bene a meere humane and mistaken tradition he saith Cometh it from our Lord or the Gospels authority Cometh it from the Apostles precepts or epistles For God witnesseth that the things are to be done which are written and proposeth to Iesus Name saying Let not the booke of this law depart from thy mouth but thou shalt meditate therin day and night that thou mayst obserue to doe al things that are written in it If therfore it be commanded in the Ghospel or contayned in epistles of Apostles or acts that who came from any heresy be not baptized but hands imposed vpon them for pennance let this diuine and holy Tradition be kept 6. These words at the first view seeme to make for Bel but if the cause and circumstances of S. Cyprians writing be considered S. Cyprian they make rather against him S. Cyprian neuer reiected al Traditions yea by it l. 2. epist 3. he proued water to be mingled with wyne in the sacrifice and in the epistle cited by Bel biddeth vs recurre to Apostolical Tradition but only the foresaid Tradition because he thought as he saith epist ad Iubaian that it was neuer before commanded or written but as he writeth epist ad Quint mistaken for an other Tradition of not rebaptizing such as fal into heresy Wherfore Bel pag. 118 most falsly affirmeth 79 vntruth S. Cyprian Epist ad Iubaian ad Pompeium ad Quintinum Euseb lib. 7. c. 3. that he sharply reproued P. Steeuen for leaning to Tradition For he reproued him only for leaning to a mistaken as he supposed Tradition And as it is euideÌ„t out of his epistles and the histories of that tyme the question betwixt him and S. Steeuen pope was not whether Tradition were to be obserued or no but whether this were a true Tradition or no. Wherin S. Cyprian erroniously thincking it to be a mistaken tradition argued against it as he did demanding Scripture for proofe therof which he would neuer haue done if he had not thought it to haue bene mistaken The most therfore that Bel hath out of S. Cyprian for him selfe is that what is not true tradition must be proued by Scripture which I willingly graunt but it maketh nothing for his purpose as is euident S. Augustin lib. de vnic bapt c. 13. l. 1. de bapt coÌ„t Donat. c. 18. 39. epist 48. Vincent Lyrin contr â—aeres 7. But many things I obserue in S. Cyprian which make against Bel. 1 He admitteth dyuers Traditions Bel reiecteth al. 2. He impugneth one only Tradition Bel impugneth al. 3. He erred in impugning one and much more Bel in impugning al. 4. He recanted his error before his death as S. S. Augustin l. 6. de bapt c. 2. S. Hieron dial contr Luciferian Austin thincketh and of his fellow bishops S. Hierom testifyeth Bel persisteth obstinatly 5. He erred in a new question and not determined in a ful Councel saith S. Austin Bel erreth in antient matters decyded S. August l. de vinc baptism c. 13. lib. 5. de bapt c. 17. S. Cyprian epist ad Iubaian S. Hieron contr Lucifer August sup S. Cyprian epistol ad Pompei Euseb lib. 7. c. 3. Vincen. coÌ„t haeres S. Cyprian l. 1. epist 3. by many general Councels 6. He although he thought the Pope did erre yet seperated not him selfe as Bel doth from his communion as him selfe and S. Hierom testifyeth 7. He condemned none that followed the Popes opinion against his as Bel doth 8. He thought the Pope to erre in a coÌ„mandment onely of a thing to be done Bel condemneth him of errors in his iudicial sentences of faith where as S. Cyprian professeth that false faith can haue no accesse to S. Peters chayre 9. He disobeyed for a tyme the Popes commandement concerning a new and difficult question Bel disobeyeth obstinatly his definatiue sentence 8. Hereby we see how litle S. Cyprian maketh See S. Austin lib. 2. contr Crescon c. 31. 32. to 7. S. Austin for Bel and though he had made more for him let him know from S. Austin lib. de vnic bapt c. 13. and lib. 1. de bapt cont Donatist c. 18. and epist 18. that this error was in S. Cyprian an humane and venial error and like a blemish in a most vvhite breast because it vvas not then perfectly defyned by the Church But in his followers saith he lib. 1. cit c. 19. it is smoake of hellish filthines and as Vincent Vincent Lyrin Lyrin writeth The author vvas Catholicque his follovvers are iudged heretiks he absolued they condemned he a child of heauen they of hel And let the Reader gather by this example the Example of the force of tradition and the Popes iudgement authority of Tradition and Pope For if one Tradition preuailed then against S. Cyprian and a whole Councel of Bishops alleadging dyuers places of Scripture much more it wil preuaile against Protestants And if the Popes iudgement euen then when it seemed to many holy and learned Bishops to be against Scripture was supported only by Tradition did preuaile and they at last condemned as Heretickes who resisted much more it wil praeuaile against Protestants being vpholden not only by Tradition but by manifest Scripture also And Bel in blaming S. SteeueÌ„ Pope for preteÌ„ding 80 vntruth as he saith false authority sheweth him selfe to bee a malepert minister seeing S. Cyprian neuer reprehended him for any S. Cyprian such matter yea lib. 1. epist 3. acknowledgeth in the Church one Priest and iudge who is Christs Vicar meaning the Pope as is euident because lib 2. epist 10. he saith that the NouatiaÌ„s in making a false Bishop of Rome made a false head of the Church and l. 1. epist 8. and epist ad Iubaian that Christ builded his Church vppon S. Peter And as for S. Steeuen Vincent Lirin highly Vincent Lyrin con haereses S. Augustin lib. de vnie bapt cont Petil. c. 14. Bel pag 97. S. Athanas commendeth him and the very Donatists as S. Austin writeth confessed that he incorruptly gouerned his Bishoprike 9. Next he cyteth S. Athanasius cont Idol saying That Scriptures suffice to shew the truth True But that truth wherof S. Athanasius there disputed against Gentils to wit that Christ was God as he him self explicateth in these words I speake of our beleefe in Christ But saith Bel. He had made a foolish argument and concluded nothing at al if any necessary truth had not bene fully contained in Scripture As though S Athanasius had in these words argued against Gentils in which he only gaue a cause why he wrote that treatise Because saith he Though Scriptures suffice to shevv the truth and dyuers haue written of the same matter which argueth that he spake of some determinate truth yet because their writings are not at hand I thought good to vvrite But suppose he had argued what folly is in this argument Al contained in Scripture is truth Christs godhead is there
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
auoucheth That ordinarily he can not depose Princes euen for iust causes 7. But let vs heare Bel disproue him self Anatomy of Popish tyrany in the Caueat to the Reader and lib. 2. cap. 4. §. 10. c. 9. 1. Contradiction Secular Priests saith he write plainly and resolutly that the Pope hath no power to depriue Kings of their royal Scepters and regalities nor to giue away their Kingdomes to an other In which opiniō likewise the French Papists do concurre iump with them Item The Seculars although they acknowledge the Popes power supereminent in Spiritualibus yet do they disclaime from it in temporalibus when he taketh vpon him to depose Kinges from their empires and translate their Kingdomes And least we should thinke these few Priests who wrote so were no Papists Bel him self testifieth that they are the Popes deare Vassals and professe the selfe same religion with Epistle to the King other Catholiques 8. The third vntruth conteined in the proposition is that we teach the doctrine of his proposition as a pointe of our faith wherevpon he inferreth in his conclusion our religion and faith to be false Because we teach no such doctrine at al and much lesse as a point of our religion or faith And the grauest best learned amongst Catholiques attribute to rhe Pope onely spiritual superiority ouer Princes and power to depose them in that case wherin our Sauiour said Math. 18. that it were better for a man to be cast into the sea then to liue to wit when they so scandalize others as their deposition is necessary for the saluation of soules as I haue already shewed out af Bellarmin Bel. parag 29. whose testimony in this matter Bel can not refuse seing he calleth him the mouth of Papists and auoucheth his doctrin to be the Popes owne doctrin And this doctrin good Christiā Princes account no more preiudicial or iniurious to their estates then they do the like doctrin of S. Paul 2. Cor. 10. where he professeth him self to haue power to destroy al loftines extolling it self against the knowledge of God to be ready to punish al disobedience 9. Wherfore to requite Bel with a syllogisme like vnto his owne I argue thus you Bel tel vs that we Papists saie the Pope is aboue al powers and potentates on earth that he can depose Kings and Emperours and translate their empiers at his good wil and pleasure But this your tale is a very tale false absurd and nothing else but a mere fable and consequently your late chalenge consisteth of mere falsehoods fables flat leasings The proposition is your owne wordes the truth of the assumption appeereth by my answer to your argument And thus much touching Bels vntruthes vttered in his proposition and proofe therof now let vs come to his dissemblinge CHAP. II. The opinion of protestants touching Princes Supremacie set dovvne LVTHER an Euangelist as he termeth him selfe or as other accompte him Luther lib. cont stat eccles in prologo in glossa cont decreta Caesar Ex Sur. An. 1531. 1539. Pope of Recusamy p. 31. 32. Magdeburg praefat Centur 7. Caluin in c. 7. Amos. an Apostle a prophet a third Elias a beginner of protestantisme in his booke of secular power condemneth those Princes who prescribe laws to their subiects in matter belonging to faith and the Church Magdeburgians his first and cheefest childeren write thus Let not Magistrats be heads of the Church because this Supremacy agreeth not to them Caluin saith they were blasphemers who attributed the supremacy to King Henry 8. And lest we shold think that only forayne Protestāts are of this opinion Antony Gilby in his admonition to England and Scotland Gilby calleth King Henry a monstrous bore for taking the supremacy that he displaced Christ was no better then the Romish Antichrist made him selfe a God And lately VVillet cōtract 791. part 1. and 3. p. 269. 270. Willet auoucheth That Bishops and Pastors haue a spiritual charge ouer Kings that Kings ought to yeeld obedience to those that haue ouersight of their soules That Heathen Princes had the same power and authority in the Church which Christian Princes haue and yet soone after affirmeth That heathen Princes cold not be heads of the Church that is to haue the Souereingty of external gouernment Againe That the King is nether mistical nor ministerial head of the Church that the name of head is vnproperly giuen to the Prince and if any think it to great Kings not so much is ministerial heads of the Church by vvillet a name for any mortal man we wil not saith he greatly contend about it So we see he denyeth both name and authority of the head of the Church to Kings 2. And his Maiesty perceaued that Reanolds and his fellows aymed at a Scottish Presbitry which agreeth with a Monarch Conference p. 82 83. as wel as God and the diuel page 79. and acknowledged his supremacy only to make their partes good with Bishops as Knox his fellow ministers in Scotland made his grandmother head of the Church therby to pul downe the Catholique Bishops Yea that the whole English Clergy is in their harts of the same opiniō appeareth by their open profession to agree in religion with forayne Protestants who plainly deny the supremicy of Princes by their writing and Apologia pag. 28. teaching that Christ alone can behead of the Church by their condemning Catholiques for attributing such authority to man and finally by their Synodical explication of the article of supremacy which they expound thus That Princes should rule al estates Lib. 39. Artic. art 37. and degrees committed to their charge by God whether they be Ecclesiastical or temporal and restrayne with the ciuil sword the stubborne and euil doers wherein we see no power in Ecclesiastical causes granted to Princes but only ouer Ecclesiastical persons And we deny not that Princes haue any power ouer Ecclesiastical persons yea in the very canon of the Masse as priests pray for Papa nostro N. and Antistite nostro N. for our Pope and Byshop so they pray for Rege nostro N. acknowledging the one to be their King as the others to be their Prelates and consequently both to haue power ouer them For as S. Augustin said and it is euident Rex à Augustin in Psalm 44. 67. regendo dicitur a King is so called of power to gouerne And as ecclesiastical persons be ciuil or politique members of the common wealth wherein they liue so haue they See Stapelton relectione Controuersiae 2. q. 1. a. 1. ad 2. Victoria relectione de potesta ecclesiastica sect 7. the same politique or ciuil head which that commonwealth hath for otherwise either ciuil members should haue no ciuil head at al which were monstrous or not be vnder the head of that body whereof they be members but onely vnder a ciuil head of an other body which is
about the Pope to whom or time when this regality was first graunted Marke good reader him selfe before affirmed that King Pipin gaue vp the gouernement pag. 12. 13. of Italie into Pope Steeuens hands and that this truth is apparant by the testemony of many renowmed Bel denieth vvhat him selfe saieth cannot be denied Onuphr in chron Nauclerus general 25. An. 750. Claudius Parad. des alliances Genealogiques Ado Regino Sigebert in chron Blond Dec. 1 l. 10. Mag deburgens cent 8. c. 10. Leo Ostien lib. 1. chron c. 9. Onuph sup Cronographes and can not be denied and now in the next page denieth both the fact and contestation of historiographers What wil he not deny who denieth that which him selfe saith can not be denied 15. The truth is that Pipin gaue not the exarchate to Greg. 3 who died in the yeare 741 or as other write 740 fourteene yeares before Pipins entrance into Italie neither was Pipin then a King but made afterward by Zachary successor to Gregory as Bel testifieth page 19. but to Pope Steeuen 2. as is apparant to vse Bels words by the testimony of many renowmed Cronographers though some cal him Steeuen 3. because they reckon his predecessour whom others omit because he liued but foure daies likewise al writers agree that Lewes pius confirmed the donation of his grandfather Pipin Apud Gratian dist 63. can ego Ludouicus Leo Ostien lib. 3. chron c. 48. vnto Paschal 1. and his name is in the donation as also that Countesse Maud gaue Liguria and Tuscia vnto Gregory the seauenth 16. And Bels prouing the historiographers Bel pag. 13. to disagree because Blondus and Platina saith he write that Pipin gaue the exarchate to Gregory the third Regino referreth it to Steeuen and Sigebert saith Pipin had Italy in his owne possession in the yeare 801. is like the rest of his proceedings For that of Platina is a manifest vntruth for he saith Platina in Stephan 2. Naucler general 26. Palmerius in chronic Claud. Paradi in Pepin paragr 6. 7. 8. 9. Pipin gaue the exarchate in Pope Steeuen the second his time and Sigebert meaneth not of King Pipin the giuer of the exarchate who died 768 but of his grandchild sonne to Carolus Magnus and how his possession of Italy doth not preiudicate the Pope is before explicated Regino saith that which is truth for best authors agree that Pipin gaue the exarchate in the yeare 755. at What time Steeuen 2. al. 3. was Pope 17. But suppose writers did not agree about the Pope to whome and time when Pipin made his guift of the exarchate must we therefore needs deny the guift in which they al agree So wee might deny that Christ Was borne because writers agree not about the time is it not vsual for historiographers to agree in the substance of the narration and yet differ in some circumstance of the person or time 18. Last of al least we should thinke the Grecian Emperors acknowledged Charles made by the Pope to be true Emperour Bel pag. 14. Sigebert An. 805. he telleth vs out of Sigebert that they had indignation against Charles and therefore he with often Embassages procured their friendshipes yea Blandus and Platina saith he affirme constantlie that Charles agreed with Irene and afterward with Niccphoras that with their fauors the might rule ouer the west Behould the drift of Bel to make vs thinke that Charles became Emperour not by creation of the Pope but by graunt of Grecian Emperors so loath he is to confesse the Pope had so great authority aboue 800. years agoe Wherein the silly foole ouerthroweth what he before said For if the Pope did not translate the Empire then was it no steppe to his tiranny as he imagineth 19. But let vs heare how he proueth that the Grecian Emperours did not achnowledge Charles the great for true Emperour first forsooth because Sigebert saith they had indignation against Charles what then are neuer Emperours offended for any thing lawfullie done especiallie if they thinke it preiudice their estate dignity and albeit Sigebert affirme that some Grecian Emperours who them selues came vnlawfullie and by tiranny to the Empire and that after Charles was crowned Emperour had indignation against Charles yet none write that Irene who was the only lawful Empresse at that time when Charles was created was offended with his creation but rather content as may be gathered by hir purpose which as Zonoras and Cedrenus write she had to marry him Yea Nauclerus saith she was deposed for Naucler general 28. the fauor she bore to Charles besides the indignation of those Emperours vz. Nicephorus Michael and Leo was not so much for the Imperial dignity taken by Charles as because as writeth Eginhart Charles Eginhart in vita Caroli his secretary they greatlie suspected least he should take the Empire from them which they might iustlie feare because by tirany and deposition of their predecessors they had gotten it and yet notwithstanding their indignation of their owne accord they sent Embassadours to Charles and made league and friendshippe with him as the same Eginhart Ado and others testifie Yea the Magdeburgians adde that the Grecians in a manner consented to Charles his Empire 20. His other proofe out of Platina containeth an vntruth for Platina writeth that Platina in Ieone 3. Charles being made Emperour Irene sent Embassadours to make peace and league with him to deuide Italie betwixt them which league Nicephorus renued but he hath no word of Charles his ruling the west with their fouours more then of their ruling the East with his And the like saith Blondus Blond Dec. 2. l. 1. Bel pag. 14. 21. The seauenth steppe saith Bel was the constitution of the seauen Princes electors of the future Emperour by Pope Gregory 5. by the fauour and free graunt af Otho then Emperour But this was rather an act of superiority in the Pope ouer Emperours then a steppe vntil it And seing this constitution hath euer since bene inuiolablie obserued and the Emperours so elected accompted as true Emperours throughout al Christendome a signe it is that Christians thinke the Pope hath authority to appoint Electors who may choose what Emperour they please by the authority giuen them from the Pope Wherfore I would Bel answered me this dilemma The seauen Electors haue authority to choose an Emperour or not If they haue then the Pope who gaue them that authority had the same because none can giue what he hath not him selfe if not Bel deposeth at once more Emperours and Princes then al Popes haue done 22. The eight and highest steppe of this ladder Bel pag. 15. saith Bel dâ—d reach vp euen to the highest heauen and to the verie throne of our lord Iesus here is a great cry now let vs see quid dignum tanto fert hic promissor hiatâ— because saiâ—h he Extrauag Bonif. 8. vtiam sanctam de maioritate obedientia vntruth
the giuers death ensue 7. Bel hauinge as you haue heard labored to proue the Eucharist to be no sacrifice 11. Contradict because it is a testament strayght after inferreth thervpon that it is not really Christs blood because it is not really a testament Bel pag. 25. For saith he as Christ sayd in S. Mathevv Math. 26. v. 28. Luc. 22. v. 30. This is my blood of the nevv testament so he said in S. Luke this cup is the nevv testament in my blood But it is not really the nevv testament because remission of sinnes is referred to sheddinge of his blood which was on the crosse not at supper Ansvver The proposition I grante deny the assumption for not onely the last wil of the testator but euen the authentical euidence thereof is properly called a testament So we cal the Bible the testament and Circumcision is called a testament Ecclesiast 44. v. 21. and a couenant Gen. 17. And Christs blood is the authentical euidence of his last wil or els he made none 8. And Bels reason maketh quite against Bel reasoneth against him self him selfe For Christs blood was shed at his supper for remission of sinns as we proued before and him selfe testifieth sayinge then in the present tense vvhich is shed for remission of sinns as the Euangelists both in Greeke and English bibles testifie But because it was not shed or powred out then in a bloody manner and proper forme Bel Hovv Christs blood vvas povvred out at the last supper wil not verefie Christs words in that tense wherin he spake them not consideringe that euen then Christs blood being in a chalice in forme of wine was in that forme powred out into the mouths of the Apostles for remission of their sinns and Exod. 24. v. 8. Hebr. 9. v. 20 his testament therby made as the old was by the sprinkling of Calues blood vpon the Iewes though the ratifying and confirmation therof was afterward by his death 9 Bâ—ls fourth argument is out of S. Paul Bel pag. 25. Heb. 10. v. 18. ouc eti prosphora peri hamartias There is not hence forth an oblatioÌ„ for sinne Some Catholiques answer that the Apostle meaneth an other oblation in substance as the oblations of the Iewes were who offered dayly different beastes and the oblation of the Masse is in substance al one with the oblatioÌ„ of the Crosse This Bel impugneth because then the Masse sacrifice should be of infinit valevv vvhich no Papist dare auouch Here is an vntruth 36. vntruth for many learned Papists auouch it as Caietan Siluester Canus Ruard Soto Caiet 3. part q. 79. art 5. Siluest verbo Missa q. 9. Can. 12. de locis c. 13. ad 10. Ruard art 16. parag 2. Soto 4. d. 14. q. 2. art 2. S. Thom. 4. d. 45. q. 2. a. 4. Scot. quodl 20. Gabriel lect 26. in Con. Bellarm. l. 2. de Missa c. 4. Scholastici 4. d. 45. and others though they grant the effect therof to be finit as the passion and intercession of Christ are of infinit valewe though the effect they worke be but finit because fevv are saued But others as Thomas Scotius Gabriel Bellarmin and deuines commonly deny Bels illation for though the hoste offered in Masse be of infinit valew yet the offeringe of it by men is of finit valew Because al mens actions haue that valew which God by his grace giueth to them which is but sinit And Bel by the widdowes offeringe Luc. 21. might know that the valew of the offering is not alwayes correspondent to the valew of the thing offered For rich mens giftes exceeded her 2. mytes and yet their offering was inferior to hers And much more inferior is mens offerings to the offering of Christ though they offer the selfe some hoste 10. But in deed the Apostle in the place cited by Bel doth not so much deny an other oblation in substance as an other ful and perfect partakinge of Christs oblation teaching the Hebrues as he had done before and as agayne in this Chapter v. 26. that if after they haue bene baptized they returne agayne to the old lawe and Apostatate from Christ they cannot haue the like aboundant remission of sinns applyed to them as was in baptisme And this he ment by those words vvhere there is remission of those sinns novv ther is not an oblation for sinne which he vttereth more playnely v. 26. If vve sinn vvillingly after the knovvledg of the truth receaued novv ther is not left an hoste for sinns but a certaine terrible expectation of iudgment Because God hauinge once pardoned by baptisme both offence and punishment afterward vseth not the like mercy but punisheth sinne 11. After this Bel turneth to his old custome Bel pag. 26. of iniuringe his Mayster Bellarmin charginge him with denial of the Masse to be truely and properly propitiatory because Bellarm. l. 2. de Missa c. 4. he saith that Christ being novv immortal can neither merit nor satisfie Wheras Bellarmin cap. 2. spendeth one whole chapter of that booke to proue Masse to be a propitiatory sacrifice And strayght after those wordes which Bel cyteth aproueth Masse to be a satisfactory cap. 4. cit sacrifice because by it Christs passion accordinge to his institution is applyed to take away the temporal paynes of the liue and dead And by the wordes which Bel citeth onely meaneth that Masse is not properly propitiatory as it proceedeth from any acte which Christ now hath because now he can neither merit nor satisfy Wherefore falsly Bel doth accuse Papists that with them Masse is one while a propitiatory sacrifice and an other while not For the Tridentin Councel whom they al followe Conc. Trid. sess 22. c. 2. can 3. Bellarm. c. 2. cit hath defined it to be truely a propitiatory sacrifice And Bellarmin proueth it at lardge out of Scripture Fathers and Councells See Origen hom 13. in Leuitt S. Chrisostom Origen to 1. S. Chrysost tom 5. tom 3. S. Augustin tom 4. Bel pag. 26. lib. 6. de sacerd hom de prodit Iudae S. Austin q. 57. in Leuit. S. Beda lib. 4. Hist Chap. 22. 12. His fift and last argument against Masse is taken out of the decree glosse de consecrat D. 2. Can. Hoc est thus translated by Bel. As therefore the heauenly bread which is the flesh of Christ is after it manner cald the body of Christ when in deed it is the Sacrament of Christs body of that body which is visible vvhich is palpable mortal nayled on the crosse And that oblation of flesh which is made by the hands of the priest is called Christs death and Crucifixion and not in truth of the thinge but in a mistery signifyinge the thinge so the Sacrament of faith by which baptisme is vnderstood is faith Hetherto the decre now the glosse therof The heauenly SacrameÌ„t which representeth Christs flesh truely is called
to Moyses law nor no otherwise prohibited therby then the rest of Scripture is 5. What hath bene said to the place of Deut. 4. may be applyed to the other place Deut. 12. if it be vnderstood of the moral law which God gaue to the Iewes But rather I thinke it is to be vnderstood of the Ceremonial law Both because it is not said absolutly what I command that only do as it would if it had bene meant of the Moral law but That only doe thou to the lord which words to the lorde insinuate the meaning to be only of the Ceremonial law manner of sacrifice to be done to God As also immediatly before God had forbidden the Iewes in their manner of worshipping him to imitate the ceremonyes of Gentils in worshipping their Gods because they had many abhominable vses as of sacrifizing their children and streight after concludeth what I command thee that only do thou to the lorde nether adde any thing nor deminish Wherby we see that the worde Command he extended only to sacrifices and ceremonyes which before he had prescribed to be done to him selfe and would haue therin no alteration at al. 6. Nether hindereth this that which Reinolds apol thes p. 207. Reinolds obiecteth That mention here is made of sacrificing children which is forbidden by the moral law For mention is made therof not as of a thing forbidden there but as of a reason of forbidding the Iewes in worshipping God to imitate Gentils because saith God they sacrifice children And of this Ceremonial law very likely it is that God absolutly Ceremonial lavv perfectly prescribed to the Ievves and vvhy would haue no addition or alteration at al to be made vntil it were quite abrogated by Christ And the like reason is not of Gods law concerning faith and manners For there being no such difference in the Ceremonies of the law but what some Iewes obserued al might alike expedient it was that al the Ceremonies should be prescribed at once to the end al might worship God after the same manner especially seeing the Iewes were as S. Paul writeth S. Paul Gal. 4. v. 1. 2. 3. litle ones nothing differing from seruants vnder tutours and gouernours and seruing vnder elements of the vvorlde And therfore had al the rudiments and ceremonies of religion most exactly prescribed vnto them by God with commandement to abstayne from any alteration 7. But seeing in matters of faith and VVhy the lavv touching saith and manners not prescribed al at once precepts of manners there is great difference because euen the same men are not capable at once of vnderstaÌ„ding al misteries as appeareth by our Sauiours words to his Apostles Ihon 16. v. 12. I haue many things to say vnto you but you can not carry them novv And much lesse are al men a like capable of the same misteryes And in like manner al men were not a like capable of the same precepts of life And therfore as S. Austin S. Augustin de sermon Domini in â—â—nte saith God gaue by Prophets the lesse precepts to that people vvhich vvas yet to be tyed vvith feare and greater precepts by his Sonne to a people vvhome he had agreed to free vvith loue Therfore it was not expedient that God should at once prescribe vnto men al that they were to beleeue or doe but at such tymes as seemed fit to his dyuine wisdome to adde therunto by his Prophets and Euangelists 8. Moreouer Bel alleadgeth Esay 8. Bel pag. 8â— v. 20. Ad legem magis ad testimonium Quod si non dixerint iuxta verbum hoc non erit â—is matutina lux Rather to the law and to the testimony If they speake not according to this worde ther shal not be morning light to them This place helpeth him nothing First because the Prophet nameth not only the law but testimony also which comprehendeth Gods vnwritten worde as appeareth Ioan. 3. v. 11. Ioan. 1. 7. 8. 15. 18. 1. Timoth. 6. Apoc. 12. Rom. 8 v. 16. Hebr. 11. v. 39. Act. 4. v 33. 1. Ioan. 5. v. 33. and other where and therfore maketh more for vs then against vs. Secondly because Esay doth not absolutly bid vs recurre to the law testimony but magis rather to them then to witches of whom he had immediatly forbidden vs to enquire Wherfore Bel in not englishing the worde magis as he did the rest corrupted of set purpose the Scripture to make it seeme magis more for his purpose Thirdly Corrupt of Scripture though by the law and testimony we vnderstood only Gods writteÌ„ worde the place maketh nothing against vs. For then Esay indeed should bid vs goe to Gods written worde which we refuse not to doe in al doubts wherin it resolueth vs but forbiddeth vs not to goe to any other which is as he saith iuxta verbum hoc agreable to this worde yea God him selfe commanded vs Deuter. Deutr. 32. v. 7. to aske our Fathers and elders Iob. and. Iob. 8 v. 8. to aske the ancient generation seeke out the memory of the Fathers Wherfore ether must Bel proue that the Churches Traditions are not iuxta verbum hoc agreable to Gods written worde which he shal neuer doe or he must know that God not only forbiddeth vs but rather commandeth vs to seeke after and follow them 9. S. Hierome alleadged by Bel only Bel pag. 89. S. Hierom. in c. 8. Esaiae saith absolutly That doubts may be resolued out of Scripture and who wil not seeke Gods worde shal abide in errour which is vndoubted truth but nothing against vs. But affirmeth not That al doubts may be determined out of Scripture and that we ought to seeke nothing els whatsoeuer Yea him selfe epist ad Marcel resolueth lent to be keapt only by Apostolical tradition And l. cont Heluid S. Hierom. bringeth not one place of Scripture to proue our B. Ladyes perpetual virginity against that hereticke though he bring many to shew that the places which the hereticke alledged conuince not the contrary And thus much touching Bels places out of the oulde Testament CHAP. III. Bels arguments out of the nevv Testament touching sufficiency of Scripture ansvvered HIs first place out of the new Testament Bel pag. 90. is Ioan. 20. v. 30. These are written that you may beleeue that Iesus is Christ the sonne of God that in beleeuing you might haue life through his name And biddeth vs obserue that S. Ihons Ghospel was written after al other Scriptures euen when the Canon of Scripture was compleat perfect and fully accomplished vz. about the 14 yeare of Domitian almost an 100. years after Christs ascension and thereby thinketh to auoyde al our sottish cauils as he tearmeth them Meaning forsooth that S. Ihon meant these words These are vvritten of the whole Canon of the Scripture 2. Omitting Bels manifest error where Tvvo grosse errors in Chronographie Baron An. 97. Onuphrius
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
euident then the holy Fathers when they speake of beleeuing the Ghospel they meane of deuine and Christian faith And what faith should S. Austin meane of but of such faith as he exhorted the Maniches vnto which was deuine And in the place alleadged by Bel he calleth outward teaching helpe to faith and only meaneth that a man can not learne faith of man alone without al inward teaching of God And therfore addeth That if he be not within who teacheth the Tract 3. in 1. Ioan. 10. 9. hart in vayne is our sound and where Gods inspiration is not there in vaine words sound outwardly which is most true and nothing against vs. Lastly it is against reason For the authority of Gods Church is not meere humane but in some sort deuine as a witnes by God him selfe appointed to testify his truth And therfore he said vvho heareth Luc. 10. v. 16. you heareth me therfore the faith that proceedeth from such authority is not humane 22. Wherfore Bel not trusting much to this shift flyeth to an other vz. That S. Austin said not these vvords of him selfe as he vvas then a christian but as he had bene in tymes past a Maniche This he proueth Because in the same chapter he saith That the authority of vntruth 93 1. vntruth 94 2. vntruth 95 3. the Ghospel is aboue the authority of the Churche in the chapter before That the truth of Scriptures must be preferred before authority consent of nations and the name of Catholique and promiseth to yeeld to Maniches doctrine if he shal be able to proue it out of Scripture But both this answer and proofs are most falsly auouched vpon S Austin For if he had meant the foresaid words of him selfe only as when he was a Manichist he wold not haue said Non crederem nisi commoueret c. I wold not beleeue vnles the Church did commoue me But non credidissem nisi commouisset I had not or wold not haue beleeued vnlesse the Church had commoued me Which Bel wel marking made him say so in english though he had not said it in latine Besides False translat 12. in the same chapter he addeth Qua authoritate Catholicorum infirmata iam nec potero Euangelio credere which authority of Catholiques being discredited I shal not be able now marke Bel to beleeue the Ghospel Moreouer cap. 4. he said That besides other motiues the authority of Catholiques tenet doth holde me in the lap of the Church 23. Bels proofs are nothing but his owne vntruths For though it be true That the Scripture is of greater authority then the Church yet nether doth S. Austin say it in that place nether maketh it any thing against vs. For albeit the Scripturs be in it selfe of greater authority yet the authority of the Church is both infallible and more euident to me And what maruel if for an infallible authority more euident I beleeue an other though greater yet not so manifest As S. Ihon was sent to giue testimony of Christ Ioan. 1 v. 8. and yet far inferior to Christ Nether saith S. Austin That truth of Scripture is to be preferred before authority and consent of Catholiques But Bel added the worde Scripturs as though S. Austin meant that their truth could be knowne without the authority of Catholiques or be opposit vnto it which he manifestly denyeth Nether meaneth he of the truth of Scripturs which the Manichist against whom he wrote reiected almost wholy and he him selfe professeth he could S. Austin speaketh of most manifest and euident truth and such is not the Scriptures not take for truth if it were contrary to Catholiques but of any knowne truth in general which he saith and truly is to be preferred before al authority opposit vnto it because such authority is not infallible but false and deceitful And therfore he speaketh vppon supposition that if it were true which other where he auoucheth to be impossible that Manichists taught truth and Catholiques error then their truth vvere to be preferred before the name of Catholiques consent of nations and authority begun with miracles nourished vvith hope encreased vvith charity established vvith antiquity and succession of Priests euen from the seat of Peter to vvhom our Lord after his resurrection commanded his sheep to be fed vnto this present Bishop But saith the glorious Saint vnto maniches I after him to Protestants Amongst you only soundeth the promise of truth vvhich if it vvere so manifest as it could not be doubted of it vvere to be preferred before al things that hold me in the Catholique Church 24. His third vntruth of S. Austins promise is directly contrary to S. Austin in the S. Austin vvold not beleeue Maniche though he had manifest Scripture Sup. paragr 18. same place If saith he thou shalt read any manifest thing for Manichey out of the Ghospel I vvil beleeue nether them nor thee Not them because they lyed to me of thee Not thee because thou bringest me that Scripture vvhich I beleeued through them vvho haue lyed As for Bels reasons to proue that we beleeue nothing with deuine faith for authority of the Church they are easely answered For though the formal obiect of faith be the first verity yet not simply as it is in it selfe but as it is proposed vnto vs by the Church And therfore though we beleeue nothing but because it is spoken and reuealed by God yet because he speaketh not immediatly to vs by him selfe but by the mouth of his Church whome who so heareth heareth God and Luc. 10. v. 16. 1. Thess c. 2. v. 13. whose worde is not mans worde but truly Gods worde therfore faith is not without the testimony of the Church As for S. Austins authority it hath bene answered before as also his arguments which Bel bringeth against Traditions CHAP. X. Of the certainty of Apostolical Traditions THERE are certaine and vndoubted Apostolical traditions This is against Bel pag. 128 129. c. But I proue it because the traditions of the Byble to be Gods worde of the perpetual virginity of our B. Lady of the transferring of the Sabbath and such like are certaine and vndoubted Besids if in the law of nature and Moyses traditions were keapt certaine why not in the law of grace But more euident wil the conclusion be if we descend to perticuler traditions which Bel endeuoreth Bel p. 128. 129. to proue vncertaine First he setteth-downe this Proposition Vnwritten traditions are so vncertaine as the best learned papists are at great contētion about them This he proueth in the tradition of Easter about which contended S. Victor P. the Bishops of Asia aboue 1400 years agoe both earnestly alleadging Apostolical traditions Likewise S. Anicetus and S. Policarpe who liued al within 200. years after Christ when the Church was in good estate and stayned vvith fevv or no corruptions 2. Marke good Reader his conclusion and proofs therof and thou wilt
euermore it hath bene obserued as appeareth by S. Ignatius epistol ad S. Ignatius S. Iteney Origen S. Basil S. Chrysostom S. Augustin S. Leo. S. Gregory S. Grego Nazianzen in sanct lauaerum â—oncil Laoâ—iâ—cen Can. 10. Philip. S. Ireney loc cit Origen hom 10. Leuit. Basil orat 2. de ieiunio Chrysostom hom 1. in Gen. and 11. hom 16. and 73. ad populum S. Austin epist 118. and 119. and serm de quadrag Leo and Gregor loc cit And what S. Chrysostom meant in the words cited by Bel he him self explicateth in these words Because I am sorry saith he if neglecting the rest you thinke fasting sufficient to saue you which is the meanest of the vertues So that he meant that Christ bid vs not only fast lent but more especially be humble See S. Hierom ep ad Celantiam Math. 9. v. 13. Ose c. 6. v. 6. vntruth 96 Bel p. 130. and milde The like speech vsed Christ when he said I wil haue mercy and not sacrifice vz. only and rather then mercy And so we may say with S. Chrysostom he commanded not fasting but humility And Bel vseth his old trade in auouching vs to think it greater sinne to eat flesh in lent then to commit adultery murder or periury Whereas euery Catholique knoweth these sinnes to be against the law of nature and lawful in no case whatsoeuer and the other against a positiue precept which according to the general custome of the Church bindeth none vnder 21. or aboue 60. years old no sicke body no laboring man no woeman bearing or nursing children besides many other perticuler cases wherein fasting in lent is dispensed withal 7. Eight Traditions more Bel reckoneth Bel p. 131. 132. 133. as of celebrating in vnleauened bread of Christs age when he dyed of his raigne on earth after iudgement of Zacharias that was slayne betwixt the Temple and the altar of the Popes teaching successiuely the self some doctrin with S. Peter of our ladies conception without original sinne of Constantins baptisme at Rome and lastly of honoring Saints But these are ether falsly alleadged for traditions or litle or nothing to the purpose For that of celebrating Leo 9. ep ad Michaelem PattiarchaÌ„ c. 29. Eugen. 4. in decreto vnionis These tvvoe vvere no traditions but erroneous opinioÌ„s See S. Hierom de scriptur in Padia Bel impugneth histories in steed of Traditions Origen in 25. Math. Basil homil de human Christâ— General Nissen orat de Christ natiu Cyrill cont Anthropo This is no Tradition but if it be ment of the Popes teaching as he is Pope it is in Scripture if as a prinat maÌ„ it is an opinion brating in vnleauened bread concernes no thing necessary to mans saluation as testify P Leo 9. and P. Eugenius 4. and therfore is none of these which Bel vndertooke in the beginning of this article to impugne And though S. Ireney were deceaued about Christs age when he suffered and Papias about his reigne after iudgement that maketh not much to the purpose For wel may the Church be certain of Traditions though one Father were mistaken about one Tradition and an other about an other That of Zachary that he was S. Ihon Baptists father who was so slain S. Basil reporteth not as an Apostolical but an historical Tradition and though S Hierom deny it yet Origen S. Greg. Nissen S. Cyril and Valentinian affirme it 8. As for the Popes successiuely teaching the self same doctrin with S. Peter the truth thereof vnto S Victor P. tyme about the year 187. is testifyed by S. Ireney lib. 3. r. 3. vntil S Cornelius P. about the yeare 251. by S. Cyprian lib. 1. epist 3 vnto S. Lucius 1 P. about 257. by him self epist ad Episc Hispan Gall. vntil S. Dammasus P. about the year 380 by S. Hierom epist ad Damas vntil S. Leo 1 Pope about 450 by Theodoret epistol ad Renatum vntil S. Gelasius 1. P. about 496. by him self epist ad S. Ireney S. Cyprian S Lucius S. Hierom. S. Theodoret S. Gelasius 2. S. Ihon. 2. S. Gregory Agatho Nicolas 1. Anast vntil S. Ihon 2. Pope about the year 533. by him self epist ad Iustin vntil S. Gregory the great about the year 600. by him self lib. 6. epist 37 vntil Pope Agatho about the yeare 681. by him self in his epistle approued 6. Synod act 8. and 18. vntil P. Nicolas about the year 860. by him self epist ad Michael Imperat. vntil P. Leo 9 about Leo 9. the yeare 1050. by him self epistol ad Petr. Antioch vntil Pope Innocent 2. about the year 1140. is insinuated by S Bernard epist S. Bernard 190. And the same may be proued of the rest of the Popes since Now let vs see whome Bel opposeth to these so many so holy so antient witnesses 9 Forsooth Nicolas de Lyra a late fryer Bel p. 132. Lyra in cap. 16. Math. Tit. 3. v. 11. O truly said of S. Paule that Heretiks are condemned by their owne iudgements For who condemneth not him self if he wil beleeue one late writer before so many so holy so antient And much more if that Author be found to affirme nothing to the contrary For he only saith That Summi Pontifices inueniuntur apostatasse à side Popes haue apostated from the faith which is a far different thing For wel may one be an Apostata Math. 26. v 70. Concil Sinuessan Damasus iâ— Marcelliâ—â— and yet teach the doctrin of his Predecessor As S Peter denyed his maister yet taught no contrary doctrin S. Marcellin offered sacrifice to Idols and yet taught no Idolatry Caïphas murdered Ioan. 11. v. 51. S. Augustin l. 4. de doctr Christian c. 27. to 3. Christ and yet prophecyed For as S. Austin said of some Bishops that they durst not teach heresy lest they should leese their Bishopriks So we might say of Popes that though some of them had apostated from Christ yet they durst not teach heresy or apostasy lest they shold be deposed but might with a wicked and deceitful hart to vse S. Austins words preach things which are right and true or as S. Paul speaketh preach Philip. 1. v. 18. Christ vpon occasion not vpon truth But indeed neuer did any Pope in his hart apostatat from Christ 10. That point of our ladies conception Bel impugneth an opinion for tradition without sinne is no Tradition but a pious and probable opinion of many and denyed of diuers Catholiques as of S. Thomas S Bernard whome Bel him self citeth and others And as for Constantins baptisme at Bel impugneth a History in steed of tradition pag. 133. Rome it concerneth no matter of saluation but is a meere historical Tradition sufficiently proued by Card. Baronius Annal. Ann. 314. and vnawares contested by Bel him self when he saith that he hath seen at Rome the font and that Constantin is worthely See Nicephor lib. 7. c. 35. called great For why
c. 8. See epist ad Epictetum l. cit Apud Athanas Theodoret l. cit S. Grego Nazianz orat 2. de Theolog Councel did not inuent that word but set it downe testimonio patrum by testimony of their Fathers and Eusebius though an Arian confesseth the same And S. Gregory Nazian writing against the Arians saith that it should suffice vs that our Fathers thought not as they do and the same argumeÌ„t vseth also S. Athanasius writing against the Apollinarists And how vntruly he affirmeth that the Fathers did not say many vnwritten things are to be beleeued I refer my selfe to their testimonies alleadged aboue cap. 4. But saith Bel S. Athanasius proued homousion because though the word was not in Scripture the sense was A goodly reason He proued it out of Scripture therfore not out of Tradition as if one should say He proued it out of S. Ihon therfore not out of S. Paul 3. Origen saith Bel hom 25. in Math. Bel p. 118. and hom 1. in 1. Hierem counselleth vs to try al doctrins by Scripture This is vntrue vntruth 101. Origen For Origen speaketh not of al but only of our opinions and doctrins Our opinions and expositions saith he haue no credit without their testimonies Againe VVe must alleadge the sense of Scripture for testimony of al the words we vtter Terrullian calling that truth which is first and false which is after maketh nothing to his purpose Next he alleadgeth S. Austin saying That we must not consent euen S. Augustin lib. de vnit eccles c. 10. to 7. to Catholique Bishops error or priuat opinion against Scripture Error against Scripture is not to be followed Ergo nether Apostolical Traditions contested by the whole Church Surely Bel hath great facility in inferring quodlibet ex quolibet He bringeth also S. Chrisostom calling Gods lawes a S. Chrysost hom 13. in 2. Cor. to 4. most exact rule and bidding vs learn not what this or that man thinks and of these things enquire these points also out of Scripture Answer S. Chrysostoms meaning is that Gods word is most exact in the matter whereof he talked vz. whither pouerty be to be preferred before riches in which matter we ought saith he to leaue the opinions of this or that worldly man who prefer riches but seek what the Scripture saith of it And Bel to make him False translat 13. seeme to say That al truth is to be sought out of Scripture translated these words Deque his à Scripturis haec etiam inquirite thus Search the truth out of the Scriptures Englishing nether de his nor haec 4. After S. Chrysostom he citeth two pag. 120. Chap 5. parag 5. sentences out of Victoria cited by him and answered by vs before To whome he adioyneth Canus teaching That Priests are not Canus l. 3. de loc c. vlt. to be heard vnles they teach according to Gods law Certain And then inferreth That Papists teach plainly that no doctrine is to be receaued which is not tryed by Gods word True also if it be rightly vnderstood vz. of such doctrine as may be tryed not of deuine as Apostolical Traditions be which may not be tryed And of Gods whole word not of a part thereof as the Scripture is And that expounded not according to the humor of priuat spirits but according to the vniforme consent of Fathers Councels This most iust and reasonable rule of trying al matters in controuersy the Councel of Concil Trident sess 18. in saluo coductu dato Protestantibus Trent prescribed to the Protestants But they wil try deuine truth conteined not only in Traditions but also in Scripture that part by which they wil try the rest they wil expound according to their owne priuat spirits which is to make them selfs rule and iudges of al wherfore vainly doth Bel professe to agree with the Pope in al coÌ„trouersies pag. 120. if he wil be tryed by Gods word For vnles Bel be made iudge and tryer both of Gods word and of his meaning or as Protestants speake vnles he may iudge which is Scripture and which is the true sense there must nether tryal nor iudgement passe For vnles Protestants may haue al the law in their owne hands they wil accept no iudgement 5. But because Bellarmin graunteth that Bellarm. lib. 2. de Concil c. 52. singuli Episcopi al Bishops seuerally may erre and somtyme do erre and dissent one from an other so that we know not which of them is to be followed Bel thinketh pag. 121. that he hath a great catch yet remembring him self better that though Catholiques graunt that euery Bishop seuerally may erre yet deny that they can erre al when they are gathered in a Synode confirmed by the Pope he taketh occasion to make a long digression about Councels CHAP. XIII Of the authority of late general Councels GENERAL Councels in these our dayes are as certaine as before tymes This is against Bel pag. 123. saying that in our dayes they are like a nose of waxe and as vncertaine as the winde And because he denyeth not but that general Councels in some times haue bene certaine forsooth such as defyned nothing contrary to Protestantisme I wil only proue that they are now as certaine as euer First because Christ promyseth that he would be in the midst of them that are gathered in his name Math. 18. v. 20. S. Math. That the holy Ghost should teach vs al truth Iohn 16. That the gates of hel should not preuaile S. Iohn v. â—3 S. Math. against his Church Math. 16. v. 18. which promises are limited to no certaine tyme but are extended as he saith Math. vlt. euen to the end of the worlde Likewise Christs commaund of hearing his Church Math. S. Math. v. 17. S. Luc. 18. of hearing preachers sent by him Luc. 10. of obeying our Prelates and being subiect to them Hebr. 13. v. 17. bindeth as wel S. Paul in our dayes as before tymes wherfore either the Church Preachers and Prelates teaching in a general Councel in our dayes can not erre or Christ in our daies commaundeth vs to beleeue heresy and lyes 2. Secondly the present Church of our daies hath authority to decyde controuersies in faith Ergo we be bound to obey her decision Ergo it is no lye The Antecedent is an article of Protestants faith Article 39. Art 20. The first consequence I proue because who resisteth power in matters belonging to the power refisteth Gods ordinance and purchaseth damnation to him selfe Roman 13. vers 2. 3. which being true of temporal power and concerning wordly matters much more true it is of spiritual power and in matters of faith and saluation The second consequence is euident For God who is truth it selfe and can not lye can not binde vs especially See S. Gregory lib. 1. epist 24. vnder paine of damnation to beleeue and follow lyes Thirdly as Protestants except