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
August l. 1. de pecc mer. remiss c. 30. Infants to be meant of baptisme Hereupon the Anabaptists who deny baptisme Balthasar Pacimontan apud Coclâ—um in ostis Lutheri See Posseâ—in de athâ—ismis Haerâ—ticorum of children professe that they learnt their doctrine from Luther and the new Arrians in Transiluania who deny the Trinity and consubstantiality of Christ in their disputation with Protestants appealed to Caluins iudgement professed they receaued their doctrine from him And Smidelin a Smidelin in refutat blasphemae apolog Danaei 1583. great Protestant writeth That it is no maruel that very many Caluinists in Transiluany Poleland and Hungary became Arrians and of Arrians soone after Mahometans 6. But sport it is to heare Bel answer an Bel p. 140. obiection which is the grouÌ„de of the Anabaptists Infants haue no faith Ergo they are not to be baptized First he saith they haue faith that their faith profession is to be baptised of faithful parents in vnity of the Catholique Church After he denyeth them to haue faith in act but to haue faith fundamentally and by inclination How these answers agree let the Reader iudge I would know of him First whence he hath this new point of faith that baptized infants haue to be borne of faithful parents Are none borne of heretiks or Infidels Secondly How they make profession of it by words or deeds and whether Bel by their profession could discerne a baptised infant from one vnbaptized Thirdly how infants can be iustified by faith alone and haue no Inclination to faith iustifyeth Infants according to Bel. Scripture containeth virtually al points of Christian faith See Staplet Relect. controu 5. q. 5. art 1. S Austin l. 1. cont Crescon c. 33. Nullum mihi sacrameÌ„tum aut sermo aliquis admodum obscurior de sacris literis aperitur vbi non eadem praecepta reperio August epist 119. Propter duo praecepta charitatis sensisse Maist quicquid in illis libris sensit nisi crediderimus mendacem facimus Deum August 12. confess c. 25. tom 1. faith in act but only an inclination therto Surely they can haue instification no otherwise then they haue faith and therfore if they haue not faith in act they can haue no iustification in act but only be inclined to it as they are inclined to faith 7. Second conclusion Al points of Christian faith are vertually conteyned in Scripture First because it teacheth vs to belieue the Church which teacheth actually al points of Christian faith and therfore Scripture vertually teacheth vs al. Hereupon wrote S. Austin That in doing what the Church teacheth we holde the truth of Scriptures albeit they afforde no example thereof because we therin follow the Church which the Scripture vndoubtedly sheweth Secondly because the end of al Gods worde whether written or vnwritten is loue of him selfe aboue al things and of our neighbour as our selfe as appeareth by that 1. Timoth. 1. v. 5. The end of the precept is charity and Rom. 13. v. 8. who loueth his neighbour hath fulfilled the law and to the better comprehending and obtayning of this end he referreth al whatsoeuer he reuealed and this end being contayned in Scripture it followeth that the Scripture doth vertually contayne as a cause doth the effect al points of faith 8. And hereupon also it followeth that al the rest of Gods worde whether written or vnwritten may be called an explication of the foresaid coÌ„mandements because it contayneth nothing but which is vertually contayned in these commandements thereto referred by God as to their end which our Sauiour meant when he said In Matth. 22. v. 40. these tvvo commandements al the lavv and Prophets hange because of them depend as of their end al the rest which the law and Prophets contayne And hereupon said S. S. Epiphan Epiphan haer 65. That we may tel the inuention of euery question out of the consequeÌ„ce of Scriptures He said not out of scripture For al can not be taken thence as him selfe writeth haer 61. but of the consequence of them because al questions are resolued out of the Scriptures or out of that which followeth of them as the effect of rhe cause And according to these two conclusions we may expound other Fathers when they say al things are contained in Scripture For either they meane not absolutely of al points of Christian faith nor of actual containing as appeareth by that other where they manifestely defend Traditions but either only of points necessary to be knowne of euery Christian or of vertual containing 9. Third conclusion Al points of Christian faith are not actually coÌ„tained in scripture Al points of Christian faith are not actually in the Scripture neither clearly nor obscurely neither in plaine words nor in meaning This conclusioÌ„ Bel seemeth to graunt pag. 118. where he admitteth of a thing although not expresly written yet vertually saith he and effectually contained in Scripture And the whole English Article 6. Cleargy defyne That what may be proued out of Scripture is necessary to be beleeued though it be not read But what can be proued what not they alone wil be iudges But whatsoeuer Protestants say I proue the conclusion For no where in Scripture it is sayd either in plaine words or in meaning That al the books chapters verses and sentences which in the Bible are admitted for Canonical are truly Canonical and Gods pure worde without the mixture of mans worde If Bel can finde any such place from the first of Genesis to the last of the Apocal let him name it And yet this is a point of Christian faith yea thereupon depende al the Articles we gather out of Scripture S. Austin For as S. Austin said epist 9. and 19. If any vntruth be founde in Scriptures vvhat authority S. Hierom. con Heluid S. Augustin haeres 84. 82. S. Epiphan haer 78. S. Hilar. in 1. Math. Can. 1. can they haue So if any part or parcel of the Bible be doubtful what certainty can the rest haue Secondly the perpetual virginity of our B. Lady is a matter of faith as appeareth by S. Hierom and S. Austin who accounted Heluidius and Iouinian heretiks for denying it and Protestants VVillet Tetract 2. piller part 3. p. 76. 77. confesse it And yet it is no where testifyed in Scripture Thirdly that the seauenth day coÌ„manded by God to be kepte holy is transferred lawfully from Saterday to Sunday is a matter of faith and yet no where actually warranted by Scripture For albeit S. Ihon Apoc. 1. 10. speake of our lords day yet he no where warranteth the said transferring See more in Bellarmin tom 1. lib. 4. de verbo Dei 10. Fourth Conclusion Al points of Al points of Christian faith can not be proued sufficiently and immediatly out of Scripture Christian faith can not be sufficiently and immediatly proued out of Scripture In this conclusion I say not
That no points of Christian faith nor that al can not by some way or other be proued by some similitude congruity or probable illation nor that immediatly by testimony of the Church whose testimony in al doctrine of faith can be immediatly proued out of Scripture But only deny that al can be immediatly proued out of scripture by the very words of Scripture and so sufficiently as it sufficeth to captiuate our vnderstanding Articles 39 decreed by Bishops and Ministers 1562. and 1571. into obedience of faith This is directly against the sixt Article of Protestants faith and against Bel in this whole Article But I prooue it as I did the former conclusion For there is no place of al the Scripture which sufficiently proueth al the test Al thinges can not be taken out of Scripture Epiphan haer 61. to be Canonical our B. Lady to be a perpetual virgin and the Sabbath to be lawfully translated from Saterday to Sunday And it shal be more euident out of that which we shal say of Traditions and in answer to Bels arguments For the present it sufficeth that it is so cleare as our very aduersaries do somtime confesse it As See Couel art 4. p. 31. Hooper vvith him Bel p. 134. 135. Luther See Roffens con Luther verit 4. Bellarm. lib. 4. de verb. Dei c. 4. col 164. Luther certaine of Purgatory Bel pag. 134. and 135. art 7. admitteth one point of faith which is not in the Bible professeth that they meane not of it when they say al things necessary to saluation are contained in Scriptures And Luther art 37. said That purgatory can not be proued out of Scripture and yet in the assertion of the same he said That he was certaine there was Purgatory nor cared much what Hereticks babled to the contrary Now let vs come to Bels obiections which albeit for the most part be against Traditions yet because the matters of sufficiency of Scripture and of Traditions are connexed and because we wil keepe his order as much as we can we wil here answer them in that order as they are propunded by him CHAP. II. Bels arguments out of the oulde Testament concerning the sufficiency of Scripture ansvvered Bel citeth dyuers places which make Bel pag. 86. 87. 88. 89. nothing for absolute sufficiency of Scriptures or against Traditions but only bid vs obey and follow the law as Iosue 1. v. 7. and 23. v. 6. Malach. 4. v. 4. omitting therfore these places I answer to other as Deuter. 4. v. 2. and Prouerb 30. v. 6. where God forbiddeth vs to adde to his worde and Deuter. 12. v. 32. where we are bidden to doe to the lorde onely that which he commandeth without adding or taking avvay First that these places make as much against Protestants as Catholicks For they admit one vnwritten Tradition as Bel confesseth and appeareth Bel p. 134. 135. Brent in prolegom Kemnit in examin Conc. Trid. by Brentius Kempnitius the Deane of the chappel and the places cyted by Bel forbid as wel the adding of one thing as of many to Gods worde 2. Secondly I answer that they make nothing against these Traditions which Bel impugneth vz. such as are necessary to Bel pag 86. in praesat Articuli mans saluation for such are indeed Gods worde though vnwritten For the two first places only forbid adding to Gods worde any thing of our owne head or which is mans worde as may be proued First by the reason of the forbiddance prouerb 30. cit vz. least we be disproued and fownde lyers as no doubt we might by adding mans worde which is subiect to lye but not by adding Gods Worde which can neuer proue vntrue though it be not written Secondly because the Iewes did euer adde one thing to Gods written worde as Bel confesseth Conference at Hampton Court p 68. pag. 134. and the Deane of the chappel affirmed they added both signes and words vnto the institution of the Passouer prescribed vnto them by Moyses which addition and Tradition of Ievves added signes and vvords to Gods vvord and their addition confirmed by Christ. theirs saith he was approued by our Sauiour at his last supper And this doctrine was exceeding wel liked in the conference at Hampton Court Thirdly because the Prophets and Euangelists did adde to Moyses law without breaking of the commādement in the aforesaid places 3. Bel answereth That the doctrine of the Bel pag. 89. Prophets is nothing els but an explication of the law But if by the worde explication he vnderstand only such as adde nothing to the sense or meaning of the law but only explicate in other words types or figures the bare meaning of the law he speaketh most absurdly For beside that it is spoken without any reason at al it is against reason and sense to say that al the books of Iosue Iudges Kings and Prophets adde no sense to the law of Moyses For where doth the law of Moyses tel vs of euery worde or action of euery particuler man or woeman recorded in the books of the oulde Testament written since the law was giuen where is euery worde or deede of euery perticuler person in the new Testament And although dyuers actions of Christ especially his death and passion was prefigured in the law yet the like can not be thought of euery action or speech of euery perticuler person so that the words or figures of Moyses law actually tolde whatsoeuer perticuler things ether Prophets or Euangelists euer wrote Wherfore S. Austin S. Austin lib. 1. retract c. 22. recalled what he had said lib. cont Adimant c. 3. That al the precepts and promises in the new Testament are in the oulde For certaine precepts there be saith he not figured but proper which are not found in the oulde Testament but in the new And for this cause Tertullian lib. cont Hermog Tertullian called the Ghospel a supply of the oulde Testament 4. But if Bel by the word explication Hovv traditions are explicatiōs of the lavv comprehend al such additions as though they adde to the sense and meaning of the law yet are ether of their nature or of the intention of the adder referred to the better vnderstanding comprehension and fulfilling of the law as al the reasons similitudes comparisons examples and sentences in an oration are explications of the theame therof because though they adde sense to the sense of the theam yet they al tend to the perfect comprehension of the theame I graunt al the writings of Prophets and Apostles to be explications of the law as hath bene explicated in the second conclusion Chapt. 1. parag 7. 8. but withal adde that the Traditions of the Church are such like explications For what they containe is in like sort referred as a meane to the end to the perfect vnderstanding and fulfilling of the said law and so they are no other additions
to 1. S. Paul and corrected this error so I would wish Bel to do His third place is 2. Timoth 3. v. 15. Holy scriptures are able to make thee vvise to saluation This maketh not against vs. both Hovv Scriptures are able to make men vvise to saluation because we deny not that Scripturs are able to make men wise to saluation but only deny that they alone do it As also because we graunt they actually conteine whatsoeuer is necessary to euery mans saluation and vertually whatsoeuer els And lastly because the forsaid words are meant only of the old Testament which S. Timothy saith S. Paul there Had learned from his infancy which alone being not as Protestants confesse absolutly sufficient so as we may reiect the new testament they can not therof inferre Scripture to be so absolutly sufficient as that we may reiect Traditions Now let vs come to his proofs out of Fathers which particulerly proceed against Traditions CHAP. IIII. Bels arguments out of Fathers touching sufficiency of Scripture and Traditions ansvvered VIncentius lyrin who lyued in S. Austins Vincent Lyrin con haereses tyme Writeth That he enquiring of many holy and learned men How he should escape heresy they al answered him by sticking to Scripture and the Churches Traditions And. S. S. Ireney lib. 3. c. â— Ireney writeth of him selfe that by traditions of the Church of Rome he confounded al those that teach otherwise then they should No maruel therfore if Bel being desyrous noâ— to escape but to spread heresy and loth to be Ould heretiks detest traditions S. Iren. Tortullian S. Hilarie S. Augustin c. 1. to 6. S. Epiphan confownded do with the olde hereticks Marcionits and Valentinians ex Iren l. 3. c. 2. and Tertul. de praescrip with the Ari ans ex Hilario l. cont Constant August l. 1. contr Maximin with the Aerians ex Epipha her 75. with the Ennomians ex Basil l. de spir sanct c. 27. 29. with the S. Basil Nestorians and Eutichians ex 7. Synod 7. Synod act 1. impugne Traditions And let not the Reader maruel that Bel bringeth the words of dyuers Fathers against Traditions which almost al are obiections taken out of Bellarmin Bollarm lib. 4. de verbo Dei c. 11. For they make no more for his purpose then the words of Scripture did for the Diuel or Iewes when they alleadged them Math. 4. v. 6. Ioan. 12. v. 34. against Christ And we Wil bring such expresse words of the same Fathers for Traditions as shal cleare al suspition and can admit no solution 2. First he cyteth Dionis Areopag saiing Bel pag. 94. S. Dionys de diu nom c. 1. vve must nether speake nor thinke any thing of the Deity praeter ea beside those things vvhich Scriptures haue reuealed I might except that Protestants deny Dionis Areopag to be Centur. CeÌ„t. 1. lib. 1. c. 10. Luther Caluin ex Bellarm. l. 2. de Monachis c. 5. author of those bookes but I neede not For the words make nothing to the purpose both because they forbid only speaking or thincking of the Deity beside that which Scripture reuealeth as also because by praeter he vnderstaÌ„deth not euery thing out of Scripture els we should not vse the words Trinity and Consubstantiality but only such as are quite beside and neither actually nor vertually are conteined in Scripture But let S. Dionis tel plainly his owne minde concerning Traditions Those first Captaines saith he and Princes of our Hierarchy haue S. Dionys l. de ecclesiastic Hierarch c. 1. deliuered vnto vs diuyne and immaterial matters partly by written partly by their vnvvritten institutions How could Apostolical Traditions be more plainly auouched 3. Two places Bel bringeth out of S. Austin S. Augustin 2. de doct Christian c. 6. 2. de peccat mer. remiss â— vlt. which because we alleadged them in cap. 1. conclus 2. and proue no more then is there taught I omit And as for S. Austin he not only auoucheth Apostolical Traditions epist 118. but de Genes ad litt l. 10. c. 23. tom 3. professeth that baptisme of infants were not to be beleeued if it were not an Apostolical tradition and obiecteth them against the Pelagians in lib. cont Iulian. amoni and giueth vs this rule to knowe them If S. Austins rule to knovv Apostolical traditions S. Ireney lib. 3. c. 1. the whole Church obserue them and no Councel appoynted them l. 2. de bapt c. 7. 6. 23 24 S. Ireney he cyteth because he writeth That the Ghospel which the Apostles preached they aftervvard deliuered vnto vs in Scriptures and it is the foundation of our faith These words proue no more then that the Apostles preached not one Ghospel writ an other but one and the selfe same But that euery one of them or any one of them writ euery whit they al preached S. Ireney affirmeth not And his affection to Traditions is euident both out of his words before rehearsed as also lib. 3. c. 4. where he saith we ought to S. Ireney keepe Traditions though the Apostles had written nothing And affirmeth many barbarous nations of his tyme to haue beleeued in Christ keapt the doctrine of saluation and antient Tradition without Scripture 4. The next he produceth is Tertullian â—el pag. 95. Tertul. con Hermogen writing thus I reuerence the fulnes of Scripture which sheweth to me the Maker and the things made And soone after But whither al things were made of subiacent matter I haue no where readde let Hermogenes shoppe shew it written If it be not written let him feare that wee prouided for them that adde or take away Answer Tertullian speaketh of one perticuler matter which the hereticke Hermogenes of his owne head not only without Tradition or Scripture both contrary to both taught of creating the worlde of subiacent matter not of nothing And no maruel if Tertullian said the Scripture was ful in this poynt and required Scripture of Hermogenes for proofe of his heresy being sure he could alleadge no Tradition But for true Traditions Tertullian is so great a manteiner of them as lib. de prescrip he thincketh hereticks ought to be confuted rather by them then by Scripture and other where affirmeth Tertull. lib. de Corona milit lib. 1. cont Marcionem l. 2. ad vxorem diuers things to be practised in the Church as the ceremonies in baptisme signe of the Crosse and such like only by authority of Tradition without al proofe of Scripture vvhere of saith he Tradition is the beginner custome conseruer and faith the obseruer 5. Of S. Cyprian Bel much triumpheth Bel pag. 96. because writing against one particuler Tradition Primo imitare pietatem humilitatemque Cipriani tunc profes consilium Cipriani August lib. 2. cont Crescon cap. 31. to 7. S. Cyptian epist ad Pom peium of not rebaptizing the baptized by hereticks which he thought had
this place serueth nothing 18. Bels sixt solution is That we beleeue Bel p. 136. not the Scripture to be Gods worde because the Church teacheth vs so but because it is of it selfe axiopistos worthy of credit and God inwardly moueth vs to beleeue it That we beleeue it not for the Churches authority he proueth Because els the formal obiect of our beleefe and last resolution therein should not be the first verity God him selfe but man which is contrary to S. Dionis and S. Thomas S. Dionis de diuin nom c. 7. S. Thom. 2. 2. q. 1. art 1. Aquinas who teach That the formal obiect of our faith is the first verity and S. Thom. addeth That faith beleeueth nothing but because it is reuealed of God Also because S. Austin saith That man learneth S. Augustin tractat 3. in Ioan. to 9. not of man that outward teachings are some helps and admonitions but who teacheth the hart hath his chayre in heauen That the Scripture is of it selfe axiopistos or worthy of credit we deny not only we deny that by it selfe without testimony of the Church we can knowe that it is so worthy Nether deny we that God inwardly moueth our harts to beleeue it only we say that therto he vseth also the testimony of the holy Church nor ordinarily moueth any therto without the external testimony of the Church wherfore albeit it be most true that we beleeue the Scripture to be Gods worde because God moueth vs therto yet false it is to deny that we beleeue it not also because the Church doth teach it Because Gods inward motion and the Churches outward testimony are no opposit causes and impossible to concurre to one and the same effect but the second is subordinate to the first and can not worke without it as the first though it can doth not worke this effect without the second Wherfore wel said S. Austin Non crederem Euangelio nisi Cont. epist fundam c. 4. to 6. me Ecclesiae authoritas commoueret I wold not beleeue the Ghospel vnles the authority of the Church did commoue me therto 19. This place of S. Austin so stingeth pag. 137. Bel as he wyndeth euery way to auoid it First he telleth vs that there is a great difference Bels lacke of latin betweene mouere and commouere because mouere is to moue apart by it selfe commouere to moue together with an other This difference is false For nether is mouere to moue apart but absolutly as it is cōmon to mouing apart or with an other Nether though commouere do more properly signify mouing with an other is it alwaies so taken as infinit places both of holy and prophane writers can testify yea Bel him selfe with in 8. lynes pag. 138. after englisheth it absolutly mouing But suppose it were what inferreth Bel thereupon Forsooth that S. Austins meaning is nothing els but that the authority of the Church did outwardly concurre with the inward motion of God to bring him to beleeue the Ghospel That the Church did ioyntly concurre to S. Austins faith of the Ghospel is certaine and so Bel translating commouere for iointly mouing I refuse not But false it is that the Church did iointly concurre with God only to the bringing of S. Austin to the faith of the Ghospel and not to the conseruing him in the same faith Because c. 4. he saith That if thou percase canst finde any manifest S. Austin thing in the Ghospel of Maniches Apostleship thou shalt weaken the authority of Catholiques with me who bid me beleeue not thee which authority being weakned now nether can I beleeue the Ghospel Behold the authority of Catholiques conserued S. Austin in the faith of the Ghospel without which he professeth that he could beleeue the Ghospel no longer And againe Amongst other things which most iustly as he saith holde him in the Church he reckoneth authority and succession in the Church 20. But do you thinke that Bel wil stand to his expounding of commouere and graunting the Church to concurre with the inward motion of the holy Ghost to bring a man to beleeue the Ghospel No surely For in the next page he telleth vs. That the pag. 138. authority of the Church did moue beholde iointly mouing forgotten S. Austin to heare the Ghospel preached and to giue some humane credit vnto it For deuine faith proceedeth not from the outward teachings of man as I haue proued saith he already out of S. Austin This denyal of deuine faith to proceed from outward teaching of man is directly against Scripture and S. Austin For Rom. 10. v. S Paul Roman 10. 17. Faith commeth of hearing the preacher The Colossians learnt the grace of Christ of Epaphoras Coloss 1. v. 7. The Thessalonians Coloss 1. learnt the Traditions which they should keep by speech and letter 2. Thess 2. Thessalon 2. 1. Corinth 4. Philemon 2. v. 15 S. Paul begate the Corinthians in the Ghospel 1. Corinth 4. v. 15. He begate Onesimus Philem. v. 11. He and Apollo were Gods helpers in bringing the Corinthians to Christs faith 1. Corinth 3. v. 9. They that succour preachers are called cooperators of the truth 3. Ioan. v. 8. and therfore 3. Ioan. 8. much more the preachers them selfs And if deuine faith proceede not at al from outwarde teaching of men why did Christ send his Apostles to teach al nations Math. Math. 28. 28. v. 19. why appointed he in his Church some teachers for consummating of Saints Ephes Ephes 4. 4. v. 11 Why was S Paul a teacher of Gentils 1. Timoth. 2. v. 7. others act 13 v. 4. How 2. Timoth. could S. Paul bestovv some spiritual grace vpon Act. 13. the Romans Rom. 1. v. 11. Did Christ send these Apostles to teach humaine faith was Rom. 1. S. Ihon Baptist sent before Christ to giue humane knowledge of saluation to his people Luc. 1. v. 77. Lastly nothing is more Luc. 1. frequent in Scripture then that one man teacheth an other and surely it meaneth not of humane learning or beleefe For what careth the Sctipture for that but of deuine and such as bringeth to heauen saluation such as made Iewes compunct in hart act 2. v. 37. such as disposed Gentils Act. 2. 10. to receaue the holy Ghost act 10. v. 44. 21. Likewise it is against S. Austin First he thinketh as Bel confesseth the Church to concurre with the inward motion of the holy Ghost to the faith of the Ghospel But faith of the Ghospel to which the holy Ghost inwardly concurreth is deuine Ergo to this the Church concurreth Besids S. Austin affirmeth that authority holdeth Cont. epist fundam c. 4. tom 6. him in the Catholique Church And that if the authority of Catholiques were weakned he wold not beleeue the Ghospel which he would neuer say if his deuine faith did not depend vpon the Catholiques authority Moreouer what more
euident then the holy Fathers when they speake of beleeuing the Ghospel they meane of deuine and Christian faith And what faith should S. Austin meane of but of such faith as he exhorted the Maniches vnto which was deuine And in the place alleadged by Bel he calleth outward teaching helpe to faith and only meaneth that a man can not learne faith of man alone without al inward teaching of God And therfore addeth That if he be not within who teacheth the Tract 3. in 1. Ioan. 10. 9. hart in vayne is our sound and where Gods inspiration is not there in vaine words sound outwardly which is most true and nothing against vs. Lastly it is against reason For the authority of Gods Church is not meere humane but in some sort deuine as a witnes by God him selfe appointed to testify his truth And therfore he said vvho heareth Luc. 10. v. 16. you heareth me therfore the faith that proceedeth from such authority is not humane 22. Wherfore Bel not trusting much to this shift flyeth to an other vz. That S. Austin said not these vvords of him selfe as he vvas then a christian but as he had bene in tymes past a Maniche This he proueth Because in the same chapter he saith That the authority of vntruth 93 1. vntruth 94 2. vntruth 95 3. the Ghospel is aboue the authority of the Churche in the chapter before That the truth of Scriptures must be preferred before authority consent of nations and the name of Catholique and promiseth to yeeld to Maniches doctrine if he shal be able to proue it out of Scripture But both this answer and proofs are most falsly auouched vpon S Austin For if he had meant the foresaid words of him selfe only as when he was a Manichist he wold not haue said Non crederem nisi commoueret c. I wold not beleeue vnles the Church did commoue me But non credidissem nisi commouisset I had not or wold not haue beleeued vnlesse the Church had commoued me Which Bel wel marking made him say so in english though he had not said it in latine Besides False translat 12. in the same chapter he addeth Qua authoritate Catholicorum infirmata iam nec potero Euangelio credere which authority of Catholiques being discredited I shal not be able now marke Bel to beleeue the Ghospel Moreouer cap. 4. he said That besides other motiues the authority of Catholiques tenet doth holde me in the lap of the Church 23. Bels proofs are nothing but his owne vntruths For though it be true That the Scripture is of greater authority then the Church yet nether doth S. Austin say it in that place nether maketh it any thing against vs. For albeit the Scripturs be in it selfe of greater authority yet the authority of the Church is both infallible and more euident to me And what maruel if for an infallible authority more euident I beleeue an other though greater yet not so manifest As S. Ihon was sent to giue testimony of Christ Ioan. 1 v. 8. and yet far inferior to Christ Nether saith S. Austin That truth of Scripture is to be preferred before authority and consent of Catholiques But Bel added the worde Scripturs as though S. Austin meant that their truth could be knowne without the authority of Catholiques or be opposit vnto it which he manifestly denyeth Nether meaneth he of the truth of Scripturs which the Manichist against whom he wrote reiected almost wholy and he him selfe professeth he could S. Austin speaketh of most manifest and euident truth and such is not the Scriptures not take for truth if it were contrary to Catholiques but of any knowne truth in general which he saith and truly is to be preferred before al authority opposit vnto it because such authority is not infallible but false and deceitful And therfore he speaketh vppon supposition that if it were true which other where he auoucheth to be impossible that Manichists taught truth and Catholiques error then their truth vvere to be preferred before the name of Catholiques consent of nations and authority begun with miracles nourished vvith hope encreased vvith charity established vvith antiquity and succession of Priests euen from the seat of Peter to vvhom our Lord after his resurrection commanded his sheep to be fed vnto this present Bishop But saith the glorious Saint vnto maniches I after him to Protestants Amongst you only soundeth the promise of truth vvhich if it vvere so manifest as it could not be doubted of it vvere to be preferred before al things that hold me in the Catholique Church 24. His third vntruth of S. Austins promise is directly contrary to S. Austin in the S. Austin vvold not beleeue Maniche though he had manifest Scripture Sup. paragr 18. same place If saith he thou shalt read any manifest thing for Manichey out of the Ghospel I vvil beleeue nether them nor thee Not them because they lyed to me of thee Not thee because thou bringest me that Scripture vvhich I beleeued through them vvho haue lyed As for Bels reasons to proue that we beleeue nothing with deuine faith for authority of the Church they are easely answered For though the formal obiect of faith be the first verity yet not simply as it is in it selfe but as it is proposed vnto vs by the Church And therfore though we beleeue nothing but because it is spoken and reuealed by God yet because he speaketh not immediatly to vs by him selfe but by the mouth of his Church whome who so heareth heareth God and Luc. 10. v. 16. 1. Thess c. 2. v. 13. whose worde is not mans worde but truly Gods worde therfore faith is not without the testimony of the Church As for S. Austins authority it hath bene answered before as also his arguments which Bel bringeth against Traditions CHAP. X. Of the certainty of Apostolical Traditions THERE are certaine and vndoubted Apostolical traditions This is against Bel pag. 128 129. c. But I proue it because the traditions of the Byble to be Gods worde of the perpetual virginity of our B. Lady of the transferring of the Sabbath and such like are certaine and vndoubted Besids if in the law of nature and Moyses traditions were keapt certaine why not in the law of grace But more euident wil the conclusion be if we descend to perticuler traditions which Bel endeuoreth Bel p. 128. 129. to proue vncertaine First he setteth-downe this Proposition Vnwritten traditions are so vncertaine as the best learned papists are at great contētion about them This he proueth in the tradition of Easter about which contended S. Victor P. the Bishops of Asia aboue 1400 years agoe both earnestly alleadging Apostolical traditions Likewise S. Anicetus and S. Policarpe who liued al within 200. years after Christ when the Church was in good estate and stayned vvith fevv or no corruptions 2. Marke good Reader his conclusion and proofs therof and thou wilt
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
together whereby the indifferent Reader may by Bels euil and corrupt dealing in the very beginning of his chalenge take a taste of the rest of his proceedings for as Tertullian saith well vvhat truth doe they Tertull. l. do praescript defend vvho begin it vvith lyes 3. I demand therfore of Bel who they are whome he chalengeth to whome he speaketh and whome he vnderstandeth by You Papists Surely I suppose he writeth in English to none but such as vnderstand English whome in his preface he termeth English Iesuyts Seminary Priests Iesuyted Papists Yf these Maister Bel be they whome ye meane I tel you in their name that as your propositioÌ„ hath two parts viz. the Popes Superiority ouer al Princes and of his power to depose them so it conteineth three to vse your owne tearme flatte leasinges For though concerning Christians they beleeue the Pope to be spiritually superiour aboue al whatsoeuer accordinge to Christs words spoken to the first Pope S. Peter Matth. 16. viz. Thou art Peter and vpon this rocke vvil I buylde my Church and Io. 21. v. 17. Feede my sheepe which sheepe conteine and include as wel Christian Princes and potentates as subiects and vnderlings And concerning infidels they also beleeue that the Pope ought to be spiritually aboue them and they vnder him in that they be bound to be Christians neuerthelesse vntil these be Christened he is not actually their superiour vntil they be made members of Christs Church he is not de facto their head vntil they be in Christs fould he is not their sheape hearde For as Bellarmin writeth Bellarm. lib. 5. de Rom. Pont. c. 7. Bel p. 29. 125. whose testimonie saith Bel is most sufficient in al Popisshe affaires Christ vvas aboue as vvel infidels as faithful But to S. Peter he committed onely his sheepe that is the faithful Wherefore S. Paul as not acknowledging that he had any superiority or iurisdiction ouer infidels said vvhat belongeth it to me to iudge of them that are vvithout 1. Cor. 5. And although the Pope may preach him selfe or send others to preache to infidels without their licence yet this argueth no more but that the commission which he hath from God to preach the Ghospel vnto al nations is independent of the infidels and that they ought to be vnder his iurisdictioÌ„ Wherefore vntil Bel doe prooue that there are no powers or poteÌ„â—ates on earth which are infidels I must needs tel him that he vntruly auoucheth vs to say that the Pope is spiritually aboue al powers and potentates on earth 4. And much lesse did we euer tel you that the Pope hath temporal superiority ouer al Princes on earth but teach the quite contrary with VValden Bellarmin and VValden tom 1. lib. 2. art 3. c. 78. Bellarm. lib. 5. de Rom. Pont. c. 4. Gelas 1. de vincul Anathematis Nicol. 1. de 96. Can. cum ad verum others For as two most auncient Popes Gelasius 1. and Nicolaus 1. taught vs the Pope by his Pontifical dignity chalengeth neither royal soueraignity nor imperial name But what royalties he hath either in the Popedome or els where he chalengeth by the guift of Christian Princes whereof Some as your selfe confesse haue yeelded Pag. 17. vp their soueraigne rights vnto him And what superiority we thinke him to haue ouer Christian Princes he should haue though he were not Lord of one foote of land but as poore as he that said Math. 19. v. 27 Behould vve haue forsaken al. For his S. Mathevv Papal superiority and authority is not temporal or of this world nor the weapones of his warfare carnal but as S. Paul speaketh S. Paul 2. Cor. 10. mighty to God vnto the distruction of munitious destroying Counsels and al loftines extolling it selfe against the knowledge of God and hauing in readines to reuenge al disobedience Wherupon P. Innocent Cap. per venerab extra qui filij suâ—â— legitimi 3. professeth that the Pope hath ful power in temporal matters only in the Popedome and that Kings acknowledge no superior in temporal affaires And this also teach S. Ambros de Apol. Dauid c. 4. 10 Gloss S. Ambros tom 4. Lyra in psalm 50. and others By which it appeareth how much he is abused who is made to beleue That the Pope present challengeth an imperial ciuil power ouer Kings Emperors or that English Papists do attribute vnto him any such power For neither doth Paulus 5. challeng more authority then Innocent 3 did not English Papists attribute vnto him other authority ouer Kings then spiritual But do with tong and hart and with the Popes good liking professe That our Souereigne Lord King Iames hath no superior on earth in temporal matters If Bel reply that some Canonists haue affirmed the Pope to be temporal Lord ouer the world let him challeng them not like a wise man strike his next sellows the English Papists who mantayne no such opinion 5. The second parte of his Proposition touching the Popes deposition of Princes pag. 1. 4. 17. at his pleasure though he repeat it thrise is most vntrue For no Catholiques English or strangers teach that the Pope can depose Princes but for iust causes yea ordinarily saith Bellarmin not for iust causes but when Bellarm. lib. 5. de Rom. Pontif. c. 6. it is necessary for the sauing of souls And surely otherwise Princes shold be but his tenants at wil and he haue more power ouer them then they haue ouer their subiects which is far from al Catholiques imaginations let vs see therfore how Bel proueth vs to teach Bel p. 1. this doctrin 6. Because saith he Bellarmin setteth it downe Bellarm. de Rom. Pontif lib. 5. c. 7. in these words If therfore any Prince of a sheep or a ram become a wolfe that is to say of a Christian be made an heretike then the Pastor of the Church 4. vntruth may driue him away ly excommunication and withal command the people not to obey him and therfore depriue him of his dominion ouer his subiects Behold good Reader the forsaid vntruthes proued with an other Because Bellarmin calleth the Pope Pastor of the Church Bel auoucheth him to think the Pope to be aboue al Princes Potentates on earth as if there were no Princes infidels or out of the Church and because he teacheth that the Pope may excommunicate and depose Princes for Heresy that he may depose them at his pleasure as if matters of Heresy which is one of the greatest sinns that is were the Popes pleasure An indifferent reader would rather haue inferred that because the Pope is Pastor of the Church he is not aboue any infidel Prince or subiect which Bellarmin teacheth in Bellarmin expresse words in the same booke c. 2. c. 4. And because he can not excoÌ„municate so neither depose Princes for his pleasure which Bellarmin euery where supposeth yea in the same book c. 6.
impossible Wherefore what some say that Clergie men be exempted from the power of Princes is not to be vnderstood vniuersally but of their coactiue power which they haue to punishe the laity And of late Bilson Superintendent of Winton confessed to certeine Catholiques if I be not misinformed that the King is but a ceremonial head that is either a head onely for fasshion sake or onely in matters of ceremonies not in al ecclesiastical causes And albeit they subscribe Supplicat to the King in April 1603. to the supremacie yet perhaps they doe that onely in respect of time as a thousand ministers testifie that diuerse of them did to the communion booke some vpon protestation some vpon exposition some with condicion albeit it conteyned as they say enormities and abuses not agreable to Scriptures rather forsooth then the Church should be depriued of their labours but in deede rather then they shoulde be depriued of the Churches lyuings 3. The true difference therfore betwixt Catholiques and English Protestants if these durst vtter their mindes as strangers doe would not be whether the Prince or Pope but whether the Pope or ministers ought to be head of the Church wherein I appeale to any indifferent mans iudgement whether be more agreable to Gods word that the successour of S. Peter vpon Matth. 16. Ioan. 21. whome Christ built his church and committed his sheepe vnto should be head of the Church or they who are successours to none but beginners of them selues who as S. Ciprian writeth no man creating them Cyprian lib. de simpl praelat Bishopes made them selues Bishopes And wether be more secure to Princes that he should be accounted head of Gods Church Constant in edicto Constant 5. Phocas Iustinian C. de summa Trinit l. vlt. Valentinianus epist ad Theodosisi See cap. 6. parag 6. 7. Conference p. 79. 4. and 20. whom the whole Christian world hath euer acknowledged for such and vnder Whome the mightiest Monarches haue and doe liue as securely as any Protestant Prince whatsoeuer or they who if they were permitted would erect such a Presbitrie as agreeth with a Monarchy no better then the diuel with God who haue kept Kings without state and honor c. and of whom some beardles boies haue braued Kings to their faces and excommunicated them when they came within ther parish CHAP. III. The opinion of Protestants touching deposition of Princes LIKWISE touching the deposition Germany Luther See Surius An. 1525. ProdromuÌ„ Staphil p. 75. of Princes Luther as Sleidan testifieth wrote to Princes That subiects neither cold nor would nor ought any longer to suffer ther gouerment And benig asked his opinion touching the league of Protestans against their Emperor Charles 5. answered Because at this time so Sleidon l. 8. Sur. An. 1531. doubtful perilous many things may hapen that not only right it selfe but necessity of consience may reach vs weapons we may make league for defence whither the Emperor him selfe or any other make war And a litle before his death said VVho Sur. An. 1546. taks not armes whils he may vseth not things giuen him by God And the Protestant Princes in their rebellion against the Emperor set forh Proclamation wherein they write Because the Emperor endeauoreth to dostroy religion Sleidon l. â—â— liberty he giueth vs cause to assaile him with good conscience And againe we renounce ô Emperor lib. 17. the faith and duty vvherwith vve are bound vnto thee This did German Protestants 2. In Swiserland Zwinglius teacheth vs. Svviserland Zvvingl to 1. art 42. That vvhen the King shal deale perfidiously and beside the rule of Christ he may in Gods name be deposed Againe VVhiles naughty Kings are not deposed the vvhole people is punished of God And as for the Protestants of Sweueland their opinion SvveuelaÌ„d is manifest by their excluding the Catholique King of PolaÌ„d from succeding his Mercur. Gallobelg An. 1603. Holland late father And the Holandish Protestants wholy or cheefly defend their long rebellion against their Prince by coolor of religion France Caluin in epist ante lib. institut 3. In France Caluin their Arch-maister teacheth that who reigneth not to serue Gods glory ruleth not but playeth the theefe And in an other place Earthly Princes depose them In cap. 6. Daniel selues whyls they rise against God yea are vnworthy to be accounted men And his scholer Beza accounteth them Martyrs who dyed Beza in Praefat Bibl. 1564. Pantaleon Responsum trium ordinum BurguÌ„diae 1563. Michael Fabritius ep de Beza fal 62. Goodly Canons of Ministers Protestants svvorne to rebel depose Princes in batel against their King for religion and at Cabilon in France 20. Ministers in a Synod decreed to distroy the Church Nobility Magistrats And againe at Berna 1572. set forth Canons of this matter and decreed Can. 3. That in euery City al swore that they their posterity shal obserue firme and inuiolated the points following Can. 40. Vntil it shal please God in whose hands are the harts of Kings to change the hart of the French tyrant and restore the state of the Kingdome to better order raise vp some neighbor Prince whom we may know by his vertue notable marks to be the deliuerer of this miserable people in the meane tyme euery Citty shal choose a maior to gouerne them as wel in warre as peace Can. 40. Let al the Captains leaders haue this axiome as an vndoubted and most certain Oracle neuer to trust to them the King and his who so often and so notoriously haue broken their promise the publike peace and quietnes Nor euer let them lay downe weapons as long as they shal see them persecute the doctrin of saluation and the disciples of the same Item But if the euil be incurable if Gods wil be to roote them natural Princes out then if it please God to raise some Christian Prince to take reuenge of their sinnes and deliuer his people let them subiect them selues to that Prince as to an other Cyrus sent to them from God In the meane space let them gouerne them selues by these rules which we haue prescribed vnto them as laws Behould the verdit of French ministers assembled in Councel O if such rules had bene made in Seminaries what traitors and rebels had the authors bene What exclamations would Bel and his fellow ministers haue made against them 4. In Scotland Knox vttereth his and Scotland his fellow ministers mind herein in his appellation to the nobility people of Scotland Knox. p 36. That I may say bouldly the nobility gouerners iudges and people of England ought not Protestants bond to kil Princes by Knox. only to resist and withstand Mary Iezabel whom they cal their Queene but also put to death her her Priests and al others that ayded her as soone as openly they began to suppresse Christs Gospel And he setteth
Iohannes Six emprisoned 9. Paschorlis 2. Boniface 8. Vrbanus 6. Clement 7. besyd Sergius 1. others whom they attempted to imprison They haue deposed as much as they could sixteene vz. Iohannes 12. al. 13. Benedict 5 Gregory 5. Benedict Sixteene deposed 8. and 9. Alexander 2. Gregory 6. and 7. Gelasius 2. Innocent 2. Alexander 3 Iohn 22. Vrban 6. Martin 5. by Alphons King of Arragon Platin. in Alexand. 3. Liberality of Popes tovvards England Stovve an 1171. Polidorus lib. 16. Comin ventura in relation de Napoli VVhen vvould Luther and Caluin haue giuen three Kingdomes to England Eugen. 4. by procurement of Philip Duke of Millen Iulius 2. whereas on the contrary side to omit spiritual benefits Popes haue bestowed the Empire vpon almost al them Emperours whom they deposed and haue refused to take the Empire from the Germans though they haue bene much sollicited thereto by the Grecians and to let passe their liberality to other Princes they haue bestowed the Kingdome of Ireland vpon Henry the second and of Naples and Sicily vpon Henry 3. and the most honourable title of defender of the faith vpon Henry 8. Kings of England hereby may the indifferent reader euen setting aside the iustice of the cause and considering only the fact clearly perceaue whether Christian Emperours and Princes haue more tiranized ouer Popes then Popes ouer them now let vs come to Bels proofe of his ould slaunder here againe renued of the Popes taking vpon them power proper to God alone 28. A Closse saith he affirmeth the Pope Bel pag. 14. Gloss lib. 1. tit 7. c. 3. to haue celestial arbitrement to be able to alter the nature of things applying the substance of one to an other and to make something of nothing and the Pope saith Bel is wel pleased there with Answer As for the Pope being pleased with the foresaid words it is more then Bel knoweth but sure I am he detesteth them if they be meant of power to create or proper to God alone But wel I see that which doth not displease Bel if it be giuen to Princes he condemneth as intolerable blasphemie if it be attributed to Popes For the foresaid words are al in the ciuil lawe and by the Emperours applied either to them selues or to the Pope as the Emperours Gratian Valentinian and Theodosius de sum Three Emperours say the P. hath celestial arbitrement Trin. lib. 1. affirme the Popes to haue celestial arbitrement and condemne them as infamous hereticks who follow not the religion of Pope Damasus and his arbitrement in spiritual matters may be called heauenlie because his authority therein came from heauen That of altering the nature of things and applying the substance of one to an other the Emperour Iustinian C. communia de leg lib. 2. applieth to him selfe Of vvhat things Popes or Princes can alter the nature and meaneth of ciuil contracts as legacis and feoffees in trust which by his imperial power he can alter and change and the like power saith the glosse hath the Pope in contracts pertayning to spiritual matters But of altering the nature of natural things neither the Emperour nor the glosse dreamed 29. But the words which Bel most vrgeth are that the Pope can make de nihilo aliquid something of nothing For saith he it is a thing proper to God to make something of nothing in al cases and at al tymes But besides that the glosse neither saith that the Pope can make de nihilo aliquid but de nullo aliquid neither yet in al cases and al times as Bel addeth the foresaid words are taken out of Iustinian C. de rei vxor act lib. 1. where the Emperour Of vvhat nothing Popes or Princes can make something saith that because he can make to be accompted a stipulation where none is much more he can an insufficient stipulatiō to be sufficient the like authority in humane contracts touching spiritual matters the glosse attributeth to the Pope this he meant when he said the Pope can de nullo fecere aliquid of no contract make one which Bel would applie to creatiō making creatures of nothing as God made the world 30. Secondlie he proueth his slaunder out of Gersons rep ort before answered and thirdlie out of Gregory 9. saying Ad firmamentum Gregor 9. lib. 1. de cre◠tit 33. c. 6. Caeli c. to the firmament of heauen that is of the vniuersal church God made two lights Pontifical authority and power Roial that we may knowe there is as much difference betweene Pope Kings as bet wixt sunne moone Is here any word of authority belonging to God or yet of deposing Kings but only a cōparison of Pontifical Royal power with the sunne moone allowed by the publique letters VVritten 1279. and one extāt in Baron tom 10. an 996. Matth. 16. vers 19. 18. Iob. 21. v. 15. 16. Act. 20. v. 18. Matth. 28. v. 19. of three Princes electors and a preferring of the Pontifical before the Royal which if Bel had any feeling of Christianity in him he would not deny Is not the loosing and binding of sinns in heauen earth of preaching the ghospel admnistring the sacraments of feeding Christs sheepe and the like which belongeth to Bishops as is euident out of scripture far more excellent then Royal power which as wel woemen and children as men infidels as Christians may haue 31. The sunne moone are of the same Royal povver far inferour to Pontifical nature and quality differing only in more or lesse light but Royal power is both of nature and quality far inferiour to Pontifical thas is more humane and begun by Constantin called Bishops Gods and professed him self vnder them Ruffin lib. 1. hist c. 2. men this supernatural and instituted by God that common to Infidels this proper to christians that passeth not earth this reacheth to heauen that concerneth only the body this the soule that helpeth men to worldhe and transitorie quietnes this to heauenlie and euerlasting rest Bel could not abide Pope Gregory saying Pontifical authority excelled Royal as far as the sunne excelleth the moone nor the glosse saying it excelled it 47. times how then wil he abide S. Chrisostom saying it excelleth the kingdome Chrisost l. 3. de sacerd Ambros lib. de dignit sacerd c. 2. as much as the soule douth the body or S. Ambrose saying that nothing can be equal to Pontifical dignity and that Royal glorie and Princes crownes are far more inferiour to it then lead is to glistering gould And againe nothing in this world is more Ibid. cap. 3. excellent then priests nothing higher then Bishops or S. Ignatius saying that nothing is more honourable Ignat. epist ad Smirnenscs in the church then Bishops and that we owe the first honour to God the second to Bishops the third to Kings he exclamed against the glosse for affirming the Pope
a thousand tymes aday in the daily Sacrifice of their Masse But better might we say that Bels tale of the Papists conteyneth a thousand vntruthes For Papists as Caluin confesseth l. 4. instit c. 18. Caluin paragr 5. professe That they nether vvil nor can kil Christ But say with Bellarmin That it Bellarm. l. 1. de Missa c. vltimo is sacriledge to say that Christ dieth at Masse Yet wil Bel wring the contrary out of Bellarm as water out of a flint First because he pag. 22. Bellar. sup c. 2. graunteth That a Sacrifice implyeth intrinsecally the consumption of the thing sacrificed But this is answered out of Bellarmin teaching that Sup. cap. vltimo Christ hath two kinds of being to wit naturally and Sacramentally And the consumption of his Sacramental being in the August lib. 13. de ciu c. 3. Masse is no killing because it is not by real separating his soule body but onely by consuming the Sacramental formes in which he was Sacramentally Bel p. 22. Sup. cap. 13. S. August l. 2. q. euangel q. 3. S. Ambros in psal 38. in 1. Luc. S. Chrisost hom 24. in 1. loc hom 17. ad Hebr. Luc. 2. v. 22. 1. Reg. 1. v. 25. Leuit. c. 2. Bellar. l. 1. dâ— Missa c. 12. 7. Againe Bellarmin saith Bel telleth vs that Christs body and blood are offered truly and properly in the Masse True and the like saith S. Austin S. Ambros S. Chrisostome and others But doth Bel think euery thing offered to God to be killed then was Christ killed when he was offered in the temple Samuel when he was offered by his mother and bread wine and frakincense offered in the law were killed Thirdly he proueth it out of Bellarmin writing that flesh and blood are not fit for meat vnles the beast as Bel translateth dye or be slayne Here Bel cold not imagin that Bellarmin spake of Christ as in deed he doth not vnles he think he called Christ a beast But because flesh and blood of beasts are not fit for our meat before the beasts be killed he proueth by parity that Christs flesh and blood were not fit to be proposed in manner of meat before he was sacrifyced And therupon gathereth that he did Sacrifice him selfe at his last supper in an vnbloody manner and after the order of Melchisedech before he gaue his flesh and blood as meat drinke to his Apostles Which reason he tooke out of S. Gregory Nissen whose words shal be S. Gregor Nissen homil 1. de Resurrectione Sup. cap. vlt. alledged herafter And of Christs body Bellarm professeth That it taketh no hurt nor leeseth his natural being when the Eucharist is eaten 8. His fourth proofe is out of Bellarm Bellarm l. 1. de Missa c. vltimo when he saith That a true and real Sacrifice requireth true and real killing quando in occisione ponitur essentia sacrificij which Bel translateth Bel pag. 22. False translation vntruth 35. thus Seing the essence of a Sacrifice consisteth in killing which saith he is the constant doctrin which S. Paule inculcateth to the hebrews 9 v. 17. 25 26. 27. 28. But this proofe relyeth onely vpon Bels false translating the word Quando Seing which he should haue translated when And Bellarmins mynd is that the true Sacrifice requireth true killing when the essence therof consisteth in killing as it doth in al bloody Sacrifices But as for the Masse he auoucheth it to be no Loc. iam cit Sacrifice but Sacriledge to say that Priests really kil Christ And most false it is that S. Paul euer thought the essence of sacrifice to consist in killing For beside the vnbloody Sacrifice of Melchisedech he was not ignorant of diuers vnbloody Sacrifices in the old law as of incense for which there was a special aultar and of bread and wine And in the places quoted by Bel he affirmeth that it was necessary for Christ to dye by once dying to redeeme the world which maketh nothing to this purpose 9. These proofs out of Bellarmin he Bel pag. 23. confirmeth by a constant position and general receaued axiom as he saith in the Popish vntruth 35. Church that by vertue of the words of consecration Christs body is put a part from his blood and his blood from his body and he so slain But omitting Bels fond inferring Christ to be killed if his body and blood be put a parte how soeuer because not to put body and blood a parte where they were not before but to separat them where they are vnited is to kil Els God should kil a man if he created a soule and body a part Omitting I say this fond illation a manifest vntruth it is to affirme that to be a constant position and general axiom in the Popish Church which she condemneth as heresic in these words Accursed be he who shal deny that whole Christ is â—onc Trid. sess 13. cau 3. c. 3. contayned vnder ether forme of bread and wine And the contrary is his Maister Luthers doctrin as testifyeth Bellarm l. 1. de Euchar c. 2. 10. But let vs heare what coulor he hath Bel p. 23. Bellarm. l. 1. de Missa â— 12. of this so notorious vntruth Bellarm saith he teacheth Ideo in cena seorsum consecratur corpus seorsum sanguis c. which Bel thus Englisheth Therfore is the body consecrated a parte in the supper and the blood asunder that we may vnderstand the presence of the body and blood in the supper to be there after the manner of a body slayne and dead But what is to consecrate a parte to put a parte But Bellarm telleth him that it is a far different thing and that albeit Christs body and blood be seuerally consecrated yet they are not seperated nor one without the other in the Sacrament because as the CouÌ„cel of Trent Conc. Trid. sess 13. c. 3. saith they are so naturally and necessarily vnited in his resurrection as they can be no more disioyned Which vnion because they wanted in the tyme of Christs death if then Masse had bene said they had not onely bene consecrated seuerally but also put a parte But what incoÌ„uenience inferreth Bel S. Thom. 3. p. 476. art 1. hereof None at al. And thus much of his first argument against Masse CHAP. IIII. The rest of Bels arguments against Masse confuted HIS second argument consisteth of Bel pag. 23. 24. many absurdities and grosse impieties which saith he follow of the Masse he reckeneth diuers First that Christ at his last supper was both sitting at table and borne in his own hands But if this be absurd and impious impious and absurd was S. Austin S. Augustin serm 1. in psalm 33. when he said that Christ at his last supper carried him self in his hands secundum literam that is properly and therin did more then any man can doe But what
the Churches authority S. Austin there saith no word at al. 13. Finally Bel concludeth this Article with an egregious slaunder of the Pope and false dealing with S. Antonin For he auoucheth that P. Martin 5. dispensed with one Bel pag. 40. who had contracted and consummated matrimony with his owne natural and ful sister of the 45. vntruth same father and mother This he proueth out of S Antonin saying That P. Martin dispen Antonin 3. part tit 1. c. 11. sed with one who had contrasted and consummated matrimony cum quadam eius germana Here Bel maketh a ful point and addeth no more But S. Antonin addeth quam cognouerat Fornicarie with a sister of hers with whom he had committed fornication And before the words cited by Bel he saith that seeing affinity is contracted by fornication as by coniugal act he that hath committed fornication with any vvoman can not mary cum filia eius vel germana eius vvith her daughter or her sister And affirmeth that Paludan thinketh the Pope can not dispense in this matter yet saith he Martin 5. dispensed with one who had contracted and consummated cum quadam eius germana quam cognouer at fornicarie with a certain sister of hers with whom he had committed fornication What now more euident then that S. Antonin speaketh not of a man marying his owne sister but his harlots sister wherin though the Pope as he saith made great difficulty yet perhaps Protestants wold make smale or no scruple at al. Behould therfore gentle Reader not the excellency of holy Popery as Bel scornfully exclameth but excellency of wholy ministery which hath as I say said of some made lying Isai c. 28. v. 15. their hope Is this M. Bel your promise pag. 22. of auouching no vntruth vpon any man Is this the sincerity you make shew of pag. 5. and 221 Is this your protestation made in your preface to yeeld if any can conuince Bel bound to recant the 3 tyme you to haue alleadged any writer corruptly quoted any place guilfully or charged any author falsly Let now the Reader be iudge by this your dealing with S. Antonin whether you be not bound to recant the third tyme. Be mindful therfore Bel from whence thou art Apocalip fallen and do penance Apocal. 2. THE FOVRTH ARTICLE OF ORIGINAL CONCVPISCENCE IN THE REGENERATE CHAP. I. The Catholique doctrin touching concupiscence explicated and proued BECAVSE Bel in this Article doth after his accustomed manner proceed confusedly and deceitfully before I answer his obiections I wil particulerly by Conclusions set downe the Catholique doctrin vpon this matter wherby the Reader may clearly see both what Catholiques defend and what Bel ought to impugne Supposing therfore a distinction of Concupiscence which Bel him self vseth pag. 49. into Habitual which is the pronesse and inclination in the inferior portion or powers of our corrupt nature vnto disorderly actions and Actual which is the disordinate Acts them selfs 2. The first conclusion is That habitual coÌ„cupiscence in men not yet regenerat See S. Tho. 2. d. 30. q. 1. art 3. S. Thomas Bellarmin is materially original sinne This teacheth S. Thomas 1. 2. q. 82. ar 3. and Bellarmin l. 5. de amiss grat c. 5. whose testimony I the oftener more willingly vse because Bel accounteth it most sufficient in al Popish affaires Bel p. 125. and the Protestants deny it not and I proue it Because as original iustice did formally consist in the conuersion of the wil to God and did materially connotate the due subiection of the inferior powers So original sinne doth formally coÌ„sist in the auersion of the wil from God materially connotateth the rebellion of the sayd powers And because concupiscence is thus materially original sinne S. Aust somtymes calleth it original sinne and saith it is remitted in baptisme when the guilt of Adams sinne annexed vnto it which maketh Cap. 2. parag 2. it formally sinne is taken from it as herafter shal be shewed 3. Second conclusion Habitual concupiscence euen in the regenerate is euil This teach S. Thomas 3. p q. 15. ar 2. and q. 27. S. Thomas ar 3. Bellarmin l. de grat primi hom c. 7. and l. 5. de amiss grat c. 10. and al Catholiques And the contrary is Pâ—lagianisme as is euident out of S. Austin l. 6. cont Iulian. S. Austin c. 5. l. 5. c. 3. tom 7. and l. 1. de nupt concupis c. 35. And the Conclusion is manifest because Habitual concupiscence includeth Habitual Concupiscence both positiue priuatiue euil not only prones to euil but also difficulty to do good and want of habitual order in the inferior powers and therfore is both positiue and priuatiue euil Hereupon S. Paul Rom. v. 7. 18. calleth concupiscence S. Paul in him selfe not good And v. 21. euil and v. 16. he saith that he hateth it And S. Austin lib. 6. cont Iulian c. 15. said who is so impudent or mad as to graunt sinne to be euil and to deny concupiscence of sinne to be euil And because concupiscence allureth to euil it is somtyme called of the Apostle Sinne lavv of sinne Rom. 7. of Deuines fomes peccati the fomet of sinne and tyrant of S. Austin iniquity S. Austin see him lib. 2. de nupt concup c. 9. S. Ambrose tom 3. serm 12. de verb. Apost c. 5. Vice l. 2. cont Iulian. c. 3. to 7. Vitious and culpable l. de perfec iustit c. 6. S. Ambrose de apolog Dauid c. 13. Root and seminary of sinne And because it causeth difficulty to do good it is otherwhile called of S. Austin l. 6. contr S. Austin tom 7. Iulian. c. 19. 1. Retract c. 15. serm 12. de verb. Apost l. de continent c. 4. others languor sicknes defect infirmity As because it is in our inferior portion it is called of the Apostle Rom. 7. v. 23. lavv of our members and of others lavv of the flesh And finally because it is inflicted vpon vs for Adams sinne S. Austin 1. Retract c. 15. calleth it punishment of sinne and also Sinne because it is the effect therof l. 1. contr duas epist S. Augustin to 7. Pelag. c. 13. and l. de spirit lit c. vltimo tom 3. 4 Third conclusion Actual concupiscence though inuoluntary is euil This teach al Catholiques with Bellarmin loc cit against the Pelagians and it is maniâ—est by S. Paul Rom. 7. v. 19. The euil which I wil not that I do by S. Austin lib. 1. de nupt S. Augustin to 7. Tom. 8. concup c. 27. and 29. and l. 6. cont Iulian. c. 16. l. 5. c. 3. in psal 118. conc 8 and otherwhere often and by the reason which he giueth l. 5. cont Iulian c. 3. because it is a disordinate act contrary to the rule of reason Hereupon men are ashamed of it and S. Austin lib. 2. cont Iulian. c. 5. and lib. 6. c. 19.
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
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
of this reason First I deny that any religious Emperour of the East would haue sate aboue the Pope in Councel as appeareth by the fact of the two great Emperours Constantin and Theodosius before rehearsed and by Iustinus humbling himselfe vnto the Pope prostrate on the ground Iustinians See Art 1. c. 6. parag 6. lowly adoring and Iustinian the second his kissing of his feeet Is it likely that these who so honoured the Pope out of Councel would haue sate aboue him in Councel And albeit one grecian Emperour after both religion and reuerence thereto was decayed in Greece and the whole nation fallen into Schisme and heresy did in the CouÌ„cel of Florence attempt Concil Florent in initio to sit aboue the Pope yet the like is not to be thought of other religious Christian Emperours whereof diuers as Bel testifyeth art 1. pag. 17. humbled themselues and yeelded euen their soueraigne rights to Popes Yea the selfe same Emperour who by some euil suggestion would haue sate aboue the Pope would at his first meeting with him haue kneeled vnto him But suppose Concil Florent sup that the grecian Emperours by reason of their temporal superiority would haue sitten aboue the Pope Doe they therefore deny his spiritual primacy No more surely then a gentleman doth deny his pastours spiritual authority ouer him because he wil sit aboue him Did not the grecians euen in the Florentin Councel where they attempted In lit vnionis to place the Emperour aboue the Pope defyne together with the Latins that the Bishop of Rome hath primatum in vniuersum orbem primacy ouer the whole world 8. In two other matters Bel iniuryeth Bel p. 127. the Pope auouching that he would neuer shew his face in any Councel And that he shamefully vntruth 102. vntruth 103. abuseth the worlde because he can not communicate his supreame iudicial authority to his Legates and wil approue nothinge decreed in Councel vnles it be agreable to that vvhich he decreeth a part in his chaire at home For the first of these is a manifest vntruth because the Pope hath bene personally present almost in al the general councels helde in the west as at Florence at Constance at Viena at Lyons at Rhemes at Claremount and diuers councels of Lateran In the other the Pope abuseth the worlde no more then doth the Prince abuse the Parliament when sending thither the L. Chaunceller to supplie his place and praeseed in his roome wil neuerthelesse approue nothing what the Peeres doe or decree vnles himselfe iudgeth it conuenient CHAP. XIIII Of the oath vvhich Bishops vse to make vnto the Pope BECAVSE Bishops sweare fidelity to the Pope and to keep and defend the primacy of the Romane Church and rules of holy fathers against al men and neuertheles as Bellarmin writeth are not to obey Bellarm. lib. 1. de concil cap. vlt. him but when he commandeth according to Gods law and holy canons and may notwithstanding their oath speake their minde in councel and depose the Pope if he become an heretike Bel inferreth diuers pag. 125. 126. things requisit to be answered First that Bishops sweare the Pope can depose al Emperours and Kings in the Christian wordle Secondly that they sweare to admit his decree whome they vntruth 104. freely graunt may be an hereticke Thirdly that they sweare obedience to him in matters of faith whome they can depose for heresy Fourthly that the Pope is not supreame Iudge of controuersies seeing Bishops may examyne and iudge whether what he commaundeth be agreable to Gods worde and the Canons Lastly that they sweare flat rebellion against their Soueraigns seeing they sweare to defend the Popes Primacy against al men whomsoeuer 2. Answer As for the oath of Bishops made to the Pope the lawfulnes thereof appeareth because it is made withal Catholique princes consent and meant only in iust and lawful things which are according to Gods law and holy Canons And it hath bene vsed aboue a thowsand yeare agoe as is euident by the like oath made by a Bishop vnto S. Gregory the great And S. Boniface the S. Gregor â—â— 10. ep 31. Baron Ann. 723. Apostle of Germany and worthiest man that euer England bredde did sweare when he was consecrated Bishop to concurre with See Concil Tolet. 11. can 10. the Pope and commodities of his church And as for the first point which Bel inferreth it is vntrue as appeareth by the answer to the first article The second and third contayne no inconuenience For we must obey what he decreeth or defyneth Iudicially as sitting in S. Peeters chaire though in hart he were an hereticke As our Sauiour coÌ„manded S. Math. 23. v. 3. S. Mare 8. v. 15. S. Math. 16. v. 6. the Iewes to follow what the Scribes taught out of Moyses chaire but abstaine from their priuate leauen If Bel can not imagine how a man by Gods disposition may vtter truth coÌ„trary to his owne minde let him remember Balaam and Caiphas Numer 22. Ioh. 11. v. 52. Chap. 10. parag 9. Bellarm. lib. 4. de Rom. Pont. cap. 6. 7. Bel p. 125. and what hath bene said before out of S. Austin Besides we graunt not freely as Bel freely forgeth that the Pope may be an hereticke For Bellarmin whose only testimony saith Bel is most sufficient in al popish affaires defendeth the contrary And by that which hath bene said to these two points appeareth the answer to the fourth Because Bishops must not examin the doctrine which the Pope deliuereth iudicially out of S. Peters chaire as supreame pastour of Gods church but only that wherein he vttereth his owne priuate opinion 3. And as for the last point Bishops sweare no rebellion Both because they sweare to defend the Popes primacie only according to Gods worde and holy Canons which admit no rebellion As also The vveapons of our vvarfare are not carnal 1. Cor. 10. v. 4. Euseb lib. 6. c. 25. Gelas epist ad Anast S. Chrysost lib. cont Gent. because the defence which Bishops are to vse is not by insurrection and rebellion but by spiritual chastisment and correction In which sort S. Fabian defended the orders of the Church against the Emperour Philip. S. Innocent defended S. Chrisostom against Archadius S. Babilas and S. Ambrose punished their Emperours without any rebellion at al. 4. After the foresaid collections Bel pag 128. Rhemists Act. 15. vntruth 105. auoucheth an vntruth vpon the Rhemists affirming them to tel plainely and rowndly that the determination of Councels is needles because the Popes iudgement alone is infallible Where as they in that place which Bel cyteth write that though the Sea Apostolique haue infallible assistance yet the determinanation of Councels are necessary for many causes as for searching out the truth for the recouery of hereticks and contentation of the weake who not alwaies giuing ouer to one mans determination yet wil either yeeld to the iudgement
to make your selfe iudge aboue the highest And if you wil try Gods word by what wil you try the old testament Surely by tradition or by nothing Thus we haue heard Bel twise plainly cōfessing some tradition to be necessary now the third tyme supposing it For magna est vis veritatis praeualet 13. Yet because his stomacke could not pag 135 al. 117. disgest any one tradition at al he flyeth to a Fift solution commonly giuen by Protestants vz. That Canonical Scripture may be discerned Psalm 119. v. 105. 1. Pēt 1. v. 19. 2. Cor. 5. v. 3. 1. Cor. 2. v. 15. 1. Ioan. 2. v. 27. Ioan. 10. v. 3. 4. 1. Reg. 3. from not Canonical by themselues as light is from darknes This he proueth because Gods worde is called a light and a lantherne sayd to shyne to men spiritual men sayd to iudge al things the vnction to teach al things and Christs sheepe sayd to heare and know his voyce But this is easely refelled First because though Samuel were a faithful holy man and God spake thrise to him yet he tooke his worde for mans worde vntil Hely the high Priest tolde him it was Gods worde 1. Reg. 3. Gedeon was faithful and yet knew not at first that it was God that spake vnto him by an Iudic. 6. Angel and therfore demanded a miracle in confirmation of it Iudic. 6. The like may be said of Manues wife Iud. 13. and perhaps of Manue him selfe For though in his prayer he professe that God had sent the Angel whom he tooke to be a man yet doth he not professe that God had sent him especially and perticulerly to do that message and seeing he knew not that it was an Angel vntil he ascended in the flame of the sacrifice yea seemed to doubt whether his words would proue true when he sayd If thy speech be fulfilled likely it is that he was not certaine that it was Gods worde before he was certaine that it was his Angel Likewise S. Peter was faithful and yet at Act. 12. first he knew not that it was an Angel that spake and deliuered him act 12. 14. Secondly the true sense and meaning of Gods worde is not so euident to the faithful for to discerne it from the false sense as light is discerned from darknes Ergo nether Gods true worde is so euidently discerned by them from the false worde The consequence I proue because Gods worde consisteth more in his meaning then in letters Let vs not thincke saith S. Hierom S. Hierom. in Calat 1. dialog con Lucif that the Ghospel is in the words of Scripturs but in the sence Againe Scripturs consist not in reading but in vnderstāding And therfore if it be discerned by it selfe it is rather discerned by the sense then by the letters or words The antecedent I shal proue hereafter and it is euident by the example of the Apostles who though they were faithful oftentymes vnderstood not Christs meaning especially when he spake in parables or of his passion by the example of the faithful Eunuch and by the testimony of S. Peter 2. Pet. 3. v. 16. 15. Thirdly the distinction of Scripturs from not Scriptures is not so euident as the distinction of light from darknes is Ergo they are not so easely discerned The consequence is euident The Antecedent I proue because then no man could erre in it as none can erre in the distinction of light from darknes Bel saith That only faithful can discerne Scriptures But this conuinceth that their distinction is not so euident as that of light from darknes for this al men yea beasts of sight can discerne Nether can Faith can not discerne any thing clearly faith be needful to discerne light or any thing which is so euident because as S. Paul saith Hebr. 11. v. 1. It is an argument of things not appearing and it breadeth certainty not euidency in the beleeuer 16. Beside if faithful could as clearly discerne Scriptures as they can light they should no sooner here a sentence of Scripture then they should discerne it to be Scripture as they no sooner see light then they discerne it from darknes which experience teacheth to be false yea Luther a faithful man in Bels opinion could not discerne yea could not beleeue S. Iames epistle Luther edit Iennen Surius Ann. 1522. to be canonical but called it absolutly a strawish thing as his books first printed and diuers others testify and Whitaker VVhitaker lib. 1. contr Duraeum p. 22. dare not deny yea confesseth that he calleth it strawish in respect of other epistles which is more then to deny it to be Gods worde Wherfore let Bel make his choyse whether Luther was not faithful or S. Iames epistle not so euidently discerned by the faithful to be Gods worde as light is Finally Protestants admit one Tradition as necessary to discerne Scriptures or Bel lyeth pag. 135. Ergo Scriptures are not so euidently discerned by them selues as light is For what neede is there of an other thing to discerne light or any thing so euident 17. Nether haue Bels arguments any difficulty to answer For Gods worde is called a lantherne or light not because it is so euident as light is but because being once beleeued to be Gods worde it sheweth vs the way to heauen as light doth to earthly places and thereupon it is called of the Psalmist a lantherne to our feete And for the Psalm 118. same cause faith is called light though it be an obscure knowledge Hebr. 11. v. 1. and by it we see God only in aenigmate 1. Cor. 13. v. 12. and not clearly And in like sort S. Paul 2. Corinth 4. v. 4. where Bel citeth 2. Corinth 4. v. 4. amisse c. 5. saith the Ghospel shineth not because it is euident and cleare but because it expelleth the ignorance of infidelity which metaphorically is called darknes That of the spiritual man 1. Corinth 2. v. 15. is nothing to the purpose both because al faithful are not spiritual but some carnal 1. Corinth 3. v. 1. 2. 3. and Galath 6. v. 1. and therfore may we better infer that the Ghospel is not euident to al faithful As also because S. Paul explicateth not by what means the spiritual man iudgeth al things whether by the euidency of the things as Bel wold haue him to iudge Scripture or by some outward testimony Moreouer S. Ihon saith the vnction teacheth 3. Ioan. 2. v. 27. vs al things which we deny not but no where that it alone teacheth vs without the testimony of the Church which is that we deny Bel should proue Finally Christs sheep heare and know his voice Ioan. 10. Ioan. 10. v. 3. 4. v. 3 4 which no man doubteth of but the question is whether they heare it of him selfe alone or of the Church and whether they know it by it selfe or by testimony of the Church to which purpose