. nor our Catholike auÌ„cetors gaue any liuings to Churches because they did it vpon blynd zeale as Bel must think for maintenance of Papistry Neuertheles because the Reader may see whither is more likly to be blind a dooble turne coate Minister or so many Princes as haue humbled them selues to Popes I wil name onely a few Emperors omitting for breuity sake both Christian Kings and the Cassiodor Miscell vid. Baron anno 452. Euseb lib. 6. c. 25. Nicephor lib. 13. c. 34. Bel p. 1â—3 EdictuÌ„ Constantini heathen Attilas miraculously made to reuerence Pope Leo. 6. Philippe the first Christian Emperor about the yeare 246. reuerenced Pope Fabian Constantin worthely faith Bel syrnamed the great held the stirrop to Pope Siluester about the yeare 323. Soone after in S. Ambr. de dignit sacerd c. 2. Chrisosto hom 4. 5. in illud Isaiae vidi Dominum The lâ—ke S. Hilary l. cont Constant Gelas 1. ep ad Anastas S. Greg. in 4. Psal paenit Baron anno 536. ex Anastas Miscell zonora Naucler General 18. Platina in CoÌ„stantino Naucler general 24. Concil Florent per Iouerium Platina in Adrian 1. Naucler general 26. Centur. 8. c. 10. col 724. Platida in Stephan 4. Naucler general 28. Platina in Nicolao 1. Platâ—na in Gregor 7. Naucler general 36. S. Ambrose and S. Chrisostomes tyme as them selues witnes Emperors bowed their necks euen to Priests knees and layd their heads vnder their hands the same testifieth Pope Gelasius of Anastase Emperor of his tyme and S. Gregory of Emperors before his tyme. Iustin about the yeare 525. humbled him self to the ground to Pope Ihon 1. Iustinian 534. humbled him self to Pope Agapet and worshiped him Iustinian the second about the yeare 710. kissed the feet of Pope Constantin Ihon Paleologus wold haue kneeled to Pope Eugenius 4. in the yeare 1438. And thus did the Emperors of the East 7. Of the western Emperors Charles the great about the yeare 773. cold not be held by Pope Adrian I. from kissing his feete Lewis his sone sent the honorablest of his court to meet Pope Steuen 4. him self went a myle and as soone as he saw him lighting from his horse with great veneration brought him into the city in the yeare 817. Lewis 2. went a myle to meet Pope Nicolas 1. and putting his hand to his horses bâ—ydle brought him into his Camp about the year 860 Henry 3. 1077. baresooted in the depth of winter attended vpon Gregory 7 Henry 4. IIII. kissed the feet of Pope Pascal 2. Frederick 1. about the year 1155. held the stirrop to Pope Adrian 4. and Platina in Pascali 2. Naucler general 38. Platin. in Adrian 4. Alexand 3. Naucler gener 40. Onuphrius in chron Plat. in IoaÌ„ â—2 Naucler general 48. Surius in coÌ„mentar 1177. kissed the feere of Pope Alexander 3. Sigismund 1418. prostrate on the ground with most great veneration kissed the feete of Pope Martin 5. Charles the 5. 1530. 1538. kissed the feete of P. P. Clement 7. Paul 3. and wold haue held the stirrop of Pope Clement 7. of al these Christian Emperors it is recorded in publik histories how they humbled them selues to Popes and of no Catholique Christian Emperor is written that he refused to do the like 8. Let now any indifferent Reader be iudge whither the Pope haue reason to think him self to be Superior to Christian Emperors seing so many and they the most wise most valiant and most famous of al euen the very first and last of them haue acknowledged him their Superior And whither it be likly that Bel shold see and al these Christian Emperors together with their Counsellors Nobles Prelats Diuins Commons be blind yea so blind as they shold not see that their humiliation to the Pope opened the window sayth Bel p. 17. to al Antichristian tyrany 9. Vsual it is for Heretiks to condemne See S. Austin lib. 2. cont Iul. c. 10. to 7. not onely former Catholiques but euen Heritiks of blindnes if they disagree from them So the Caluinist condemneth the Lutherian the Puritan saith the same of the Protestant the Brounist of the Puritan And King Edward sixtimes coÌ„demned K. Henries religion of blindnes and those found the like measure in Queene Elizabeths Petition exhibited to his Maiesty in April 1603. time and she had fared a like if more then a thousand ministers who condemne her proceding of Enormities Superstitions and abuses contrary to Scripture had obtayned their petition But of them al we may say as Tertullian said of Heritiks in his time Tertull. lib. de praescrip To these alone and to these first was the truth reuealed forsooth they obtayned greater fauor and fuller grace of the diuil For light they haue but 2. Cor. 11. v. 14. Conference p. 71. such as cometh from him who transfigureth him selfe into an angel of light and brag of it til as the Kings maiesty said of the Scottish ministers they goe made with their owne light And thus much of the Catholiques obiection and Bels answer therto Now let vs come to his sleunderous vntruthes CHAP. VII Some of Bels slaunderous vntruthes disproued BEL perceauing that the slightnes of his forsaid answer would haue easely appeared if it had bene set down immediatly after the Catholiques obiection without dazeling the Readers eyes before with some other matter though best
shott sighted or starcke blinde For what Sigebert writeth of Pipin he meaneth not of Pipin Carolus his father and giuer of the exarchate who died 768. but of Pipin Carolus his sonne and neither his possessing Italy 801. nor his sonne Bernards kingdome therof 812. doth preiudice the Popes regality ouer the exarchate and Coctian Alpes giuen him before by King Pipin Aripert any more then it doth preiudice the regality and dominion which the greeke Emperours had at the same time Naucletus general 27. Platina in Leone 3. Bland Dec. 1. l. 1. ouer a great parte of Italie vz. From Naples and Manfredonia to the sea of Sicily 7. For besides that Lombardy whereof Pipin and Bernard were kings was then called Italie as is euident out of Charles his Nauclerus general 18. testament where he saith Itali which is also called Lombardy because they alone in Italy were then called Kings and possessed the best parte thereof they were intitled of the whole as the Kings of England were before the vnion of Scotland by straungers called in latin Kings of Britanny And as for Charles the great he was soe far from taking from the Pope what his father Pipin had giuen as he added thereto saith Nauclerus the I le of Corsica and what is from Luna to the Alpes confines of Italy and what betwixt Leo Ostiensis lib. 1. chron Cassinen Parma and Luca together with the Dukedomes of Spoleto and Beneuent 8. But yet far greater blindenes it is not to be able to see how the Pope can be now any Kinge at al if others were Kings of Italie 800. years agoe can he not se how kingdomes may be altered not only to different families but euen to diuers nations in lesse then eight hindred years are not the Normans and their discent Kings of England because they were not 800. nay 600 years agoe are not Spaniards Kings in Italie because they were not 400. yeares agoe could not the Popes in eight hundred years space come to a kingdome either by guifte of Princes or by iust ware or at least by prescription of time which they had not before 9. As for the Popes besides the guifts of Constantine Aricthpert Pipin and Carolus Magnus before mentioned Ludouic Pius Emperour and sonne to Carolus Magnus Gratian. d. 63. can ego Ludouicus confirmed the donation of his grandfather Pipin and afterward Countesse Leo lib. 3. chron c. 48. Maud gaue to the Pope Liguria and Tuscia in the yeare 1079. of which guifts the authentical euidences saith Bellarmin Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. c. 9. are extant in Rome which suffiseth to let Bel see how the Pope may be now a King though he were none in the yeare 812. besides that pag 17. he could see how some Christian Kings and Emperours haue yeelded vp their soueraigne rights to the Pope and pag 11. how Pipin gaue vp the gouernment of Italie into his hand and is he stricken blinde in the midest so that pag 14. he could not see how the Pope is now any King at al. Thus much of Bels blindnes out of his owne confession Now let vs see as much of his smal credit by the like confession 10. Bellarmin saith he must be credited at Bel pag. 14. Bellar. sup leisure when he telleth vs that Pipin gaue Rauenna and Pentapolis to S. Peter S. Paul meaning Ex Adone loc cit lib. 3. c. 3. ex regione Sigebert â—â— chron Bland Dec. 1. lib. 10. Magdeburg cent 8. c. 10. the Pope and yet him selfe telleth vs pag 11. that Pipin gaue vp the gouernement of Italie into the Popes hands If Bellarmin must be credited at leisure for saying Pipin gaue to the Pope a smal parte of Italie though he proue it by many witnesses and Bel confesse it to be so apparant that it can not be denied Surelie Bel p. 12. Bel not to be credited him selfe must not be credited at al for saying without al testimony yea contrary to his owne testimony pag 13. that he gaue Italie to the Pope I omit a petit vntruth of his saying that Meroueus was the first christian King of France So blinde he is that he Anual Gall. Claude Paradin des Alliances Gnealogiques Bel pag. 12. can not discerne the grand-father from the grand-childe Meroueus from Clodoueus a heathen from a christian 11. The sixt steppe Bel maketh the translation of the Empire by Pope Leo 3. from the Greekes to the French or Germans in the person of Charles the great of this translation we haue spoken before and it is rather a notorious act of the Popes superiority ouer Emperours then a steppe thereunto But because Sigebert in recounting Sigeb chronic 801. it saith Romani animo desciuerant ab Imperatore Constantinopoli Which Bel Englisheth pag. 13. reuolted from the Emperour he inferreth diuers vntruths first that Popes were subiect to 23 vntruth Emperours 800. yeares after Christ Secondly that the translation of the Empire implied flat treason 24 vntruth in the Pope and Romans Thirdlie that Sigebert 25 vntruth saith they surrendered the right of their soueraigne to an othor 12. To disproue the two first vntruths Bel disproued by him selfe I need no other witnes then Bel him selfe who pag 8. affirmed that from the yeare 471. vntil Carolus Magnus which was 801. Barbarians possessed al Italie If from 471. vntil 801. Barbarians possessed al Italie how Contradict 7. Contradict 8. were Popes 800. yeares vnder Emperours how committed they treason against Emperours in making Carolus Emperour if at that time aboue 300. yeares before they were not vnder Emperours but vnder Barbarians 13. The truth is that Barbarians possessed Baron in annal Italie from the yeare 476. for more then 80. yeares after which time the Grecian Emperour in the yeare 553. recouered al Italie and albeit they lost shortly after in the yeare 568 a great part therof yet they kept Rome vntil about the yeare 726. Onuph saith 731 when both Rome and Onuphr in chron Baron in annal Italie reuolted from Leo 3. Emperour of Constantinople for his heresie against Images and would then haue chosen an other Emperour against him if Gregory the second then Pope had not disswaded them Since which time Rome was neuer vnder the Emperours of Constantinople And therefore neither were the Popes subiect to Emperours 800. yeares after Christ nor did Pope Leo commit any treason against the Grecian Emperors by creating Charles Emperour in the yeare 801. which was almost a hundred yeares after the reuolt of Italy from the greekes As for the third vntruth it is euident because Sigebert doth not cal the grecian Emperour soueraigne to to the Romans And the word desciuerant signifieth any for saking or leauing of one whether he be his soueraigne or no. 14. But Bel goeth on in erring the Pope Bel pag. 13. not to be true King of Italie because writers agree not
in no wise consented vnto it which is in plaine tearms to confesse that inuoluntary motions of the flesh are no sinne because they are not voluntary O force of truth which breakest out of thy professed aduersaries mouth Surely Protestants may haue great ioy of such a challenger And no maruel if he be desirous of an aduersary to fight withal who for want of one falleth thus to fight with him self and maketh his aduersaries sport to laugh moueth his friends to compassion and shame But let vs see more of his pastime 9. S. Paul had not known lust to be sinne except Bel pag. 49. Rom. 7. v. 7. the law had said Thou shalt not lust But he could not be ignorant that Concupiscence with consent was sinne seeing the very heathens did know and confesse it Againe voluntary lust is forbidden Math. 5. v. 22. in the sixt seuenth and eighth cōmandement as Christ him selfe expoundeth them Therfore the tenth forbiddeth the very habitual desire and inclination and fruits therof though not consented vnto Ansvver S. Paul was so far from knowing by the law that natural inclination to sinne is formal sinne as nether he nor any man of iudgment could imagine it til Bel See S. Austin serm 4. de verb. Apost c. 4. 5. to 10. with a new kinde of philosophy taught vs that habits are acts and inclinations actiōs But to the argument I deny the assumption For he might be ignorant that lust which Concupiscence indirectly voluntary knovvne of S Paul by the lavv to be sinne is only indirectly voluntary and in the cause because it is not preuented is sinne and this he might know by the law nether can Bel shew that euer any heathen knew this Yea he might be ignorant that Concupiscence directly voluntary when it is not put in execution is true sinne learne this by the law For if Iosephus and Kimhi Iosephus l. 12. Antiquit. c. 12. Kimhi in psal 66. though they had the law and were great Rabbins in it yet thought such concupiscence no sinne and Iosephus reprehended Polybius for condemning it as a sinne why might not the Apostle haue bene ignorant of this if the law had not taught it him Neither doth Bels reason cōuince the contrary For though some Heathen by great study in moral philosophy came to know this truth yet perhaps S. Paul could not or rather as he saieth did not And Bel as we shal see hereafter citeth a place out of S. Ambros where he writeth that the Apostle S. Ambros in cap. 7. ad Rom. thought Concupiscence no sinne because it delighted and seemed a harmles thing to couet yet better it is to say as I haue already that S. Paul meaneth that by the law he came to know al voluntary concupiscence though it be but indirectly voluntary to be sinne and this nether he nor any Heathen could haue known but by the law or by Gods reuelation 10. Bels second reason maketh against him self For if inuoluntary motions be as true sinnes as voluntary why are not they forbidden as wel in the sixt seuenth and eighth cōmandement as these And albeit voluntary motions were implicitly forbidden when the external acts were prohibited yet it was necessary to forbid them expresly in the last commandement for to inculcat it into the hard hartes of the Iewes nether yet with this expresse forbiddance wold some of them beleeue voluntary concupiscence without the fact to be sinne as appeareth by the example of Iosephus Kimhi and diuers Iewes Math. 5. v. 29. After this Bel alleadgeth a place of S. Austin wher he calleth desires of Concupiscence il filthy and not lawful which haue bene explicated before and are verifyed of Chapt. 1. parag 2. 3. inuoluntary Concupiscence because it is materially sinne wanting nothing to be Chapt. 1. parag 2. 3. formally so but voluntarines which Bel here goeth about to proue that they want Chapt. 1. parag 11. not but his proofe hath bene refuted before 11. After the said ptoofe he auoucheth Bel pag. 51. Bellarmin to confesse that S. Austin acknowledgeth Bellarm. lib. 5. de amiss grat stat pec c. 10. vntruth euen inuoluntary motions to be properly sinne and flatly condemned by the tenth Commandement and in the margent biddeth vs see S. Austin lib. de spirit lit c. vlt. because Bellarm in writeth that S. Austin teacheth al kind of motions of Concupiscence to be aliquo modo in some sort prohibited by that lavv Thou shalt not couet Wheras Bellarmin professeth That S. Austin not only Bellar. sup c. 8. no where in plaine words saith al Concupiscence is properly sinne but also affirmeth the contrary in al the tomes of his works and in the words cited by Bel is so far from saying that S. Austin thinketh al motions to be flatly condemned as he wold not absolutly say they were condemned but only with this limitation in some sort vz as far as they lye in our powre which limitation though Bel without proofe cal deceitful and contrary to S. Austins meaning yet haue we before shewed Sup. parag 6. it out of S. Austin to be his true meaning And I wold Bel had seene that place of S. Austin to which he sendeth vs for there should he haue heard S. Austin teaching him that inuoluntary Concupiscence is so far from sinne as if we consent not to it we need not say in our lords prayer Forgiue vs our trespasses And thus much of his proofs out of S. Austin CHAP. IIII. Bels arguments out of S. Ambros S. Bede S. Thomas touching Concupiscence ansvvered AFTER his proofs out of S. Austin Bel pag. 52. Bel very methodically forsooth returneth to Scripture citing a sentence of S. Ihon in greek pas ho poion hamartian cai ten ano mian poiei cai he hamartia estin anomia and translateth it thus Euery one that sinneth transgresseth the lavv and sinne is the transgression of the law This place he citeth againe art 6. to proue al sinne of it selfe to be mortal and for that purpose it hath some shew of Be◠forgetteth his matter proofe but how it proueth al kind of Concupiscence to be proper sinne passeth my intelligence For suppose that al sinne were transgression of the law which he laboreth much to proue wil neuer performe what is this to proue That al Concupiscence is sinne And lest of al it concerneth habitual cōcupiscence For S. Ihon speaketh only of actual sinne as appeareth by those words poiei amartian poiei anomian committeth sinne committeth iniquity And yet spendeth he fowre leaues in nothing but in prouing anomia to signify transgression of the law and euery sinne to be transgression of the law saith that Papists are put to a non plus about the pag. 58. doctrin of concupiscence in the regenerate for both anomia and adicia is truly and fitly tearmed iniquity But what shal a man say to such vanity Be
against the Councels in their tymes al hereticks may except against the Councels of their tymes and so none shal See l. Marciani C. de sum Trinit be condemned as Hereticks no Councel certaine but al things remaine as vncertaine as if there had neuer been any Councel at al which is to take away the end of calling Councels For if they can not make things certaine to what purpose are they gathered Finally Bel can giue no sufficient reason whie general Councels be not as certaine now as euer as shal appeare by the answer to this his obiection 3. He obiecteth that Bellarmin lib. 2. de Concil cap. 11. writeth that is the true decree of the counsel which is made of the greater part But Canus saith lib. 5. de locis Canus cap. 4. q. 2. That voices preuaile not with vs as in humane assemblies Againe these matters of faith are iudged not by number but by waight And the grauity and authority of the Pope is it which giueth waight to Councels Ergo saith Bel there can be no certainty in Bel p. 121. 122. Councels A goodly reason sutely Two Catholique writers agree not whether should be accompted the decree of a councel if the greater number of Bishops should define against the Pope and the lesser number of Bishops Ergo no councel in our dayes is certaine As if nothing were certaine if two Catholiques disagree about it Wil Bel allowe mee to argue soe against Protestants I beleeue I should finde scarce any one pointe of faith certaine amongst them But he should rather hane inferred Bellarmin Canus and al Catholique writers agree that it is the decree of the Councel and certaine truth which the greater part of Bishops defineth and the Pope confirmeth Ergo general councels in our dayes are certaine Namely that of Trent in which the most yea al as appeareth by their subscriptions defyned the Pope confirmed 4. I might omit a friuolcus obiection which he maketh against Bellarmin of contradiction Because Bellarmin saith that Bellarm. lib. 2. de concil c. 18. the assemblie of Bishops in lawful councels is an assembly of Iudges and their decrees lâ—ws necessarily to be followed And yet affirmeth that it is al one for Councels to be reproued by the Pope and Cap. 11. to doe against his sentence For though Bellarmin affirme Bishops to be Iudges and their iudgement to be necessarily followed as law Yet as himselfe explicateth cap. 11. it is not necessarily to be followed antequam accedat sententia Summi Pontificis before it be confirmed by the Pope As the Peeres in parliament are Iudges and their acts necessary to be followed but not before they be confirmed by the Prince who in not confirming them disannulleth them 5. And because Bellarmin writeth that Bellarm. lib. 2. de concil c. 19. one cause whie the Pope was neuer personally in any Councel of the East was least he being then the Emperours temporal subiect should be placed vnder the Emperour Bel inferreth both that the Pope is prowd pag. 122. and that the East Church neuer acknowledged his supremacy But as for pride it is none to honour as S. Paule did his ministery Rom. 11. v. 14. to challendge the place due to his dignity and authority For as S. Gregory a S. Gregor lib. 4. epist 36. ad Eulagium most humble man said Let vs keep humility in mynde and yet conserue the dignity of our order in honour No maruaile then if Popes being head and presidents of Councels where matters of Church and faith are handled and Emperours as S. Gregory Nazianzâ— S. Gregor Nazianz. orat 14. ad sub speaketh but sheep of his flocke and subiect to his power and tribunal did looke to sit there aboue Emperours Yet the great Emperour Theodosius highly commended Theodoret. lib. 5. c. 18. S. Ambrose for putting him out of the Chauncel And in the Nicene Counsel Euseb lib. 3. de vit Constant Constantine that worthie Emperour entred last and after al the Bishops were sett nor did not sit in a great throne beseeming his estate but in a low chaire and that not before he had craued pardon and asked leaue of the Bishops as Theodoret whom Bel Theodoret. lib. 1. c 7. Nicephor l. 1. c. 19. calleth a Saint Nicephorus and others doe testify Albeit the Nouatian hereticke Sozomene who lyeth much as writeth S. Sozome lib. 1. c. 19. â—regor l. 6. epist 31. Nouel 9. C. de summ Trinit lib. vltImo Concil Calced act 1. Athanas apol 2. Socrates lib. 2. cap. 13. Sext. Sinod act 18. Theodoret. lib. 5. c. 9. Euap lib. 1. c. 4. Martian ep ad Leonem Gelas ep ad Episcopum Dordon Concil Nicen epist ad â—â—â—â—est Gregory doe seeme to say that he sate at the toppe of the Councel in a most great throane 6. As for the Easterne churches acknowledging the Popes primacy it is so manifest as Iustinian Emperour of the East writeth No man doubteth but that at Rome is Summi Pontificatus apex the toppe of the priesthood And if more witnesses need in so euident a matter certaine it is that the general councels in the East were called and their decrees confirmed by the Pope And the Councel of Calcedon professeth in plaine tearms that omnis primatus al primacy belonged to the Archbishoppe of Rome the same acknowledge the Grecians in the seauenth synode in the Councels of Lateran Lyons and Florence Likewise some Patriarches Leo epist 59. 60. 61. Conc. Constant ep ad Damas Concil Calced act 16. 7. Sinod act 2. Conc. Lateran 13. c. 15. Concil Florent in lit vnionis Concil Lugdun in 6. tit de election cap. vbi periculum Baron 536. Concil Calced act 3. Gelas ep ad Faustum Sozom. lib. 3. c. 7. Baron Ann. 372. Baron 342. Chrysost epist ad Innocent Ex lit Leon. Valent. ad Theodos Athanas ep ad Felicem Basil ep 52. ad Athan. Chrisost ep ad Innocen Theodoret. epist ad Renatum Gregor l. 7. epist 63. of the East to omit Bishops were by the Popes authority created as Anatholius of Constantinople by Pope Leo epist 53. ad Pulcheriam others deposed as Anthimus of Constant Dioscorus and Timothie of Alexandria and Peeter of Antioche Other being deposed or vexed appealed to Popes as S. Athanasius and Peter of Alexandria S. Paul S. Chrisostom and S. Flauian of Constantinople Paulin of Antioch which euidently proueth the Popes Primacy ouer them Finally to omit the testimony of S. Athanasius S Basil S. Chrisostom Theodoret and other Doctors and saints of the East church both the Emperour and Patriarche of Constantinople did in S. Gregories time as he witnesseth daily professe the church of Constantinople to be vnder the Romane Sea 7. Now to his reason Bellarmin saith The Emperour of the East would haue sate in Councel aboue the Pope Ergo the East church neuer acknowledged his primacy Who seeth not the manifolde weaknes