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) [Page 2] 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 [Page 3] 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 propositiō 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 [Page 4] 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 iurisdictiō. Wherefore vntil Bel doe prooue that there are no powers or potē [...]ates on earth which are infidels, I must needs tel him that he vntruly auoucheth vs to say that the Pope [Page 5] 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 su [...] legitimi. 3. professeth that the Pope hath ful power in temporal matters, only in the [Page 6] 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 [Page 7] 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 excōmunicate, [Page 8] so neither depose Princes for his pleasure, which Bellarmin euery where supposeth, yea in the same book c. 6. auoucheth. That ordinarily he can not depose Princes euen for iust causes.

7. But let vs heare Bel disproue him self; Anatomy of Popish tyrany in the Caueat to the Rea­der and lib. 2. cap. 4. §. 10. &c. 9. 1. Contra­diction. Secular Priests (saith he) write plainly and reso­lutly that the Pope hath no power to depriue Kings of their royal Scepters, and regalities, nor to giue away their Kingdomes to an other. In which opi­niō likewise the French Papists do concurre, & iump with them. Item. The Seculars, although they acknowledge the Popes power supereminent in Spiri­tualibus yet do they disclaime from it in tempora­libus when he taketh vpon him to depose Kinges from their empires and translate their Kingdo­mes. And least we should thinke these few Priests, who wrote so, were no Papists, Bel him self testifieth that they are the Popes deare Vassals and professe the selfe same religion with Epistle to the King. other Catholiques.

8. The third vntruth conteined in the proposition is that we teach the doctrine of his proposition as a pointe of our faith: wherevpon he inferreth in his conclusion, our religion and faith to be false. Because we teach no such doctrine at al and much lesse as a point of our religion or faith. And the grauest & best learned amongst Catho­liques attribute to rhe Pope onely spiritual [Page 9] superiority ouer Princes, and power to de­pose them in that case wherin our Sauiour said Math. 18. that it were better for a man to be cast into the sea then to liue, to wit, when they so scandalize others as their de­position is necessary for the saluation of soules as I haue already shewed out af Bel­larmin, Bel. parag. 29. whose testimony in this matter Bel can not refuse seing he calleth him the mouth of Papists and auoucheth his do­ctrin to be the Popes owne doctrin. And this doctrin good Christiā Princes account no more preiudicial or iniurious to their estates, then they do the like doctrin of S. Paul 2. Cor. 10. where he professeth him self to haue power to destroy al loftines extol­ling it self against the knowledge of God, & to be ready to punish al disobedience.

9. Wherfore, to requite Bel with a syllo­gisme like vnto his owne, I argue thus: you Bel tel vs that we Papists saie, the Pope is aboue al powers and potentates on earth, that he can depose Kings and Emperours, and translate their empiers at his good wil and pleasure, But this your tale is a very tale false, absurd, and nothing else but a mere fable: and consequently your late chalenge consisteth of mere falsehoods fables & flat leasings. The proposition is your owne wordes, the truth of the assumption appee­reth [Page 10] by my answer to your argument. And thus much touching Bels vntruthes vtte­red in his proposition and proofe therof, now let vs come to his dissemblinge.

CHAP. II. The opinion of protestants touching Prin­ces Supremacie, set dovvne.

LVTHER an Euangelist (as he termeth him selfe, or as other accompte him, Luther. lib. cont. stat ec­cles. in pro­logo, & in glossa cont. decreta Cae­sar. Ex Sur. An. 1531. 1539. Pope of Re­cusamy p. 31. 32. Magdeburg. praefat. Cen­tur. 7. Caluin in c. 7. Amos. an Apostle, a prophet, a third Elias, a be­ginner of protestantisme, in his booke of secular power condemneth those Princes, who prescribe laws to their subiects in matter be­longing to faith and the Church. Magdebur­gians his first, and cheefest childeren write thus. Let not Magistrats be heads of the Church, because this Supremacy agreeth not to them. Cal­uin saith, they were blasphemers who at­tributed the supremacy, to King Henry 8. And lest we shold think that only forayne Protestāts are of this opinion. Antony Gil­by in his admonition to England and Scot­land Gilby. calleth King Henry a monstrous bore for taking the supremacy, that he displaced Christ, was no better then the Romish An­tichrist, made him selfe a God. And lately VVillet cō ­tract. 791. part. 1. and 3. p. 269. 270. Willet auoucheth. That Bishops and Pastors haue a spiritual charge ouer Kings, & that Kings ought to yeeld obedience to those that haue ouer­sight [Page 11] of their soules. That Heathen Princes had the same power, and authority in the Church which Christian Princes haue, and yet soone after affirmeth. That heathen Princes cold not be heads of the Church, that is to haue the Soue­reingty of external gouernment Againe. That the King is nether mistical nor ministerial head of the Church, that the name of head is vnproper­ly giuen to the Prince, and if any think it to great Kings not so much is ministerial heads of the Church by vvillet. a name for any mortal man we wil not (saith he) greatly contend about it. So we see he de­nyeth both name, and authority of the head of the Church to Kings.

2. And his Maiesty perceaued that Rea­nolds, and his fellows aymed at a Scottish Presbitry (which agreeth with a Monarch, Conference p. 82 83. as wel as God, and the diuel page 79.) and acknowledged his supremacy only to make their partes good with Bishops, as Knox & his fellow ministers in Scotland made his grandmother head of the Church therby to pul downe the Catholique Bishops. Yea that the whole English Clergy is in their harts of the same opiniō, appeareth by their open profession to agree in religion with forayne Protestants, who plainly deny the supremicy of Princes: by their writing and Apologia pag. 28. teaching, that Christ alone can behead of the Church: by their condemning Catholi­ques for attributing such authority to man: [Page 12] and finally by their Synodical explication of the article of supremacy: which they ex­pound thus. That Princes should rule al estates Lib. 39. Artic. art. 37. and degrees committed to their charge by God whether they be Ecclesiastical, or temporal, and restrayne with the ciuil sword the stubborne, and euil doers, wherein we see no power in Ec­clesiastical causes granted to Princes, but only, ouer Ecclesiastical persons. And we deny not that Princes haue any power ouer Ecclesiastical persons, yea in the very canon of the Masse, as priests pray for Papa nostro N. and Antistite nostro N. for our Pope and Byshop, so they pray for Rege nostro N. acknowledging the one to be their King as the others to be their Prelates, and conse­quently both to haue power ouer them. For as S. Augustin said, and it is euident, Rex à Augustin in Psalm. 44. & 67. regendo dicitur, a King is so called of power to gouerne. And as ecclesiastical persons be ciuil or politique members of the common wealth. wherein they liue, so haue they See Stapel­ton rele­ctione Con­trouersiae 2. q. 1. a. 1. ad 2. Victoria re­lectione de potesta. ec­clesiastica sect. 7. the same politique or ciuil head which that commonwealth hath: for otherwise either ciuil members should haue no ciuil head at al, which were monstrous, or not be vn­der the head of that body, whereof they be members, but onely vnder a ciuil head of an other body, which is impossible. Where­fore, what some say that Clergie men be [Page 13] 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 [Page 14] 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. Prodromū 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 [Page 15] 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. [...]. 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 Svveuelād. is manifest by their excluding the Ca­tholique King of Polād 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 [Page 16] 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 Burgū ­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 wilbe to roote them (natural Princes) out, then if it please [Page 17] 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 downe titles of books which he would after publish, whereof the p: 78. third is this. If the people haue rashly preferred one manifestly wicked, or ignorātly chosen, such a one, who afterward sheweth him selfe vnworthy of gouernment ouer Christian people (for such are al Idolaters and cruel persecutors) the same people may most iustly depose, and punish him.

5. Finally in England if we had asked England. [Page 18] our ministers of what minde they were, while the Septer and sword was in Catho­lique hands. Goodman in his booke intitu­led Goodman c. 9. p. 118. how we ought to obey superior Magi­strats, telleth vs: But if they (Prince & Ma­gistrats do boldly transgresse Gods lawes, and See Couel of Church go­uernment. cap. 4 p. 35. hovv this doctrin vas Caluins & the lear­ne l [...]st Pro­testants of that tyme. c. 13. p. 180. 181. 184. command the same to others, then haue they lost that honor, and obedience which otherwise sub­iects were bound to giue them, nor are hereafter to be accounted Magistrats, but to be punished as priuat men. But who must punish them? he answereth the common people. If the Prince and al Magistrats do resist Gods law, you people haue expresse testimony of Gods vvord for your part, and God him selfe wilbe your Captaine, & leader, vvho commandeth not only Peers, and Ma­gistrats to take euery euil from them selues, whi­ther idolatry, blasphemy or open iniury, but re­quireth this of the whole multitude to vvhome the svvord of iustice is in part committed. VVherfore if al Magistrats together vvil despise iustice and Gods lavves, it is your part (o cōmon people) to defend and conserue them vvith as much violence and strife as you can against Magistrats, and al others. For this God requireth of you. Exod: 17. this burden lieth vpon the vvhole people to punish euery idolater vvhatsoeuer none is excepted, vvhi­ther Princes must be hā ­ged accor­ding to Goodman. King, Queene, or Emperor. And a litle after That fact is recounted number 25, it is a perpe­tual example for al eternity, and a certayne and [Page 19] sure denouncement to the people that in like re­uoult from the vvorship of God, they do carry to the gallous, and hang their gouernors, vvho lead them from God.

6. And in particular touching Wyats re­bellion l. 14 p. 203. he saith. None but Papists can accuse VVyat of treason, or disobediēce, it vvas the duty of Protestants duty to re­bel accor­ding to Goodman. VVyat & al others that amongst you professe Cbrists Gospel, to take in hand that vvarre, and they vvere true traytors, vvho ether kept not promise to him, or ayded not his part. O most noble VVyat thou novv liuest vvith God, and these noble men vvho dyed vvith thee in that cause. Yea noble men and Coun­sellers Traiters vvho do not rebel according to Good­man. did not you condemne your selues as manifest and base minded traytors not only to VVyat, but euen to God him selfe? O Gospellers is this the loue of Gods vvord you pretend, haue you so learned the Gospel?

7. And albeit ministers hauing now got­ten the Prince on their side, do in words cō ­demne Goodman, yet that their minde ab­horreth not from this opinion, may ap­peare by the partial, vertue and seditions notes, & to much fauoringe of dangerous, and trayterous con­ceipts Conference p. 47. as of allovving disobedience to Kings, and taxing Asa for deposing his mother, and not killing her which his Majesty obserued in their En­glish Bybles, And thus I hope the Reader seeth that Bel had litle cause to charge Pa­pists alone with deposition of Princes, but [Page 20] much better wil he see it, if we compare Papists and Protestants opinions herein to­gether. 1

8. Catholiques say, Kings may be depo­sed, Knox Good man. sup: Protestants say, they may be deposed and hanged: Catholiques say, it should be 2 done after due tyme, and admonition giuen, & the Lateran Councel prescribeth a years Lateran [...]3. c. 3. de Haer [...]: Knox sup: respit: Proetstants say, so soone as they be­gin to suppresse Christs Gospel: Catholikes 3 say, it must be done by the Pope the Kings spiritual Pastor and Father: who as a Father louingly, and as a Prince aduisedly, and as a stranger dispassionatly, wil proceed in so weighty a matter; Protestants say, it may Goodman. sup: be done by cōmon people the Kings owne subiects, who as common people rashly and headely, and as subiects insolently and pas­sionatly, are like to behaue them selues in controuling and correcting their Prince [...] as the lamentable examples herefter touched can testify. Besides what Catholiques say of 4 Kings, the same they say of the Pope, that he may as wel be deposed for heresy, or in­fidelity, as Princes; and what they say vnder Note this in differency of Catho­liques and partiality of Protest­ants. an heretical Prince. they defend vnder a Ca­tholique. Whereas Protestants change their tune according as the Prince fauoreth or disfauoreth their religion. Now let vs see the practise of Protestants.

CHAP. IIII. The practise of Protestants touching deposition of Princes

CONFORMABLE to their doctrin haue bene the practises of Protestants. For in Germany vnder pretence of religion, Germany. first the common people being Protestants Sleidon. l. 4. 17. 19. Sur: An: 1522. 1525. rose against the nobles, in which insurre­ction there were an hundred thousand of the common people slayne, many castles and towares spoyled, and burnt. And soone Sur: An: 1530. 1534. after the nobles rose against their Emperor, gathered an army of eighty thousand foote, Apud Sleid. Et sur: 1526. ten thousand horse, and 130. feeld peces. And George Duke of Saxony wrote to Lu­ther, that there was neuer more rebellions against Magistrats then through his Gospel: Erasmus l. 3. de lib: ar­bit: And Erasmus a holy Confessor in Foxes calender, giueth this testimony of them. Many disciples of Luther are so vnapt to publike quiet, as the Turk is said to detest the name of Luthereans for sedition: Testimonium hoc ve­rum est?

2. In Swiserland Zwinglius togeather Svviser­land. Sur. An: 1531. with Protestantisme sowed sedition, and brought his country to three pitcht battels in one moneth, and was him selfe slayne in one of them. In Denmark Protestantisme Denmark. [Page 22] was no sooner settled, then the Commons Staphil. a­pol. art. 3. rose against the nobles & the nobles against their King, whom they deposed, and after Sur. An. 1532. long banishment cast into prison, whereas it is reported they poysned him. In Sweu­land Svveuland. Mercur. Gal­lobelg. An. 1603. the Protestants haue lately excluded their natural, lawful, and crowned Prince, the present King of Pole-land, and chosen his vncle. In Flanders, they elected Francis Holland. Duke of Alanson for their Prince, and haue depriued two of their lawful Princes, from a great part of the Low countries, & made warre against them almost 40. yeares.

3. In France Protestants haue rebelled France. against three of their natural and anoynted Kings, Francis 2: Charles. 9. Henry 3. they Genebrard. chron. Sur. An. 1563. Furores Gal­lici. Michael Fa­britius in e­pist. de Be­za. tooke by treason, or force, many of their cheefest cities, Roane, Orleans, Lyons and others, made league with the enimies of France, and giuen townes into their hands, they haue leuied great armies of subiects, brought in great bands of Strangers, and fought foure mayne battels against their King, they deposed their King and chose an other, and coyned money in his name with title of the first Christian King of France, They Sur. An: 1560. opened the tombs of two of their Kings & burnt their bones. They conspired to mur­der the King & two Queenes, his wife and his mother, with his brethren & nobility, [Page 23] and had executed their designments, if they had not bene preuented by their massacre. They slew the King of Nauar, Father to the Fabritius sup. fol. 61. 66. French King now regnant. And their hor­rible outrages in al kinde of dishonesties cru [...]ties, and Sacrileges are vnspeakable.

4. In Scotland the Protestants first took Scotland. arme against the Queene dawager, Grand Sur. An. 1560. mother to his Majesty, then regent of Scot­land, and by their rebellions, and tumults hastened her death, which his Majesty great Conference p. 81. ly lamented in the conference. Likwise af­ter infinit indignities, and perils they driue Queene Mary of blessed memory his Ma­jesties Mother, their natural and lawful Prince o [...] of her kingdome, and country, forced her to surrender her crowne and Scepter to a bastard, murthered her husband his Maiestes Father, and therof infamed her wrongfully (as was proued at her iudg­ment in England) had murdred both her selfe and his Maiestie then in her womb, if a charged pistole put to her womb would haue giuen fyer. And at last by Protestants she was put to death against law of nations, And his Maiesty cōfesseth of him selfe that in Scotland he vvas a King vvithout state, vvith­out Conser. p. 4. and 20. honor, vvithout order, vvhere beardles boyes vvould braue him to his face, and keept for the most part as a vvard. And in what present danger [Page 24] he was of being murdered by the Protestant Earle Gowry and his brethren, no man is ignorant. And otherwhere gratiously ac­knowlegeth, Basilicon doron. That he found none more faithfil to him selfe, then such as had bene faithful to his mother (who were Papists) and them he fo [...]nd faithles to him selfe, vvho had bene such to his mo­ther: and an honorable person yet liuin [...] and Q. Elizab. vvoords & confidence of Catho­liks. worthy of credit, and hard it, can testify that Queene Eelizabeth did often [...]ymes say to my Lord Moūtague a famous Catho­lique of worthy memory. That if she [...]el into danger, she vvould sooner put her life into his hands, and others of his profession, the [...] of any other subiect she had. And if Queene Eliza­beth (though she were far more seuere to­wards her Catholique subiects th [...]n al Pro­testant Princes together haue hi [...]erto bene towards theirs) did neuertheles put more affiance and trust in them, euen after she had bene deposed of the Pope, then in any Protestant, what assurance may that Prince His Maie­sties speech to the Par­lament 19 Mart. 1603. England. haue of the loyalty and fidelity of Catho­liques, who hath vsed great lenity towards them, and nether is, nor like to be deposed of the Pope.

5. Finally in England Protestants rebel­led twise, & that in one yeare against their Queene Mary; once vnder the conduct of the Dukes of Northumberland, & Suffolk, [Page 25] erecting a false Queene, & so excluding as much as lay in them, the Succession of his Maiesty. And againe vnder wyat, and at both times she was defended by Catholiks. The things I rather touch then relate, be­cause they are fresh in memory of many, or to be found in many histories.

6. Now let vs compare the practise of Protestants and Catho­liques pra­ctise com­pared. 1 Carolus 5. 2 Francis 2. 3 Carolus 9. 4 Henricus 3. 5 Philippus 2. 6 Philippus 3. 7 Christier­nus. 8 Sigis­mundus. 9 Maria Ang. 10 Maria Scot. Protestants touching the deposition of Princes, with the practise of the Pope, since the tyme that Protestants began. They haue within this 70. yeares partely deposed par­tly attempted, as far as lay in thir power, one Emperor, three French Kings, two Kings of Spaine, one of Denmarke, one of Pole-land, one Queene of England, and one of Scotland. They haue slayne one King of Nauar, one of Denmarke, one Queene of Scotland, one Queenes husband, and burnt the bodies of two other Kings, & attēpted to murder one French King, two French Queenes, & one King of Scotland. Whereas the Popes neuer slew any Prince at al, but haue saued the liues, & kingdomes of many, & since Protestāts began, haue deposed one onely King Henry 8. and one Queene Eli­zabeth and spared both King Edward, the 6 & many Kings of Dēmark, & Swe [...]land, besids a great number of German Princes. And his Maiestie is so far from danger of [Page 26] being deposed by him, as he hath already censueed See D. Gif­fords com­mission and Mons. Be­thunes let­ters. Proclama­tion 22. Fe­bruar. an­no 1. Note this. al those that moleste, or disturbe his maiesty; and his maiesty, gratefully ac­knowledgeth him selfe beholden to the Pope for his temporal cariage, and diuers kind offices towards him, euen then when ther was lesse cause of such kindnes, then now is. Yea which is a point worthy of consideration. Neuer did any Pope depose any King, or Prince merely for not professing the Catholique religion, if he had not before embra­ced it; If any obiect, that the Pope hath beside King Henry, and Queene Elizabeth deposed the present French King, I answer that it was before he had the Crowne of France, and was onely titulo tenus King of Nauar; besids that the Pope vpon his a­mendment hath both restored him to his dignity, and shewed him many great, and extraordinary fouors. And thus much of Bels dissembling the opinion, and practise of Protestants, touching the Supremacy or deposition of Princes. Now let vs come to his proofs of his Assumption.

CHAP. V. Bells proofes of his Assumption answered.

BELLS proofs of his Assumption. I might let passe, as nothing pertayning [Page 27] to vs, seeing we teach no such doctrin as he therin affirmeth to be false: Neuertheles because the Reader may iudge, whither he be a more fond disputor or false reportor, I wil set them downe and answer them seue­rally. His first proofe is out of their famous Bel p. 2. (saith he) Pope Gregory the great lib: 2. epist. 61. where writing to the Emperor Mau­ritius, he calleth him. Soueraigne Lord, and professeth him selfe subiect to his command, and to owe him obedience. Whereupon Bel infer­reth that for 600. years after Christ, Popes liued vnder Emperors in al dutiful obedi­ence, that is (as he vnderstandeth) in al causes Ecclesiastical and ciuil.

2. Marke (good Reader) how many and how grosse errors he committeth in this one silly proofe. First he sheweth smal skil in chusing Authors for his purpose, because none make more against him in this mat­ter then S. Gregory. For he is the first P. whome we find to haue made a flat decree touching the deposition of Princes in these words. If any King, Prelat, Iudge, or seculer per­son lib. 12. epist. vlt. lib. 11. e­pist. 10. of what degree or highnes soeuer (do violate the priuileges of S. Medards monastery) let him be deposed. And vpon the 4. al: 5. poenit: psalme he writeth that no reason alloweth him to be King who alienateth men from Christ and enthralleth his Church: and [Page 28] sharply inueigheth against the Emp: for vsurping right of earthly power ouer the Church of Rome, which he calleth the head of al Churches and Lady of Nations, and telleth him that it were better for him to acknowledge her his Lady, and submit him selfe to her according to the example of godly Princes.

3. And as for the place which Bel citeth Anſvver. he speaketh not there of the subiection, duty, or obediēce of a subiect to his Prince, but of a seruant to his Maister (as he had bene to Mauritius whiles they were both priuat men) which him selfe plainly pro­fesseth in the beginning of his letter in these words. In this suggestion I speake not as Bishop, nor as subiect, by reason of the common wealth, but by priuat right of my owne, because you haue bene my Lord since that time when as yet you were not Lord of al. And therfore by the for­sayd words he meaneth no otherwise, then a louing seruant doth, when vpon curtesie to his old Maister though he haue left him, yet he stil calleth him Maister, and offereth him selfe and his seruice at his command. His second error was, in inferring vpon the bare words of one P. speaking of him selfe alone, not onely his dutiful obedience, but also of al his Predecessors for 600. years to­gether. He would espie his error, if I should [Page 29] infer the same o [...] al. S. Greg: his successors for 600. years after him. And though euery English Priest do cal his Maiesty Soueraigne Lord, professe them selues subiect to his commande, and to owe him obedience, as far as Bel can shew that euer S. Gregory did to the Emp: yet wil he not suffer me to infer that they liue in al dutiful obedience to their Prince, but wil condemne them al of high treason. For with him (as of old with Donatists) Quod volumus Sanctum est.

4. His 3. error is, in granting that Popes Contradict. Gelas. epist. ad Anastas. Theodoret. lib. 5. cap. 18. Sozom. l. 7. c. 24. Paulin. in vit. Am­bros. Lib. cont. Gentil. Euseb. lib. 6. c. 26. Niceph. lib. 13. c 39. Gelas. d. 96. con. Duo sunt. Georg. Patriarcha in vit. Chry­sost. Symach. ep. ad Anastas. Stapleto. de Eccl. Rom. Platina i [...] Gelasio. for 600. years after Christ, liued in al dutiful obedience to Emperors, wherein he quite ouerthroweth what he ment to proue in this Article. For if that be true, he can not thinke that to excommunicate or depose Princes vpon great causes, is against the duty of Popes. Because (to omit S. Ambrose his excōmunicating of the Emperors Theo­dosius & Maximus, & S. Babilas his excō ­municating an other Emp: whom he droue (saith S. Chrisost) out of the Church as if he had bene a base slaue & of no account) no fewer then fiue or six Popes haue excōmunicated their Emperors in that time. As S. Fabian excō ­municated Phillip the first Christian Empe­ror S. Innocent 1. the Emperours Arcadius and Eudoxia, P. Symachus & P. Anastasius, and (as some say) P. Gelasius excommuni­cated [Page 30] the Emperor Anastasius, and P. Vigil Baron. An. [...]84. Contradict. the Empresse Theodora. And S. Gregory him selfe proceeded further (as you heard) euen to depose Princes. Moreouer Bel Wri­teth p: 8. that Barbarians possessed al Italy from the yeare 471. vntil Charles the great 801. How then saieth he here that Popes li­ued vnder Emperors vntil 603.

5. His fourth error is in cōfessing S. Gre­gory the great to be ours, that is, a Papist, wherupon follow many things to his vtter confusion. First that the old Rom, religion (for I hope what is aboue a 1000. yeares old is old) which him selfe p: 83. confesseth to be Catholique, sound, & pure, is Papistical. 2. That the first Christian religion which our English Anceitours (hauing bene euer be­fore bondslaues (saith S. Bedal. 2. c. 1. of Idols) receaued from S. Gregory by his legat S. Austin, was Papistical. 3. That al Chri­stendome was in S. Gregories time, Papisti­cal, because it communicated with him in faith and religion as is euident by his Epi­stles written to al partes of Christendome. Thus we see this mans smal wit in pro­uing his vntruthes: Now let vs see his good wil.

6. Very loth he is to graunt the Pope the Bel pag. 3. S. Ignat. ep. ad Mariam Cassab. name of Pope, which Saints, Councels, Princes, Catholiques, & Schismatiks haue [Page 31] euer giuen him. Bishops of Rome (saith he) S. Iustin. ep. ad zenam & seren. S. Aug. epist. 92. 95. 261. S. Hiero. ep. ad Damas. Amb. ep. 81▪ Vincēt. cont haeres. libe­ratus in bre­uiar. cap. 22. Concil. Cal­cedon. as. 16. Carthag. & Mileuil. a­pud August. ep. 90. & 92. Epirot. ep. ad Hermis. Constantin. in edicto. Galli Placi­dici epist. ad Pulcheriam Choniatas. Vide epist. trium Con­cil. Africon. ad Damas. to. 1. Camil. Protestants cal vs Pa­pists of the Pope & yet vvil not cal him Pope. Victor de persecut. vā ­dalica. lib. 1. Bel p. 3. Gregor. Tu­ron. de glor. mart. cap. 25. 30. & 79. now called Popes. And when not Syr? did not S. Ignatius who liued in the Apostles tyme cal S. Anaclerus Pope? did not also S. Iustin euen as the Magdeburgians confesse? did not S. Austin, S. Hierome, S. Ambrose, Vincent: Lirin: & others aboue a thousand yeares a goe? did not the Councel of Cal­cedon, of Carthage, of Mileui of Epirus? do not the Gretians cal the Bishop of Rome Pope. Was he not alwaies called Pope as wel in England as in al Christendome els vntil the 26. yeare of Henry 8. when ha­uinge reuoulted from the Popes obedience, he commanded this name to be razed out of al writings calendaties, & Holy Doctors whatsoeuer.

7. And a maruailous thing it is to con­sider the contradictious spirit of Protest­ants. They wil cal vs nothing but Papists (as Arians called Catholique Romans) and our religion Popish, which are bynames inuented of them selues, and deriued from the name of Pope; and yet wil they not cal him Pope, which hath bene his name euer since the Apostles time. And thus much tou­ching Bels proofe of his Assumption out of S. Gregory.

8. Next he alleadgeth S. Ambrose saying Dauid being King was subiect to no human law. [Page 32] But (besids that the word (human) is not in that place) S. Ambrose freeth Kings onely Bonus im­petator in­tra non su­pra ecclesiā est. Ambr. epist. 32. Theodoret. lib. 5. cap. 18. Sozomen. l. 7. c. 24. Paulin. in vi­ta Ambros. Ruffin. lib. 1. c. 2. Theodoret. lib. 4. cap. 5. from penalty of ciuil or temporal lawes. For how subiect he thought them to be to Ec­clesiastical lawes, appeareth by his excom­municating the Emperors Thodosius, and Maximus; beside that Constantin and Va­lentinian professed them selues to be vnder Bishops. And doubtles the human lawes enacted by the Apostles Act: 15. v. 18. and 1. Cor: 7. v. 12. exempted no more Princes then priuat persons; S Hierome, Bel affir­meth to teach the same that S. Ambrose: but neither alledgeth his wordes, nor quoteth ether booke, or chapter, perhaps because he made lesse shew for him.

9. Euthimius he citeth because he wri­teth. Bel p. 3. Euthym. in Psalm. 50. Glossa or­din. & lyra in Psalm. 50. S. Thom. 2. [...]. q. 12. art. 2. That Dauid as a King had God onely iudge ouer his sinnes. But he meaneth of a temporal iudge as doe also the Glosse, and lita cited by him. And though S. Thomas proue of set purpose. That the Pope may depose Princes, yet is not Bel ashamed to cite him because he saith 1. 2. q. 96. art. 5. That a King is not subiect to compulsion of his owne lavvs. As if therfore he were subiect to no law. Hereaf­ter the Reader neede not maruail to see Bel citing Scriptures, and Fathers for his pur­pose, seing he abstayneth not from his pro­fessed aduersaries. For with him al is fish that [Page 33] comes to net, and as litle make the one for him, as the other. Lastly he citeth Hugo Card: writing. That God alone is aboue al Hugo Card. in psal. 50. cap. 1. Kings. But this is ment in temporalibus as before we cited out of Innocent. 3.

10. After these proofs of his Assump­tion Bel p. 4. 5. Bel hudleth vp six vntruthes togeather saying. The good Kings Iosue, Dauid, Salomon, Vntruthes 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Iosaphat, Ezechias, and Iosias knew right wel they had authority aboue al Priests: and therfore tooke vpon them not onely to command & control them; but also to depose euen the high Priests them selues. For proofe of these vntruthes he referreth vs to his Golden Balance, and I refer him for confutation of them, to Doctor Staple­tons Conterblast against Horns vaine blast, & his Relection con: 2. q: 5: ar. 1. Onely I say that Iosue was no King, nor the Scripture affordeth any colour of saying that any high Priest was deposed by any of the said Kings, except Abiathar by Solomō 3. reg: c. 2: v. 35. et. 27. And yet (as it is gathered out of the 3. Reg. 4. v. 4. 4. chapter where he is accounted Priest in Salomons raigne) Salomon deposed him not, but onely for a time confyned him to his howse for his conspiracy with Adonias, and so debarred him from executing his Priestly function. And though he had depo­sed him he had not done it as King, but as Prophet fulfilling as the Scripture testi­fyeth [Page 34] the Prophisy against the howse of 3. Reg. 2. v. 27. Hely, from whence Abiathar descended. And this is al which Bel obiecteth against the Popes superiority ouer Princes Now let vs see how he answereth one obiection of Catholique in answers whereof he spen­deth the rest of this article.

CHAP. VI. Bels answer to an argument of Catho­liques for the Popes authority, confuted.

BEL for better satisfaction (as he saith) Bel p. 5. of the vulgar sorte propoundeth one obiection of Catholiques, but yet so na­kedly, and without al forme or fashion of argument (setting downe an Antecedent without any consequent) that therby one may ghesse [...]e meaneth nothing lesse then to frame (as he promisseth) a plaine, and sincer solution vnto it. And yet the obie­ction though so sillily propounded, not onely much trobleth many vulgar people (as he saith) but pusleth him selfe so, as after seuen leaues spent to diuert the Rea­ders minde, & to make him forget (as He­ritiks The manner of Prote­stants in ansvvering Catholiks. vse to do) the argument, which he can not answer, he fyndeth no better solu­tion, then to graunt what the Antecendent [Page 35] contayneth and to say nothing to the con­sequent following therof.

2. Wherfore because Bel was so trobled with the matter of this obiection, as he forgot the forme, I wil supply his default, and argue thus in forme. He by whose au­thority the Empire was translated, the ele­ctors of the Emperor appointed, and the elected is confirmed, and whose superiority ouer them many Emperors haue willingly acknowledged, hath some superiority ouer Emperors: but the Pope is such, as by his authority the Empire &c. Ergo the Pope hath some superiority ouer Emperors. The forme is syllogistical and good. The Propo­sition is manifest, for no power or dignity can be truly translated, or confirmed by in­feriors or equals, but onely by superiors: none (especially) willingly acknowledge as superior, whome they thinke is not.

3. The Assumption contayneth three parts expressed in the Proposition, wherof the first vz. That the Empire was translated by the Popes authority Bellarm: l. de transl: Bellarmin. Imper: c. 4 proueth by the testimony of 33. writers &c 5. by the confession of 11. Em­perors: and Princes, and c. 6. by assertion of 7. Popes. Yea Bel (though with much a doe) confesseth it page. 12. saying. That Charles the great (to whome the Empire was [Page 36] first translated) was made Emperor by Pope Leo 3. for restoring him to his place, and dignity, being driuen out by the Romans, though soone p. 13. after he condemne the Pope of treason for this translation. But differing the question of treason til a non (which hindreth not the verity of the translation if the translator haue power to transfer: as a souldier may by gift, or sale truly, and yet trayterously translate his armes, and munition to the Enemies) I ask of Bel, whether the Pope did truly translate the Empire, or no. If he did, then hath the Pope power to translate Empires: If he did not, then was nether Charles the great, nor any of his successors to this day true Emperors. And if the Pope be Antichrist (as Bel auoucheth) for depo­sing some few Emperors for iust causes; Bel may be wel accounted Lucifer, for depo­sing at once, and for no fault at al, the Em­perors of the west, which haue bene these 800. yeares. But Protestants haue great Protestants can make & vnmake Emperors vvhen they list. cunning in making and vnmaking Empe­rors, according as it redoundeth in their opinion to the grace or disgrace of Popes. For when the Pope deposeth them, they be true Emperors, but when he maketh, them, they haue onely (as Willet writeth) the name VVillet Cō ­tract. 4. q. 10. p. 178. title, and image of Emperors. But let them an­swer this dilemma. These Emperors whom [Page 37] the Pope deposed since Carolus Magnus, Likevvise vvhen vvil­let list the imperial authority is in the Pope loc. scit. But vvhen he list not, he is no tempo­ral Prince. ib. q. 8. p. 154 155. were true or false Emperors? If false, he did a good deed in deposing them: If true, then hath the Pope authority to make true Em­perors, and translate Empiers.

4. The second parte included in my As­sumption vz. That the Pope appointed the electors of the Emperor, and confirmed the elected, touching the apointing of electors is confessed by Bel pag. 14. and touching the confirmation is contested by many hi­striographers, and practized by as many as are crowned Emperors. The last parte vz, that Emperors haue acknowledged the Po­pes superiority Bel him self confesseth page 17. where he sayth, That some Cbristian Kings and Emperors haue vpon a blynd Zeale humbled them selues to the Pope, yea (which is more) haue yeldeed vp their soueraigne rights to him. And shal not the Pope be superior to them, who haue humbled them selues & yeelded their soueraingties vnto him?

5. But what shift hath Bel to auoide this? pag. 17. O dolor fraudata sunt tali ma­gisterio tempora an­tiqua. August. lib. 1. cont. Gau­dens. c. 19. forsooth that those Christian Princes were blynd. O most blynd answerer? not seing that he graunteth more then his aduersary requireth. Catholiques argue that Kings, and Emperors haue acknowledged Popes their superiors, this Bel graunteth in con­fessing their humiliation to Popes, which is [Page 38] neuer done, but to Superiors. and addeth that they haue yeelded vp their Souereigne rights, which is more then the obiection contayneth. And what he addeth of blynd zeale maketh nothing to the purpose. Be­cause the question is not vpon what cause Kings, and Emperors humbled them selues to the Popes, but whither they did or no. And because they haue so done (as Bel con­fesseth) Catholiques infer the Pope to be their Superior. Vnles perhaps Bel think blynd zeale to disanul euery fact, or gift, and so say the Iewes persecuted not the Church, because they did it vpon blynd zeale. Ro. 10. v. 2. nor our Catholike aūce­tors gaue any liuings to Churches, because they did it vpon blynd zeale (as Bel must think) for maintenance of Papistry. Neuer­theles because the Reader may see whither is more likly to be blind, a dooble turne coate Minister, or so many Princes as haue humbled them selues to Popes, I wil name onely a few Emperors, omitting for bre­uity sake both Christian Kings, and the Cassiodor. Miscell. vid. Baron. anno 452. Euseb. lib. 6. c. 25. Nicephor. lib. 13. c. 34. Bel p. 1 [...]3. Edictū Con­stantini. heathen Attilas miraculously made to reue­rence Pope Leo.

6. Philippe the first Christian Emperor about the yeare 246. reuerenced Pope Fa­bian. Constantin worthely (faith Bel) syr­named the great held the stirrop to Pope [Page 39] Siluester about the yeare 323. Soone after in S. Ambr. de, dignit. sa­cerd. c. 2. Chrisosto. hom. 4. & 5. in illud I­saiae. vidi Dominum. The l [...]ke S. Hilary. l. cont. Con­stant. Gelas. 1. ep. ad Anastas. S. Greg. in 4. Psal. paenit. Baron. anno 536. ex Ana­stas. Miscell. zonora. Naucler. Ge­neral. 18. Platina in Cōstantino. Naucler. ge­neral. 24. Concil. Flo­rent. per Io­uerium. Platina in Adrian. 1. Naucler. ge­neral. 26. Centur. 8. c. 10. col. 724. Platida in Stephan. 4. Naucler. ge­neral. 28. Platina in Nicolao 1. Plat [...]na in Gregor. 7. Naucler. ge­neral. 36. S. Ambrose and S. Chrisostomes tyme as them selues witnes Emperors bowed their necks euen to Priests knees and layd their heads vnder their hands, the same testifieth Pope Gelasius of Anastase Emperor of his tyme, and S. Gregory of Emperors before his tyme. Iu­stin about the yeare 525. humbled him self to the ground to Pope Ihon 1. Iustinian 534. humbled him self to Pope Agapet and worshiped him. Iustinian the second about the yeare 710. kissed the feet of Pope Con­stantin. Ihon Paleologus wold haue knee­led to Pope Eugenius 4. in the yeare 1438. And thus did the Emperors of the East.

7. Of the western Emperors Charles the great about the yeare 773. cold not be held by Pope Adrian I. from kissing his feete. Lewis his sone sent the honorablest of his court to meet Pope Steuen 4. him self went a myle and as soone as he saw him, ligh­ting from his horse, with great veneration brought him into the city in the yeare 817. Lewis 2. went a myle to meet Pope Nico­las 1. and putting his hand to his horses b [...]ydle brought him into his Camp about the year 860 Henry 3. 1077. baresooted in the depth of winter attended vpon Gre­gory 7 Henry 4. IIII. kissed the feet of Pope Pascal 2. Frederick 1. about the year [Page 40] 1155. held the stirrop to Pope Adrian 4. and Platina in Pascali 2. Naucler. ge­neral. 38. Platin. in A­drian. 4. Ale­xand. 3. Naucler. ge­ner. 40. Onuphrius in chron. Plat. in Ioā. [...]2. Naucler. ge­neral. 48. Surius in cōmentar. 1177. kissed the feere of Pope Alexander 3. Sigismund 1418. prostrate on the ground, with most great veneration kissed the feete of Pope Martin 5. Charles the 5. 1530. 1538. kissed the feete of P. P. Clement 7. & Paul 3. and wold haue held the stirrop of Pope Clement 7. of al these Christian Emperors it is recorded in publik histories how they humbled them selues to Popes, and of no Catholique Christian Emperor is written that he refused to do the like.

8. Let now any indifferent Reader be iudge, whither the Pope haue reason to think him self to be Superior to Christian Emperors, seing so many, and they the most wise, most valiant, and most famous, of al, euen the very first and last of them, haue acknowledged him their Superior. And whither it be likly that. Bel shold see, and al these Christian Emperors together with their Counsellors, Nobles, Prelats, Diuins, & Commons, be blind; yea so blind as they shold not see that their humiliation to the Pope opened the window (sayth Bel) p. 17. to al Antichristian tyrany.

9. Vsual it is for Heretiks to condemne See S. Au­stin lib. 2. cont. Iul. c. 10. to, 7. not onely former Catholiques, but euen Heritiks of blindnes if they disagree from them: So the Caluinist condemneth the Lu­therian, [Page 41] the Puritan saith the same of the Protestant, the Brounist of the Puritan. And King Edward, sixtimes cōdemned K. Hen­ries religion of blindnes, and those found the like measure in Queene Elizabeths Petition ex­hibited to his Maiesty in April 1603. time, and she had fared a like, if more then a thousand ministers, who condemne her proceding of Enormities, Superstitions and abuses contrary to Scripture, had obtayned their petition. But of them al we may say as Tertullian said of Heritiks in his time. Tertull. lib. de praescrip. To these alone, and to these first was the truth re­uealed forsooth, they obtayned greater fauor, and fuller grace of the diuil. For light they haue but 2. Cor. 11. v. 14. Conference p. 71. such as cometh from him who transfigureth him selfe into an angel of light, and brag of it til as the Kings maiesty said of the Scottish ministers) they goe made with their owne light. And thus much of the Catholiques obie­ction and Bels answer therto. Now let vs come to his sleunderous vntruthes.

CHAP. VII. Some of Bels slaunderous vntruthes disproued.

BEL perceauing that the slightnes of his forsaid answer would haue easely ap­peared, if it had bene set down immediatly after the Catholiques obiection, without [Page 42] dazeling the Readers eyes before with some other matter, though best before he an­swered it to slander both Pope and Papists, and to tel the Reader a long tale of steps de­uised by him selfe, in an imaginary ladder of his owne. Many absurd things (saith he) haue pag. 5. bene affirmed by Popes parasits for aduancement of his primacy. I [...] one aske him? what these ab­surd things are, & who were these parasits. He nameth none. For dolosus versatur in gene­ralibus. But let vs heare him proue his saying 11. vntru­the. Victoria de potestate ecclesiae re­lect. 1. sect. 6. As Victoria doth testify in these words. Sed glos­satores iuris hoc dominion &c. The glossors of the law haue giuen this dominion to the Pope, they being poore in substance, and learning.

2. Here in steed of proofs I find an vn­truth. For nether doth Victoria in these words spe [...]ke of many things, but onely of this dominion (meaning temporal ouer the world) nether yet doth he cal it absurd. This want therfore Bel thought to supply VVhen he spealeth a lye he spea­keth of his ovvne. Ioan. 8. v. 44. 12 vntruth. of his owne store, and therfore Englishing Victorias words, he addeth (and these lordly titles) and then as hauing a sure foundation, he rayseth his lie somewhat higher, saying. That Victoria affirmeth, ignorance and pouerty were the beginning of al lordly Popery. Wheras Victoria speaketh onely of temporal domi­nion ouer the whole world, and Bel him selfe Bel p. 17. 4. Contra­dict. herafter maketh Kings and Emperors [Page 43] authors of the Popes dominion. Bel p. 7.

3. Hauing thus dealt with Victoria he falleth to slander the late Popes saying. That they haue challenged more then human, and royal power euen that povver vvhich is due & proper to God alone. True it is that both late & ancient 13 vntruth. Popes haue challēged more then human, & royal power. For such is al spiritual power as shal hereafter be proued. But most false it is that any Pope aunciēt or late, challengeth any power proper to God, or that any Ca­tholique attributeth such power vnto him. As his brother willet telleth him in these VVillet cō ­trad. 544. prel. 3. p. 210. Caluin 4. in­stit. c. 20. pa­rag. 4. Magi­stratus prae­diti sunt di­uina autho­ritate. Melancthon. apud Sur. 1501. Bel p. 6. Gerson de potest. eccl. confid. 12. p. 3. words The Pope by their owne confession can not do al that Christ did. But what say you Sir to Caluin attributing duine power to Magi­strats? And to Protestants arrogating greater, more intolerable, and les excusable authority and power, then euer the Pope did, as Melanthon wri­teth, or to other calling Princes Gods, as you shal heare a none. Now let vs see what proofs he bringeth of his slander. Gerson (saith he) reporteth that some Popish parasits say that Christ hath giuen al that power in heauen and earth, to S. Peter, and his successors which was giuen to him selfe, and that he hath writen in the Popes thighe King, of Kings, and Lord of Lords. And that there is no power Ecclesiastical or temporal but from the Pope.

4. Behould good Reader Bels euil dea­ling [Page 44] with Popes. He chargeth al late Popes with challenging power proper to God, which is a most heinous and Luciferian crime, and for proofe therof bringeth not one word, or deede of any one of them, but ones report of speeches of some nameles fellows, without proouing that any Pope ether allowed, or liked, yea heard of such speeches. were such dealing with any pri­uat man tolerable? And how much les with so great Princes as Popes (at least) are. Sup­pose parasits had attributed to Popes power Protestants cal Princes Goddes. proper to God, doth it therfore follow that they challeng it? Doe al Princes challeng what their flatterers impose vpon them? Did Q Elizabeth challēg to be a Goddesse because Case Cambden and other Prote­stants Case in ep. suop Poli­corum. Cambden in Berqueria, in Natis ad lectorem. in Cantic. & E­pist. Bel in his epistles to the King & to B. of Durhom. Act. 14. v. 10. 11. 12. called her a Goddesse? She (saieth Cambden) is the onely Goddesse of Britans. She [...] shalbe my Goddesse, the groūd wher she was borne is rather to be adored then adorned she is Numen to be worshiped of the whole word. Or doth his Maiesty challeng to be head of the Church of France, or Toby Mathew to be the ornament of learning, and religion, because Bel so tear­meth them? did S. Paul and Barnaby chal­lēg to be Gods, because the Licaonians did so account them? doth not the Pope pro­fesse him self to be Christs Vicar, and ser­uant of his seruants? How standeth this [Page 45] with the challeng of equality.

5. But I deny that euer any Catholique attributed to the Pope power proper to God: let vs therfore consider Gersons re­port. The first point is, that Christ hath giuen al the power in heauen and earth to S. Peter, and Bels slander toucheth as vvel S. Pe­ter and the auncient Popes as the late. his successors which was giuen to him self. But be­side that, these words concerne no les the Ancient then the late Popes, namely S. Pe­ter him self, though Bel be ashamed to charg them with this staunder, are these woords of Popish parasits? doe they giue to men power proper to God alone? Then was S. Chrisostome a Popish parasite, and S. Chrysost. lib. 3. de sa­cerdot. gaue to Priests power proper to God, when he said. Priests haue al power of heauenly things, and the very self same al kind of power which Christ had of his Father. S. Basil sayth, S. Basil. ho­mil. de poe­nitent. S. Leo serm. 2. de Natali Pet. & Pauli. that Christ gaue this authority to others. S. Leo writeth that S. Peter had those things by partici­pation, which Christ had proper by power. or doth Bel think that our King in creating a de­puty in Ireland, and giuing him authority to gouerne that Kingdome, giueth him power proper to Kings? Are deputies Kings are they no more subiects? True it is that the power which Popes haue, came from God alone as the authority of deputies co­meth from Kings, but such power by com­mission is no more proper to God, then the [Page 46] like in deputies is proper to Kings.

6. The second point in Gersons report is that the forsaid nameles persons cal the Pope Lord of Lords, and King of Kings. If these be parasits words and make men equal to God then was Daniel a parasite, & he made Nabuchodonozor equal to God in calling him King of Kings. Vnles Bel allow this Daniel. 2. v. 37. title in a heathen Prince and account it blasphemy in a Christian. Besyds the Scri­pture Exod. 7. psal. 81. Io. 10. psal. 104. E­saiae 45. S. Bernard. l. 2. & 4. de cō ­siderat. Caluin. lib. 4. instit. c. 7. paragr. 22. it self doth apply the very names of Christ and God vnto men. And S. Bernard no parasite but a holy writer (in Caluins opinion) calleth the Pope Prince of Bishops, leader of Christians, hammer of tyrants, father of Kings, Vicar of Christ, Christ of the Lord, and God of Pharao. And thus spoke S. Bernard euen in those books, where (according to Cal­uins Caluin. l. 4. c. 11. paragr. 11. iudgment) he spoke it so as truth it selfe semed to speake. And albeit the Pope do not entitle him selfe King of Kings but Seruant of Gods seruants, which is a more humble stile, then any Prince vseth: yet rightly might he, because he hath twoe King­domes, vz. Naples and Sicily, Feudatary, The Pope gaue Irlād to the King of England. Stovv. ann. [...]71. and temporally subiect vnto him, as he had also Ireland, before he gaue it vnto the crowne of England in K. Henry 2. time.

7. But because Bel is so hard aconstruer of some Catholiques words, let vs heare, [Page 47] not a parasite, but a Protestant Prelat, spea­king not in absence but in presence of the King and realme. Bilson in his late sermon Bilson. at the Kings coronation saith Kings be Gods by office, they haue the society of his name, are in his place, their very robes are sanctified, euery thing belonging to them is sacred, are pertakers, with Christ in the power, honour, and iustice of his Kingdome on earth, and partake with Gods homage, Behould he calleth Kings Gods, and partners with God in his name, power, ho­nour, and homage, and yet no Catholique chardgeth Protestants that they attribute to the King, or that he challengeth power proper to God alone.

8. The third point reprehended by Bel in Gersons reporte, is that ecclesiastical and temporal power is said to come from the Pope. This (saith Bel pag: 16.) is to make the Pope author of al power, a thing proper to God. 14. vn­truth. 15. vn­truth. This say I is for Bel to vtter two vntruthes at once: for neither do they speake of al power, but only of power in earth, which they deuide into ecclesiastical & temporal, besides which there is power in heauen of God, and Saints: neither do they make the Pope, author of al power in earth, but only saie it commeth from the Pope, which is not to make him author therof, vnles Bel wil make euery officer author of what he [Page 48] doth in the Princes name, euery instrument author of the effect it worketh by vertue of the cause. And thus much touching this slaunder of Popes, imposed by Bel. Now let vs come to others, for no other stuffe we are like to hear hereafter in this article.

CHAP. VIII. Certaine false steps of a ladder vvhich Bel imagineth the Pope had to climbe to his superiority, disproued.

BEL hauing vpon the foresaid words of some nameles Catholiques, taken oc­casion Bel pag. 17. to slaunder Popes, goeth on in like sorte for many leaues together, setting downe steppes in a ladder, which (as he imagineth) the Popes had to climbe to their superiority. The first steppe (saith he) was the departure of the Emperour Constantine from Rome to Constantinople: but if he had better consi­dered, he should haue found that as the cittie of Rome decaied by Constantines de­parture, and Constantinople increased: So the Sea of Rome rather fel therby in exter­nal Euseb. & Hieron. in chron. Conc. Con­stant. epist. ad Damasc. Gelas. ad E­piscop. Dar­daniae. dignity, and the Sea of Constantinople rose, then otherwise. For wheras before Constantines going to Constantinople (which was about the yeare. 330. that church was but new, and a parish of an­other [Page 49] church as Gelasius witnesseth, soone after in the yeare 381. it was made a Patriar­chate Cone. Con­stantin. c. 5. Concil. Cal­ced. act. 16. next to Rome, and in the yeare 451. the Grecians gaue it equal priuiledges with Rome. And not content with this, about the yeare 600. that Patriarch arrogated the title of Oecumenical, that is ouer the whole worlde. And finallie in the yeare 1054. clai­med Sigebert. in chron. the place of the first Patriarch, allead­ging the Pope to haue lost his primacy by adding filióque to the Nicene Creed.

2. But Constantine (sayth Bel) at his depar­ture pag. 7. did as the Popes parasites tel vs, giue lardge guifts to the Pope, euen his whole power, domi­nion, and territories, both in Rome, Italy, and al the west. Behould a man (as the Prouerbe is) hauing a wolfe by the eare, which he dare neither hould nor yet let goe. For if he graunt, that Constantine gaue the Pope his whole power and dominion ouer Rome, Italy, and al the west, he must needs graunt that the Pope of right hath imperial power ouer al the west. If he deny it, he sheweth not how Constātins departure was a steppe for the Pope to climbe to higher authority. Besides that, not Constantins departure, but his guifte should haue bene made the steppe. Notwithstanding choosing rather to condemne him selfe, of not shewing how Constantins departure was a steppe [Page 50] for the Pope to climbe, then to graunt that the Pope hath so good right to imperial power ouer the west, he inclineth to de­nial of the guift, & citeth Valla, Volaterran, Cathalan & Cusan, fowre late and obscure writers against it, and tearmeth them Po­pishe parasites who affirme it.

3. But against these foure late writers I oppose foure most auncient, Isidor, Pho­tius or Balsamon, Gratian, & Iuo, & many late writers, besides two Iewes Rabby A­braham, and Aben Esra, who al auouch Constantins guift, whereof Photius and the Iewes were professed enimies of the Pope: and Bel him selfe confesseth that some Emperours haue giuen the Pope their soue­raigne rights. In which kinde no Emperour excelled Constantine. yet Bellarmine (saith Bellarmin. lib. 5. de Ro­man. Pont. [...]. 9. Bel) seemeth to doubt of this, and such like dona­tions. Wherein Sir? In these words (saith he) there are extant at Rome the authentical eui­dences of these and the like donations, and if there were not, prescription of eight hundred yeares would aboundantlie suffice. For Kingdomes vn­iustlie gotten are in proces of time made lawful. as he proueth by the Romane Empier got­ten Prescrip­tion of 30. yeares suf­ficeth by ci­uil lavv. by Cesar, the Kingdome of England by Saxons, and others. What shew is in theis words of doubt? or rather not of certainty? For Bellarmin affirmeth that the Pope hath [Page 51] two iust titles to hould his estate: The first is free guift of Princes, whereof he can shew authentical euidences: the other pre­scription of time.

4. The second steppe (saith Bel) was the fal pag. 8. of the Empire in the west, in the yeare 471. and vacancy therof for almost 330. yeares. But how this fal and vacancy of the Empire was a steppe for Popes to climbe, neither he she­weth nor any can imagin, especially if (as he writeth straight after) in this vacancie of the Empire Rome was spoiled with fier & sword, and the verie walles throvvne dovvne to the ground, and al Italie possessed of the Barbares vntil Carolus Magnus, who was the first Em­perour after the vacancie, if in this vacancy Rome was destroied, and al Italy possessed by Barbares (who for the most part were heathens, or heretiks) how could it bee a steppe for the Pope to climbe, and not rather to fal?

5. Euident it is out of histories of those times, that Popes in that vacancy were sometime vnder Barbares, sometime vnder Emperours of the East, according as the one preuailed against the other (for false it is that Barbares possessed al Italy vntil Ca­rolus Magnus yea Bel before said that Popes liued vnder Emperours vntil the yeare 603.) and pag. 2. [...]. betwixt both liued in great daunger, subie­ction, [Page 52] and misery. Three of them died in Siluerius. Iohannes 1. Martinus 1. Leo 3. Sergius. Gregorius 2. vid. Plati­nam in vit. Pont. banishment or prison, one pitifullie mang­led and beaten, others should haue bene imprisoned and murdered, and diuers were straictlie besieged of their enimies. And for a long time none could be freelie elected without consent of the Barbares, or Empe­rours. And can we thinke that this was a time for Popes to climbe to greater autho­rity? I omit, that before Bel said Popes liued in duetiful obedience vnder Emperours vntil the 5. Contra­dict. yeare 603. how doth he now saie that they climbe to tiranny from the yeare 471.

6. The 3. steppe (saith Bel) vvas the volūtarie pag. 8. 9. Charter vvhich Constantin the Emperour of Con­stantinople made to Pope Benedict. 2. vz. that vvhosoeuer the Cleargie people and Romane soul­dires should choose to be Bishoppe, al men should beleeue him to be the true vicar of Christ, vvith­out any tarying for any authority of the Empe­rour of Constantinople, or the deputy of Italie, as 16. vntruth the custome and manner vvas euer before that day. Thus (saith he) writeth Platina. And the Platina in Benedict. 2. Popes almost for the space of 700. yeares could haue no iurisdiction, nor be reputed true Bi­shoppes of Rome, vvithout the letter pattēts of the Vbicunque est impu­dentia ibi est vltio. Chrisosto. hom. 4. in il­lud Esai. vi­di Dominū. Emperour.

7. Behould the impudencie of this fel­low. Platina saith, vt antea fieri consueuerat, Bel affirmeth him to say, it vvas the custome [Page 53] euer before that daie. where is in Platina the worde (euer) where (til that daie) Nay doth not Platina saie that Pelagius the second Platin. in pe­lagio & in Siluerio. Nauclerus general. 18. Bland. De [...]. 1. l. 3. was created iniussu principis without com­maund of the Prince, that Siluerius was made Pope iubente Theodohato at the com­maund of Theodate a Gothishe King? Did not Bel him selfe tel vs that Barbarians ruled pag. 8. in Rome, and possessed al Italie for 330 yeares, vn­til Charles the great? How then could it be, that before Benet the second neuer Popes could haue iurisdiction, and be accompted true Bishops of Rome without letter pa­tents of Emperours, who were professed enimies, and made warre vpon most of these Barbarians? or is Bel so mad euen to imagine, that Pope Anaclete (to omit S. Peters want of Neroes letter patents) could haue no iurisdiction, or be reputed true Bishoppe of Rome, without letter patents of Domitian the Emperour, Clement with­out Traianus? Cornelius without Decius? Caius without Diocletian? or the other ho­lie Popes that were martyred vnder heathen Emperours, without their letter patents?

8. What therefore Platina saieth had bene wont to be done before, about ex­pecting the confirmation of the Emperour, or his deputie in Italy, he vnderstood of the time since Pope Vigilius (excepting Pela­gius [Page 54] 2.) vntil Benedict the second; for Iusti­nian the Emperour hauing in the yeare 553. quite subdued the Gothes, and recouered Rome and Italie, which had bene lost to the Barbares in the yeare 475. or 476. (Bel wronglie saith 471.) imitating the tiranny pag. 8. of the Gothish Kings, who being Arians much oppressed the Popes, appointed that they after their election, should expect the Emperour or his deputies confirmation, before they were consecrated, or vsed their function. And this order endured from Pope Vigilius his time, vntil Benedicte the second, for more then one hundred years, at what time Constantine the fifth, in the Platin. sup. yeare 684. moued (saie the writers) at the holines of Benedicte 2. abrogated the said order, permitting as wel the consecration, as the election of Popes vnto the Romane Cleargie, and people.

9. Hereby wee see, that the creation of Popes without Emperours consent, was no new thing begun first in Benedict. 2. but an auncient libertie begun euen with the Popedome it selfe, and continued vnder Papistry a­boue a thovvsand years ould yet nevv vvith Bel. pag. 2. Constantine the great and other Christian Emperours vntil the time of the barbarous Gothish Kings, & restored againe by Con­stantine the fifth. but marke good reader how Bel before confessed Gregory the great [Page 55] (who died about the yeare 604.) to haue The same declared Iu­stinian a­bout the year 532. e­pist. ad Ioā. P. and Va­lentinian ep. ad Theo­dosium lōg before. pag. 83. 2. Pet. 3. v. 8. bene a Papist, and here acknowledgeth the Emperour Phocas in the yeare 607. to haue declared Rome to be the head of al Chur­ches: likewise Constantine the fifth in the yeare 984. to haue declared the Pope to bee Christs true vicar: yet neuertheles wil haue Papistrie, and Popes supremacie to be new things. So to him a thowsand yeares are as one daie.

10. The fourth steppe Bel maketh the deposition of Childrick King of France by Pope Zacharie, which (he saith) the Pope did for hope of aduauncemēt. But as for the deposition, it was most iust, for it was done, not only with the consent of the whole This Chil­drick vvas surnamed the Idiot or sensles. Claud. Pa­radin. Annal. Frāc. Naucler. ge­neral. 25. Platin. in Gregor. 3. realme of France, no man reclaiming, but at their request as testifieth Sabellius aeneid 8. & Blandus Dec: 1. lib: 10. out of Alcuin: Paule and others, at what time the Sarazins possessing al Egipt, Siria, Affrick, & Spaine, had not long before inuaded France, with many hundred thousands of men, & Chil­drick being extreamlie slouthful, & careles of the commonwealth, not only France, but al Christendome was in great daunger to be ouerrunne with those Sarazins.

11. And that Pope Zacharies intention was iuste, appeareth by his great holines of life, who (as Anastasius and others write) [Page 56] was so good as he would not requite euil with euil, and much lesse for his owne aduaun­cement wrongfullie depose a King, as Bel vpon meare malice, without al proofe doth calumniate him, taking vpon him to know the secrets of harts, and Iudge an others seruant. 2. Paralip. 6. Roman. 14. Besides, that neither was he any way ad­uaunced by Pipin, nor can it be iustlie pre­sumed, that he expected to be. But for what end soeuer it had bene done, it could be no steppe to the Popes superiority ouer Prin­ces, but an act of such authority already gotten.

12. Whereupon Bellarmin out of this so Bellarm. lib. 5. de Rom. Pontif. c. 8. auncient example, aboue eight hundred yeares agoe, proueth Popes to haue such authority, whereat Bel so stormeth that he pag 10. 17 vntruth 18 vntruth saith. Iesuits teach that the Pope can set vp, and pul downe Kings at his pleasure, and that they are grand maisters, and Architects of seditions, rebel­lious, and bloudie treasons, which are but false slaunders of his owne. Et quis innocens erit si accusasse sufficiat. And aduiseth Christian Prin­ces pag. 11. that if the Pope send any into their dominions, vvith his Buls and excommunications, they deale vvith them as Phillip the faire dealt vvith Boniface the eights Nuncio, vvhom he imprisoned, and bur­ned their buls: and as Charles the sixt, vvho gaue sentence that the buls of Benedic. 13. should be rent in pieces, the bearer set on the pillarie, and traduced [Page 57] in the pulpit. But withal he forgot to tel what befel to Phillip for his euil dealing with Boniface, vz. That he him selfe was Genelrard. in chron. Antonin. 3. part. art. 20. paragr. 20. killed with a fal of his horse, his three son­nes vntimelie died, their wiues shamefullie taken in adultery, and the crowne transla­ted from his Issue to an other line. Of Bene­dic 13. no meruaile if he and his messenger were so handled, because he was no true, but a false Pope; and thus much of Bels first oure steppes, now let vs se the rest.

CHAP. IX. The rest of Bels false steps, and slaunderous vntruths in this article disproued.

THE first steppe (saith Bel) vvas the decaie Bel pag. 11. of the Empire in the East about the yeare 756, at vvhat time Pipin being called into Italie by Pope Steeuen 2. to deliuer Rome from the siedge of Lom­bards, and ouercomming them gaue vp the gouer­nement 19 vntruth of Italie into the Popes handes. Here Bel hudleth vp store of vntruths. That the empire decaied in the East about the yeare 756. For it de­caied long before about the yeare 635. vnder Onuphr. in chron. Platin. in Honorio 1. art. 623. Balmerin. in chron. 639. Onuphr. in chron. the heretical Emperour Heraclius, when the Sarazens conquered Palestin, Siria, and Egipt, and about the yeare 697. al Affrick, & went more & more decaying according as it reuolted from the faith and obedience [Page 58] of the Romane Sea, vntil in the yeare 1452. it was vtterly extinguished, Constantinople being taken by Turks, and the Emperour slaine. And about 756. whereof Bel speaketh, the Easterne Empire lost litle or nothing, except a verie smal piece of Italie, called the exarchate which the Lombards had con­quered in the yeare 751.

2. That Pipin gaue vp Italy into the Popes hands. Whereas Pipin subdued only that part of Italie which the Lombards held: that in Pipins conquest ended the vvhole povver of the Em­perours 21 vntruth. Lieutenants in Italy. This is doubly vn­true. First because Pipin conquered nothing from the Emperour but from the Lom­bards, who foure or fiue years before, had taken the exarchate of Reuenna from the Empire. Secondly because, besides that which Pipin then conquered, or the Lom­bards had before taken from the Empire, the Emperours had both then, and long Naucler. ge­neral. 27. Platin. in Leone 3. Bland. Dec. 2. lib. 1. after great dominion in Italy, vz almost al the kingedome of Naples which he gouer­ned by Lieutenants.

3. But what was the end of this vntruth? forsooth that we should Imagine, that in Pipins time the Pope became Antechrist. For novv (saith Bel, vvas he taken avvay, vvho pag. 12. 2. Thess. 2. as the Apostle teacheth vs hindred the comming of Antechrist, meaninge the Emperours do­minion [Page 59] in Italie. Marke good reader in the yeare 476. or as Bel saith 471. not only al Baron. an­nal. Onuphr. in chron. Italie, was taken from the Emperour, by the Herules, but he also deposed, and the weasterne Empire vtterlie dissolued. And albeit in the yeare 553. the Grecian Empe­rours recouered Italy againe, yet soone af­ter in the yeare 568. they lost a great parte therof to the Lombards, which they neuer Onuphr. in chron. Palmer. in chron. 572. recouered. And in neither of these times Bel thinketh the hinderance of Antichrists comming, whereof S. Paul spake, to haue bene taken away, because then he findeth no coulour to make the Pope a new An­techrist.

4. But when the Grecian Emperours lost to the Lōbards the exarchate of Reuenna (a Naucler. ge­neral. 26. petit dominion of fiue Citties, & one shire called Emilia, though they helde stil a good part of Italie) then the hindrance of Ante­christe was taken away, because forsooth soone after, that exarchate being taken by Pipin from the Lombards, it was by him giuen to the Pope, who therby became Antechrist, as if Bishops become Ante­christs by temporal liuings, a reason smel­ling ranckely of a puritan spirit, which would pul downe Bishopricks; but if tem­poral dominion made the Pope Antechrist, he was long before Pipin: for in the yeare [Page 60] 699. Aripert King of Lombardy gaue to him the Coctian Alpes where Geneua is, which Ado in chronic. Bland. Dec. 1. lib. 10. Magdeburg. cent. 8. c. 10. Regino Ado Sigebert. in chron. Mag­deburg. su­pra. donation confirmed King Luithprand in the yeare 714. as the Magdeburgians con­fesse. and King Pipin in the yeare 755. ad­ded the exarchate, and a good piece of Italy which he had conquered from the Lom­bards.

5. As for the hindrance of Antechrists comming whereof S. Paule speaketh, it was not the petit dominion which the Em­perours had in the exarchate of Reuenna, but the Romane Empire it selfe; as testifie S. Chrisostome, and others vpon that place, S. Chrisost. S. Ciril. S. Hierom. S. August. tom. 5. S. Ciril Catech. 15. S. Hierom q. 11. ad Al­gasiam: S. Augustin lib. 20. de ciuit. c. 19. and other fathers who out of that place af­firme, that Antechrist shal not come vntil the Romane Empire be quite taken away, which is not yet I let passe a contradiction of Bel saying, p. 8. that Barbarians possessed al Contradict. Italy vnto Carolus Magnus, and pag. 11. that in Pipins time vvhoe vvas Carolus his father ended the power of the Emperours Lieutenants: in Italy. For how could the Emperours haue Lieute­nants in Italy vntil Pipin, if Barbarians pos­sessed al Italy vnto his sonnes time.

6. But the quicke sight of this fellowe, whoe before called so many Kings & Em­perours blinde, I can not let passe. He wri­teth [Page 61] (pag. 11.) that Pipin gaue vppe the gouern­ment of Italy into the Popes hands, a thing (saith he) so apparant as it can not be denied, and yet (pag. 14.) confesseth, that he can not see how the Pope vvas King in Pipins time. So blinde he is that he can not see, that to giue vp the go­uernment of a Kingdome into ones hands, is to make him King, Againe he can not see, pag. 14. His brother vvillet con­trouers. 4. q. 10. p. 7. pag. 178. saith that the impe­rial autho­rity is in the Pope. Naucler. ge­neral. 26. Palmerius in chronic. Paradin des allian­ces Genealo­giques. hovv if Pipin as Sigebert vvriteth had Italie in his possession in the yeare 801. and Bernard made King thereof by Carolus Magnus 812. that the Pope vvas either then or novv any King at al. Surelie Bel is either shott sighted or starcke blinde. For what Sigebert writeth of Pipin, he meaneth not of Pipin Carolus his father and giuer of the exarchate, who died 768. but of Pipin Carolus his sonne: and neither his possessing Italy 801. nor his sonne Ber­nards kingdome therof 812. doth preiudice the Popes regality ouer the exarchate and Coctian Alpes, giuen him before by King Pipin & Aripert, any more then it doth pre­iudice the regality and dominion which the greeke Emperours had at the same time Naucletus general. 27. Platina in Leone 3. Bland. Dec. 1. l. 1. ouer a great parte of Italie, vz. From Na­ples and Manfredonia to the sea of Sicily.

7. For besides that Lombardy (whereof Pipin and Bernard were kings) was then called Italie, as is euident out of Charles his Nauclerus general. 18. testament, where he saith. Itali. which is also [Page 62] called Lombardy, because they alone in Italy were then called Kings, and possessed the best parte thereof, they were intitled of the whole: as the Kings of England were be­fore the vnion of Scotland by straungers called in latin Kings of Britanny. And as for Charles the great, he was soe far from taking from the Pope, what his father Pi­pin had giuen, as he added thereto (saith Nauclerus) the ile of Corsica, and what is from Luna to the Alpes confines of Italy, and what be­twixt Leo Ostien­sis lib. 1. chron. Cas­sinen. Parma and Luca, together with the Duke­domes of Spoleto and Beneuent.

8. But yet far greater blindenes it is, not to be able to see how the Pope can be now any Kinge at al, if others were Kings of Italie 800. years agoe, can he not se how kingdomes may be altered not only to dif­ferent families, but euen to diuers nations in lesse then eight hindred years? are not the Normans and their discent Kings of England because they were not 800. nay 600: years agoe? are not Spaniards Kings in Italie, because they were not 400. yeares agoe? could not the Popes in eight hun­dred years space come to a kingdome either by guifte of Princes or by iust ware, or at least by prescription of time, which they had not before.

9. As for the Popes besides the guifts of [Page 63] Constantine, Aricthpert, Pipin, and Caro­lus Magnus before mentioned, Ludouic: Pius Emperour and sonne to Carolus Mag­nus Gratian. d. 63. can. ego Ludouicus. confirmed the donation of his grand­father Pipin, and afterward Countesse Leo lib. 3. chron. c. 48. Maud, gaue to the Pope Liguria and Tus­cia in the yeare 1079. of which guifts the authentical euidences (saith Bellarmin) Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. c. 9. are extant in Rome. which suffiseth to let Bel see how the Pope may be now a King, though he were none in the yeare 812. be­sides that (pag: 17.) he could see how some Christian Kings and Emperours haue yeelded vp their soueraigne rights to the Pope, and (pag 11.) how Pipin gaue vp the gouernment of Italie into his hand, and is he stricken blinde in the midest, so that (pag: 14.) he could not see how the Pope is now any King at al. Thus much of Bels blindnes out of his owne confes­sion. Now let vs see as much of his smal credit by the like confession.

10. Bellarmin (saith he) must be credited at Bel pag. 14. Bellar. sup. leisure, when he telleth vs that Pipin gaue Rauenna, and Pentapolis to S. Peter & S. Paul, meaning Ex Adone loc. cit. & lib. 3. c. 3. ex regione & Sigebert. [...] chron. Bland. Dec. 1. lib. 10. Magdeburg. cent. 8. c. 10. the Pope, and yet him selfe telleth vs (pag: 11.) that Pipin gaue vp the gouernement of Italie into the Popes hands. If Bellarmin must be cre­dited at leisure, for saying Pipin gaue to the Pope a smal parte of Italie, though he proue it by many witnesses, and Bel confesse it to [Page 64] be so apparant that it can not be denied. Surelie Bel p. 12. Bel not to be credited. him selfe must not be credited at al, for say­ing without al testimony, yea contrary to his owne testimony (pag: 13.) that he gaue Italie to the Pope. I omit a petit vntruth of his saying that Meroueus was the first christian King of France. So blinde he is that he Anual. Gall. Claude Pa­radin des Alliances Gnealogi­ques. Bel pag. 12. can not discerne the grand-father from the grand-childe, Meroueus from Clodoueus, a heathen from a christian.

11. The sixt steppe, Bel maketh the trans­lation of the Empire by Pope Leo 3. from the Greekes to the French, or Germans in the person of Charles the great, of this translation we haue spoken before, and it is rather a notorious act of the Popes supe­riority ouer Emperours, then a steppe thereunto. But because Sigebert in recoun­ting Sigeb. chro­nic. 801. it saith Romani animo desciuerant ab Impe­ratore Constantinopoli. Which Bel Englisheth pag. 13. reuolted from the Emperour, he inferreth diuers vntruths: first that Popes were subiect to 23 vntruth. Emperours 800. yeares after Christ. Secondly that the translation of the Empire implied flat trea­son 24 vntruth in the Pope, and Romans. Thirdlie that Sige­bert 25 vntruth. saith they surrendered the right of their soue­raigne to an othor.

12. To disproue the two first vntruths Bel dispro­ued by him selfe. I need no other witnes then Bel him selfe, who (pag: 8.) affirmed that from the yeare [Page 65] 471. vntil Carolus Magnus (which was 801.) Barbarians possessed al Italie. If from 471. vntil 801. Barbarians possessed al Italie, how Contradict. 7. Contradict. 8. were Popes 800. yeares vnder Emperours? how committed they treason against Em­perours, in making Carolus Emperour, if at that time, & aboue 300. yeares before, they were not vnder Emperours, but vnder Barbarians.

13. The truth is that Barbarians posses­sed Baron. in annal. Italie from the yeare 476. for more then 80. yeares, after which time the Gre­cian Emperour in the yeare 553. recouered al Italie, and albeit they lost shortly after in the yeare 568 a great part therof, yet they kept Rome vntil about the yeare 726. Onuph saith 731, when both Rome and Onuphr. in chron. Baron. in annal. Italie reuolted from Leo 3. Emperour of Constantinople for his heresie against I­mages, and would then haue chosen an o­ther Emperour against him, if Gregory the second then Pope had not disswaded them. Since which time Rome was neuer vnder the Emperours of Constantinople. And therefore neither were the Popes subiect to Emperours 800. yeares after Christ: nor did Pope Leo commit any treason against the Grecian Emperors, by creating Charles Emperour in the yeare 801. which was al­most a hundred yeares after the reuolt of [Page 66] Italy from the greekes. As for the third vn­truth it is euident, because Sigebert doth not cal the grecian Emperour soueraigne to to the Romans: And the word desciuerant signifieth any for saking or leauing of one, whether he be his soueraigne or no.

14. But Bel goeth on in erring the Pope Bel pag. 13. not to be true King of Italie, because wri­ters agree not about the Pope to whom, or time, when this regality was first graunted. Marke good reader, him selfe before affir­med that King Pipin gaue vp the gouernement pag. 12. 13. of Italie into Pope Steeuens hands and that this truth is apparant by the testemony of many re­nowmed Bel denieth vvhat him selfe saieth cannot be denied. Onuphr. in chron. Nauclerus general. 25. An. 750. Claudius Parad. des allian­ces Genealo­giques. Ado Regino Sigebert. in chron. Blond. Dec. 1 l. 10. Mag deburgens. cent. 8. c. 10. Leo Ostien. lib. 1. chron. c. 9. Onuph. sup. Cronographes, and can not be denied, and now in the next page denieth both the fact, and contestation of historiographers. What wil he not deny, who denieth that which him selfe saith can not be denied?

15. The truth is that Pipin gaue not the exarchate to Greg. 3 who died in the yeare 741 or as other write 740, fourteene yeares before Pipins entrance into Italie, neither was Pipin then a King, but made afterward by Zachary successor to Gregory as Bel te­stifieth page 19. but to Pope Steeuen 2. as is apparant (to vse Bels words) by the testi­mony of many renowmed Cronographers, though some cal him Steeuen 3. because they reckon his predecessour, whom others [Page 67] omit, because he liued but foure daies, like­wise al writers agree that Lewes pius con­firmed the donation of his grandfather Pi­pin Apud Gra­tian. dist. 63. can. ego Lu­douicus. Leo Ostien. lib. 3. chron. c. 48. vnto Paschal. 1. and his name is in the donation, as also that Countesse Maud gaue Liguria, and Tuscia vnto Gregory the seauenth.

16. And Bels prouing the historiographers Bel pag. 13. to disagree, because Blondus and Platina (saith he) write that Pipin gaue the exar­chate to Gregory the third, Regino referreth it to Steeuen, and Sigebert saith Pipin had Italy in his owne possession in the yeare 801. is like the rest of his proceedings. For that of Platina is a manifest vntruth, for he saith Platina in Stephan. 2. Naucler. ge­neral. 26. Palmerius in chronic. Claud. Para­di. in Pepin. paragr. 6. 7. 8. 9. Pipin gaue the exarchate in Pope Steeuen the second his time, and Sigebert meaneth not of King Pipin the giuer of the exarchate who died 768, but of his grandchild sonne to Carolus Magnus, and how his possession of Italy doth not preiudicate the Pope, is before explicated. Regino saith that which is truth, for best authors agree, that Pipin gaue the exarchate in the yeare 755. at What time Steeuen 2. al. 3. was Pope.

17. But suppose writers did not agree about the Pope to whome, and time, when Pipin made his guift of the exar­chate, must we therefore needs deny the guift in which they al agree? So wee [Page 68] might deny that Christ Was borne, be­cause writers agree not about the time: is it not vsual for historiographers to agree in the substance of the narration, and yet dif­fer in some circumstance of the person, or time?

18. Last of al least we should thinke the Grecian Emperors, acknowledged Charles made by the Pope to be true Emperour, Bel pag. 14. Sigebert. An. 805. he telleth vs out of Sigebert, that they had indignation against Charles, and therefore he with often Embassages procured their friendshipes: yea Blandus and Platina (saith he) affirme constantlie that Charles agreed with Irene, and afterward with Niccphoras, that with their fauors the might rule ouer the west. Behould the drift of Bel, to make vs thinke that Charles became Emperour, not by creation of the Pope, but by graunt of Grecian Em­perors: so loath he is to confesse the Pope had so great authority aboue 800. years agoe. Wherein the silly foole ouerthroweth what he before said. For if the Pope did not translate the Empire, then was it no steppe to his tiranny, as he imagineth.

19. But let vs heare how he proueth, that the Grecian Emperours did not ac­hnowledge Charles the great for true Em­perour, first forsooth because Sigebert saith, they had indignation against Charles; what then? [Page 69] are neuer Emperours offended for any thing lawfullie done, especiallie if they thinke it preiudice their estate & dignity? and albeit Sigebert affirme, that some Gre­cian Emperours (who them selues came vnlawfullie and by tiranny to the Empire, and that after Charles was crowned Em­perour) had indignation against Charles; yet none write that Irene (who was the only & lawful Empresse at that time, when Charles was created) was offended with his creation, but rather content, as may be gathered by hir purpose which (as Zonoras and Cedrenus write) she had to marry him, Yea Nauclerus saith, she was deposed for Naucler. ge­neral. 28. the fauor she bore to Charles, besides the indignation of those Emperours vz. Nice­phorus, Michael, and Leo, was not so much for the Imperial dignity taken by Charles, as because, as writeth Eginhart, Charles Eginhart in vita Caroli. his secretary, they greatlie suspected least he should take the Empire from them; which they might iustlie feare, because by tirany and deposition of their predecessors, they had gotten it, and yet notwithstanding their in­dignation, of their owne accord they sent Embassadours to Charles, and made league and friendshippe with him, as the same Eginhart, Ado, and others testifie. Yea the Magdeburgians adde, that the Grecians in a [Page 70] manner consented to Charles his Empire.

20. His other proofe out of Platina con­taineth an vntruth, for Platina writeth that Platina in Ieone 3. Charles being made Emperour, Irene sent Embassadours to make peace and league with him, & to deuide Italie betwixt them, which league Nicephorus renued: but he hath no word of Charles his ruling the west with their fouours, more then of their ru­ling the East with his. And the like saith Blondus. Blond. Dec. 2. l. 1. Bel pag. 14.

21. The seauenth steppe (saith Bel) was the constitution of the seauen Princes electors of the fu­ture Emperour by Pope Gregory 5. by the fauour and free graunt af Otho then Emperour. But this was rather an act of superiority in the Pope ouer Emperours, then a steppe vntil it. And seing this constitution hath euer since bene inuiolablie obserued, and the Emperours so elected accompted as true Emperours throughout al Christendome, a signe it is that Christians thinke the Pope hath au­thority to appoint Electors, who may choose what Emperour they please, by the authority giuen them from the Pope. Wher­fore I would Bel answered me this dilem­ma. The seauen Electors haue authority to choose an Emperour, or not? If they haue then the Pope who gaue them that autho­rity, had the same, because none can giue [Page 71] what he hath not him selfe; if not, Bel de­poseth at once more Emperours and Prin­ces, then al Popes haue done.

22. The eight and highest steppe of this ladder Bel pag. 15. (saith Bel) d [...]d reach vp euen to the highest hea­uen, and to the verie throne of our lord Iesus. here is a great cry! now let vs see quid dignum tanto fert hic promissor hiat [...] because (sai [...]h he) Extrauag. Bonif. 8. v­tiam san­ctam de ma­ioritate & obedientia▪ vntruth. they challenge the royal right of both swords throughout the Christian world, and haue made thereof a flat decree. But first I deny that the Pope, as Pope, challengeth royal right of either sword. For his right to the spiritual sword is not royal, but of a different na­ture, as is euident, & shal be declared here­after: and his royal right to the material sword, is neither ouer al christendome, as Bel vntruelie auoucheth, but only ouer the Popedome: nor he challendgeth it by his Papacie, yea (as Pope Gelasius wrote) Popes Gelasius de vincul. ana­thematis. & Nicol. 1. dec. 96. can. cum ad vetum. pag. 17. Bernard. lib. 4. de consi­deratione. haue not challendged royal soueraigntie, but by the guifte of Princes, who as Bel saith haue giuen their rights to them. And albeit the decree doe (after S. Bernard) giue to the Pope right of the material sword; yet nei­ther hath it the word royal, nor meaneth of Royal right, as is euident because it tea­cheth, that this sword is not to be drawne, or vsed by the Popes hand (as no doubt it might, if he had royal right vnto it) but [Page 72] by the hand of the souldier, at the com­maundement of the Emperour, and becke of the Pope. Whereby we see, that the de­cree attributeth royal right, of the material sword, only to the Emperour, who is to commaund the souldier to draw, and vse it, and to the Pope only authority to direct the Emperour in his commaund and vse of his sword.

23. But suppose that Popes did challenge royal right of both swords, throughout the christian world, is this to climbe to the highest heauen and to Christes throne? doth the christian world reach to the highest heauen? or yet to the bounds of the earth? doth Christes throne rule no more then the christian worlde? or doth royal authority vnder him, reach to his throne? surelie Bel hath a base conceipt of Christes kingdome, if he imagine that Popes, or Princes by their authorities, reach to his throne, who (as S. Paul saith) is aboue al powers and prince­domes, Ad Ephes. c. 1. v 21. Bel condem­neth that in the Pope for blasphemie, vvhich he iudgeth treason to deny to Princes. thrones and dominations, and aboue eue­rie name which is named, either in this world or in the next, but marke good reader, how Bel condemneth that for horrible blasphemie in the Pope, which him selfe accoumpteth as highe treason to deny to other Princes. For what is supremacie in both ecclesiasti­cal & ciuil causes, but (as he speaketh) royal [Page 73] right of both swords, and to deny this to temporal Princes, he deemeth no lesse then highe treason.

24. Secondlie he proueth his foresaid pag. 14. Dist. 22. can. omnes. slaunder out of Pope Nicholas 1. his words, Christ committed to S. Peter the right both of hea­uenlie and earthlie empire. which Bel seemeth to vnderstand of spiritual, and temporal power. Answer. Suppose the words were meant of spiritual & temporal power, they make nothing for royal right, but may be wel expounded according to the meanig of the foresaid decree. That S. Peter had from Christ right to both empires, vz. to gouer­ne the one, and to direct the other, but of royal right there is no word in P: Nicholas: Nicol. 1. ep. ad Michael. Imper. yea he prosesseth that Christ distinguished ecle­siastical and imperial power by distinct acts and dignities, that in spiritual matters the Emperour should need Bishops, & in tem­poral, Bishops vse Emperourrs. But indeed Pope Nicholas meaneth not of temporal power at al, but only of spiritual giuen to S. Peter, Which he calleth both earthlie and heauenlie dominion, because according to our Sauiours Words (Math: 16. to which he alludeth what he looseth in earth is loo­sed in heauen.

25. I omit a glose cited by Bel, because it Glossa F. C [...] ­lestis. only saith that the Pope hath both swords, [Page 74] vz, in the sense before explicated. But what he bringeth out of an obscure appendix of P. Boniface his making a constitution, Appendix Fulde [...]s. wherein he affimed him selfe to be spiri­tual and temporal Lorde in the whole worlde, is vntrue, as is euident by the con­stitution, and words before cited out of it. And Pope Clement 5. declared extrauag. Clemens 5. meruit Charissimi: de priuilegij [...]: that Pope Bo­niface his constitution did nothing preiu­dice the kingdome of France. But what the appendix saith of Boniface his sending to Phillip King of France to haue him ac­knowledge, he helde the kingdome of him, may wel be expounded by that Platina wri­teth Platin. in Bonifac. 8. vz. That Phillip hauing against the law of nations imprisoned a Bishop, whom Boniface sent vnto him to perswade him to make ware against Infidels, the Pope sent the Archedeacon of Narbo to procure the Bishops libertie, and othervvise to denounce, that the kingdome of France vvas fallen to the churches disposition, for the offence of the Kinge.

26. But let vs goe on with Bel. Since this [...]el pag. 16. ladder (saith he) was thus framed. Popes haue tiranized aboue measure, deposed Kings and Kingdomes, and taken vpon them authority, per­taining to God alone. Omitting Bels straunge phrase of deposing Kingdomes: if to de­pose Kings for neuer so iust cause be to [Page 75] tiranize, Protestants haue tiranized far more in the space of 70. years, then the Pope hath in these 300. years since that de­cree was made. For in al these 300. yeares, besids one or two Kings of Naples, who were his liege men, I finde deposed by the Hovv ma­ny deposed by Popes in 300. years. Clemens 5. extrauag. ad Certitudi­nem. Pope one Schismatical and heretical Em­perour of Greece Andronicus Paleologus, and one other doubtful Emperour Ludo­uick the Bauarian, two French Kings Phi­lip. 4. and Ludouick 12. and one King of Bemeland George, and one King of Na­uarre, besides King Henry 8. and Queene Elizabeth, and these al for heynous crimes. whereas Protestants in 70. years (setting Hovvmany by Prote­stants in 70. years. aside the iniustice of their quarrel) haue as much as laie them, deposed one Emperour, six or seauen Kings, & two absolute Quee­nes, slaine two Kings, one Queene, and one Queenes husband, as before hath bene tolde. c. 4. paragr. 6.

27. And Bel who so much obserueth Sacerdotes nunquam tyranni fue­runt, sed ty­rannos saepe sunt passi: Amb. ep. 33. the deposition of Emperours and Kings by the Pope, and omitteth both their iniuries to him, and his benefits done to them, she­weth him selfe to be no indifferent man. For omitting almost 33. Popes put to death by heathen Emperours, Christian Empe­rours, vid. Plati­nam in vit. Pont. Six Popes murdered. Princes, and others, haue murdered six Popes vz. Felix 2. Iohannes 11. Iohannes 15. [Page 76] Benedictus 6. Clement. 2. Victor 3. besides Gre­gory 2. and diuers other whome they haue attempted to murder. They haue banished foure vz. Liberius, Sieuerius, Vigilius, Martin I, Foure ba­nished. besides many others whom for feare of their liues they droue into banishment. they haue imprisoned six vz. Iohannes 1. 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 [Page 77] 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 [Page 78] 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 [Page 79] 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 [Page 80] 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 to haue celestial ar­bitremēt, what wil he say to S. Chrisostome Chrisosto. hom. 5. in il­lud Esaiae vidi Domi­num, & ho­mil. 4. item hom. 60. ad populum. (worthely in his own iudgment Sirnamed the gouldē mouthed doctor) auouching that the Priests throne is in heauen, that he hath authority to iudge of celestial busines, and that God hath put [Page 81] the verie Princes head vnder the hands of the priest, to teach vs that the priest is a Prince grea­ter then he. And in an other place affirmeth hom. 83. in Matth. Hom. 2. in 2. in Ti­moth. Gregor. lib. 4. epist. 31. S. Ciprian. lib. 3. epist. 9. noteth that the begin­ning of Schismes & Heresies is by con­tempt of Priests and Bishops. Themistius in l. consul. apud Socra­tem. l. 3. c. 25. Arian Bi­shops more for the pa­lace then for the Church. Hilar. l. cōt. Constant. a Deacon to haue greater power then an Emperour, and aduiseth vs that vvho dispiseth the Priest, at length falleth to contemne God. and S. Gregory writing to the Emperour him selfe saith priests are certaine Gods amongst men, and therefore to be honoured of al euen of Kings. But Bel in debasing priesthood, and too too much exalting Princes, sheweth him selfe to be a right Apostata from priest­hood, and a right heretike, who, as The­mistius said, honour not God but Princes. And thus much of Bels eight steppes.

32. Thus thou seest Christian reader that of these eight steps, which Bel imagined the Pope had to climbe to his superiority ouer Princes, two of them to wit the first and secōd were steps rather to fal, then to climbe by, three vz. the fourth, sixth, and sea­uenth, were euident acts of such authority alreadie enioyed, & acknowledged by Prin­ces, the third was but a recouery of his aun­tient libertie, the fieft is no more a step for the Pope to climbe, then temporal liuings are to other bishops. And the eight and last is a manifest vntruth. But the true step he Matth. 16. v. 18. Ioan. 21. v. 17. omitted, which is Christs promise to S. Pe­ter to build his Chruch vpon him. and his [Page 82] commission to feed his sheepe, by vertue whereof, al S. Peters successours challendge to be spiritual superiour to al that are in Christs church, or be his sheepe, be they Princes, or subiects, as is euident out of the Bonif 8. ex­trauag. vnā sanctam. de maioritate & obedien­tia. Sed epist. Ioan. 2. ad Iustinianum Imper. Gre­gor. lib. 1. e­pist. 24. Bel pag. 17. Bel slande­reth Prin­ces. foresaid decree of Boniface 8.

33. Bel hauing thus (as you haue heard) slandred Popes, thought not to let ether Kings, or Emperors passe free, but saith that some of them haue opened the windovv to al Antichristian tyrany. Greater iniury he could not do to Christian Princes, then to accuse them of such horrible impiety of opening the window not to some, but to al Anti­christian tirany. No maruel if he spare ne­ther Pope nor Priest, who thus handleth Princes? If one ask proofe of his slander, he bringeth none, but it suffizeth that he hath said it, his word alone is sufficient to condemne many Kings, & Emperors. This is the respect Protestants beare, euen to the greatest Monarches, when they are against their proceedings. So Luther said Princes for Luther. lib. de saecular. potest. edit. 1523. lib. cont. duo edicta Caesaris 1524. Lib. cont. Henric. Re­gem Angl. the most parte were ether the veriest fooles or ar­rantest knaues. And againe. The Turk is ten tymes better and wiser then the Emperor, and other Prin­ces whome he cals idiots doults, madde, furious, and frantik fooles, and namely King Henry 8. he reuileth with such shameful, such spit­ful, and scurrilous tearmes as I am ashamed [Page 83] to write. And amongst Protestants nothing more vsual then to cal Princes, Antichrists, and slaues of Antichrist.

34. Bel not yet satisfied with iniuring pag. 17. vntruthe 26. the Pope, addeth that he hath made it sacriledge to dispute of his povver, which is a manifest vntruth disproued by him selfe art: 2. p: 26 where he affirmeth that the Pope alloweth Bellarmins works, who at large disputeth of his power. And because Sigebert (whome Bel vntruly calleth the Popes deare fryer, vntruthe 27. Trithem. in Sigebert. for he was his vtter enemy, and to his power fauored the schismatical and Excom­municated Emperor Henry 3, in whose be­halfe he fained diuers things as Baron. pro­ueth Baronius. tom. 9. An. 774.) reprehendeth them, who taught the people that they owe no obediēce to euil Kings, Bel inueyeth against Catholiques. Whereas Catholiques vtterly Art. 15. dam­nat. in Con­cil. Constan­tien. defie such Doctrin, & condēned it lōg since in the Protestants great grandfather wiclife and haue learned of the first Pope S. Peter to be subiect in al feare, not onely to good and mo­dest 1. Pet. c. 2. v. 18. Cap. 3. parag, 4. 5. 6. maisters, but also to way ward. But Pro­testants teach that and worse Doctrin, as appeareth by what hath bene sayd before, and by Godman, who (as Couel writerh) published to the world, that it was lawful to kil Couel of Church go­uernment. c 4. p 35. vvicked Kings, and whitingham a deane of no smal account, in his preface before Godmans booke, of [Page 84] firmed it to be the doctrin of the best learned, mea­ning Protestants think it lavvful to kil euil Kings. Bel pag. 18. 28 vnttuth 29 vntruth 30 vntruth (as Couel thinketh) Caluin and the rest.

35. Finally because the end of this article should not be vnlike the beginning he con­cludeth it with three vntruthes as he began it, saying. That the Popish religion hath bene alwaies condemned of great learned Papists. If he had named the men, and points of religion, as he told the tyme, the three vntruthes wold haue appeared in their likenes. As I guesse he meaneth of the Popes power for deposing Princes, which I confesse some Papists haue denyed, but nether were they the greatest learned men, nor alwayes were there any such, nor hath he proued it to be a point of Popish religion; And thus much of Bels first Article. VVherfore remember (Bel) from whence thou art fallen and doe pen­nance. Apoc: 2.

CHAP. I. Bels reason against the Real Presence of Christ in the B. Sacrament answered, his vntruth and dissimulation therin discouered.

S. Paul prophetied. That in the 1. Timoth. 4. v. 1. last tymes some shal depart from the faith, attending to the spirits of errors and doctrin of diuils. Which pro­phecy is most manifestly fulfilled in these heretiks who impugne the Catholique do­ctrin [Page 86] of the B: Sacrament. For of Beren­garius Berengarius (first publike enemy of this Sacra­ment) Malmesburienses an English Chro­nicler Malmesbut. lib. 3. in Gui­lielmo 1. p. 114. of his tyme, writeth, that when he came to visit S. Fulbert B: of Charters lying on his death bed, the holy Bishop commanded him to be put forth, protesting that he did see a huge diuil standing by him, and corrupting many to follow him by his flattering hand and alluring breath.

2. Luther him selfe confesseth l. de Luther. Sainctes re­petit. de Eu­char. c. 10. Bellarm. l. 1. de Missa c. 5. Surius in comment. 1534. Genebrard. in chron. Erasm. cont. epist. non sobriam Lu­theri. Carolsta­dius. Zuinglius. Lindan. ep. dissuasor. p. 114. Occolam­padius. Brent. in Re­cognit. Iezlerus lib. de diuturn. belli eucha­rist. Missa Angul: to: 7: fol: 228. to haue dis­puted visibly with the diuil and bene per­swaded by him to abrogate Masse. And of this his conference with the diuil, besides others, Erasmus a ioly confesser in Fox his calender is a most sufficient witnes. To Ca­rolstadius a great frend at the first of Luther appeared a diuil as he was preaching as te­stifieth Erasmus Alberus. Zwinglius an eger enimy of the real presence testifieth of him selfe l. de subsid: Euchar: That about the Eucharist he was instructed of a spirit which (saith he I know not, whether it was black, or white. And Luther l. cit: writeth that he thinketh Occolampadius, & others to haue bene choked by the diuil. And the Luthe­rans cal the Zinglians diuilish heretiks, pos­sessed and obsessed of diuils and their opi­nions diabolical.

3. Finally Caluin, epist: ad Bucer. con­fesseth Caluin. that he had a familier, to which he Genium. imputeth his vaine of cursing. Thus we see the very Fathers of Protestantisme to haue bene haunted, and instructed of di­uils. Who therefore can doubt but their doctrin is the doctrin of diuils, and they, such as hauing departed from the Catholique faith, wherein they were chri­stend, and bred, did harken to the spirits of errors, and teach the doctrin, which they had learnd of the diuil appearinge in visible forme. Now let vs see how Bel like a good scholer defendeth his black maisters and oppugneth the Catholique, doctrin.

4. He begineth his second Article as he Bel pag. 19. did the first, with a syllogisme with dissi­mulation, and vntruth. Aquinas (saith he) 31. vntruth. Bellarm: the Councel of Trent, and the rest of the Conc. Trid. sess. 13 can 1. Aquinas 3. p. 76. art. 1. Bellarm. l 1. de Euchar. c. 2. Romish brood hold constantly, as an article of their Christian faith, that the true organical and natural body of Christ, which is localy in hauen, is also truly, and really vnder the forme af bred and wine in the sacrifice of the masse: but this (sait [...] he) is impossible, as which imply [...]th flat contradiction! ergo &c. I accept Bels confession of the Ca­tholiques constancy in their faith, which is Catholi­ques▪ con­stant in their faith. a vertue far from him selfe, who hath twise altered lis religion.

5. Bels dissimulation is euident, for he 3. dissimu­lation. could not be ignorant that Luther, and his Lutherish brood hold the real presence of Christs body, and blood in the Eucharist, no les then Catholiques, though otherwise then they doe. For Luther accurseth them Luther. in praefat. lib. Sueuarum. In postrema confes. fidei de caena Domini. Et thesti. 15. & 27. and accounteth them blasphemers, and damned foreuer, and in plaine teatmes de­fineth them to be heretiques and out of Gods church, who denie the body and bloud of Christ to be receaued with carnal mouth in the venerable Eucharist. This was Luthers sentence & iud­gemēt vpō them that deny the real presence, Ioan. Laua­therus. Ioan. Iecle­rus. which his brood defend with tooth and nayle, as is euident by their endlesse and mortal warres against the Zuinglians and Caluinists, whereof two Protestants haue written two bookes.

6. Bells want of fidelitie appeareth in this proposition whereof he maketh no doubt. For albeit al Catholiques beleue as a point of their faith, that Christs true and natural body and the very selfe same which in heauen is organical, is in the B: Sacra­ment: yet nether the Councel of Trent, S. Conc. Trid. sess. 13. can. 1. S. Thom. 3. p. q. 76. art. 1. Bellarm. lib. 1. de Euchar. c. 2. Thomas nor Bellarmin in the places quoted by Bel, affirme as a point (and much lesse as an Article) of their faith, that it is there or­ganical. For organization being an accident of the body depending of quantity, they [Page 89] hold no otherwise his organization, then they do his quantity to be in the Sacra­ment. The Councel onely defineth whole Christ, that is euery substantial part of him to be in the Eucharist, without any men­tion of his quātity or other accidents as ap­peareth by the words of the Canon. If any shal deny the body and blood together with the soul & Diuinity of our Lord Iesus Christ, and con­sequently whole Christ to be in the Eucharist &c. be he accursed. And in the same sense sayd S. Thom: 3 p: q. 76 ar: 1. that according to the Catholique faith whole Christ is in the Sacrament. And though art: 4. he teach that Christs quantity is also in the Sacra­ment, yet affirmeth he it not as a point of faith. In like sorte Bellarm: in the place which Bel citeth teacheth, and truly, that Christs quantity is in the Sacrament, but not with Bels addition, as a point of faith. And though l 3. de Euchar: c. 5. he cal it the common sentence of the Schooles and Church, yet condemneth he not the con­trary as heretical, but onely as false and er­roneous. And as for Durand accom Gabriel Durand. 4. d. 10. q. 2. Oc­cam 4. q. 4. & tract. de Eu­charist. c. 29. maior. q. 2. Gabr. art. 2. concl. 2. & lect. 43. in Can. Maior, and Satus also as Sainctes reporteth (whome Bel can not deny to be of the Ro­mish brood as he scornefully speaketh) they thought that Christs body had not his quā ­tity in the Sacrament and consequently [Page 90] must needs thinke that it was not there or­ganical. And to disproue Bel, Iuel in his apo­logie writeth, that some Papists affirme Christs quantity to be in the Eucharist, o­thers deny it. For some being perswaded in Philosophy, that quantity essentially requi­reth aptitudinal commensuration to place, so that if it be put in a place it must needs be coextended to the place, & thinking that they cold sufficiently verifie Christs words by teaching the substance of his body to be in the Sacrament denied his quantity to be there, saying that God supplieth the effest therof so far forth as is necessary for the sou­le to informe the body, as in al Deuines opi­nion, he supplieth the effect of coextension to place, which also is a natural disposition required to life and information of a body or matter. But other Deuines of greater learning and grauity (iudging it an incon­uenient thing to graunt Christs liuely body to want in the Sacrament his quantity and figure, and considering better of the nature of quantity, found that no commensuration to place was essential vnto it, but onely a natural propriety, and therefore separable by Gods power from it, as light is from the Sunne) taught that Christs hath his quan­tity in the Sacrament as a natural accident accompaning his body. And albeit this be [Page 91] a certaine truth and not onely the common opinion of Schooles but seemeth also to be the common sense of Catholiques, yet saith Suarez a learned author Tom: 3. in 3. part. Suarez disput: Si stec: 2. It is to hard a censure to con­demne the contrary of heresie. For (saith he) I find nether expresse definition nor irrefragable te­stimony of Scripture against it, nor yet any thing which can be conuinced out of reuealed principles, and al the reasons made against it, are deduced out of Philosophical Principles, true and certaine but not altogether euident. In like sorte Claudius de Sainctes repetit. 4. de Euchar: c. 4. testifieth Sainctes. that this matter is not clearly defined by the Church or Scripture. What shame therfore must it be to Bel to auouch that al Catholiks hold as a point of their faith that Christs body is organical in the Eucharist, and de­clining the principal question about the being of Christs body in the Sacrament (which is an vndoubted point of our faith, and against which his cheefe argument, which as he saith al the Papists in England can not answer taketh no hold) to impugne the being of Christs quantity in the Eu­charist.

7. Neuerthelesse because it is a thinge most true and most agreable to our faith. I willingly vndertake the defense therof. Let vs see therfore how Bel disproueth it. Forsooth [Page 92] because it implyeth contradictiō for a greater body as Christs is to be cōtained in a lesser as in a cake. pag 20. Reason the ground of Bels faithe. Behould the foundation of Bels faith, the best weapon of this stout challenger, the strong reason which al English Papists can Scripture. Matth 26. v. 26 28. Marc. 14. v. 22. 24. Luc. 22. v. 19. 20. 1. Cor. 11. v. 24. 25. not solue. We bring Christs expresse words auouching that what he gaue to his Apostle at his last supper was his body giuen, and his blood shed for remission of sinnes, which vndou­btedly he ment of his true body and blood. For he neuer gaue bred, nor shed wine for remission of sinnes. We obiect also his other words where he calleth his flesh truly meat and his blood drinke, as it were, preuenting Ioan. 6. v. 55. the figuratiue exposition of Caluinists. Be­sids the words of S. paul testifying, that who receaueth vnvvoorthily the B: Sacrament is guilty 1. Cor. 11. v. 29. (not of bread and wine il receaued) but of the body and blood of our Lord.

8. To these testimonies of holy writte Fathers. we adioyne the vniforme consent of Fa­thers, who not onely continually cal the Eucharist the body, and blood of Christ, and not once a bare figure, but withal some Damasc. l. 4. de fid. c. 14. 7. Synod. Act. 6. of them affirme that it is no bare figure, but the very body, and damne the contrary, as abho­minable and extreme madnes, contrary to tra­dition of Apostles, and Fathers, and against the Chrysosto. hom. de Eu­chat. in Eu­cenijs. Cyril. catech. 3. verity and propriety of Christs vvords. Others deny it to be bread albeit our taste so iudge. [Page 93] Others say that the nature of bread is changed, Nissen. orat. mag. catech. c. 37. Cipria. serm. de Cae­na. Cyril. A­lex. ad Calo­syr. Chrysosto. hom. cit. Damas. sup. August. lib. 2. cont. ad­ucrs. legis & Prophet. c. 9. tom. 6. Leo serm. 6. de ieiun. 7. mensis. Aug. serm. 1. in psalm. 33. tom. 8. Hilar. 8. de Trinitat. that bread changed in nature, not in shevv; is by the omnipotency of God made flesh: that bread and vvine are turned supernaturally into the ve­rity of Christs proper flesh. Others say vve eate Christs flesh and drink his blood vvith our mouthes, that vvhat we beleue with faith we receaue vvith mouth. Others auouch that Christ at his last sup­per carried him selfe secundum literā (that is truly & really) in his hands. Finally others say that as Christ is the true sonne of God, so is it true flesh & blood vvhich vve receaue and drinke. These kind of speeches and many other of the like sort can neuer be verified, vnles the real pre­sence of Christ in the B. Sacrament be de­fended.

9. Against al these irrefragable testimo­nies Quod intel­ligimus de­bemus ra­tioni quod credimus authoritati. Aug. l. de v­til. cred. c. 11. Heretiques shift to ex­pound scri­ture figura­tiuely. Ioan. 10. v. 30. Heretiks be figure slin­gers. 10. 1. v. 14. of Gods word, and holy Fathers, Bel opposeth humane reason, though he ex­pound them figuratiuely, because he dare not deny them in bare words which hath bene cuer the shift of heretiques. For so the Arrians being vrged with these words, I and the Father are one expounded them figu­ratiuely, because they durst not deny them, and their reason could not conceaue how two persons should be one nature. Likwise the Marcionits vnderstood those words. The vvord vvas made flesh figuratiuely be­cause by reason they could not vnderstand [Page 94] how two natures shold be in one person. And for the self same cause Bel and Prote­stants Tantum ritati ob­strepit ad ul­ter sensus quantum corrupt or stilus. Ter­tull. lib. de praescript. Scripture teacheth more plainly Christs real presence in the Sacra­ment then it doth his Godhead and huma­nity. S. Augustin. lib. 3. de do­ctrin. Chri­stian. cap. 10. tom. 3. Caluin. 4. in­stit. c. 17. pa­rag. 20. & 23. vnderstand these words, This is my body giuen for you, my blood shed for you in re­mission of sinns, figuratiuely. For these words doe as playnly teach the verity of Christs body and blood in the Eucharist, as those other teach the verity of his Godhead or hu­manity, yea more plainly, because in these words it is expressed what body, and blood is in the Eucharist, vz. that which was giuen for vs and shed in remission of sinnes, which kind of addition is not in those other words.

10. But as S. Austin saith If an opinion of error haue preoccupated the mind, vvhatsoeuer is othervvise affirmed in Scripture men vvil vnder­stand it figuratiuely. Hereupon Caluin said that the reuerence of Gods vvord vvas no suffi­cient pretence to reiect his reasons: And calleth it foolish stubbernes to contend vpon the vvords of Scripture, and them catchers of sillables, foolish, su­perstitious, vvho stick fast to Christ vvords. What is this good Reader but to make reason the rule of faith, and not to captiuare our vn­derstanding to Gods word, but to capti­uate it to our reason, and make it speake properly, or figuratiuely, according as rea­son Magdeburg. in praefat. centur. ad reginam E­lizabeth. can comprehend it. Truly therfore wrote the Magdeburgian Protestants of [Page 95] such as deny the real presence. VVith philo­sophical reasons they so make voyd the testament of God, that the body and blood of Christ concerning the presence and communication therof according to Christs owne most clere, most euidēt, & most po­vverful words, they wholie remoue, & with mar­uelous perplexity of words doe coulorably deceiue.

11. But to come to Bels reason. How proueth he it to be cōtradiction for a grea­ter S. Aug. l. 14. cont. Faust. c. 9. S. Ambros. l. de initiatis. c. 9. tom. 4. Ioan. 6. v. 52. Omnes hae­reticorum & Gentiliū quaestiones eaedem sunt quia non Scriptura­rum aucto­ritatem sed humanae ra­tionis sen­sum sequū ­tur. Hieron. in Oseae 7. S. Chrisost. hom. 60. ad populum & 83. in Matth. S. Ephren. lib. de natu­ra Dei mini­me scrutan­da. Chrisosto. sup. body to be conteyned in ales. Surely not at al, but as Pithagoras autos epha or as Fau­stus the Manichist who as S. Austin writeth sayd it, and avvay. Should not he want al reason, who for such a reason proposed without al proofe, should forsake Christs expresse words, and plaine testimonies of holy Fathers? Breefly I might answere with S. Ambrose. VVhat seekest thou the course of na­ture in Christs body, seing he vvas against natures order borne of a virgin, and admonish Bel of the faithles Capharnaits asking. Hovv can he giue his flesh to be eaten? For to what other end tendeth Bels reason then to aske. How can God giue vs his flesh? Let him harken to S. Chrisostome, S. Ephrem and others, aduising him not to be curious but faithful, not to trust to humain sense, and reason, which is oftētymes deceaued, but to Christs word. He hath said (writeth S. Chrisostome) This is my body, let vs haue no doubt, albeit it seeme [Page 96] absurd to our sense, and reason, which he sayth▪ let his vvord in al matters, but espetially in the Sacraments ouercome our sense, and reason, vvhich is oftentymes deceiued, as Bels is here.

12. For albeit it be contradiction for a Hovv it is contradi­ction for a greater bo­dy to be in a les, and hovv not. greater body occupying a place proportio­nate to it greatnes, to be contayned in a les (for so it should be both contayned, and not conteyned in the les:) yet no con­tradiction at al it is for a greater body retay­ning it greatnes, to be so coarcted by Gods omnipotency, as it fil a place far les, then is naturaly due, or proportionate to it great­nes. For in this case it followeth not, that it shold both be contayned, & not contay­ned in the lesser body (as in the former case) but contayned onely. And thus we say hath Christ disposed of his body in the sacramēt. And that God cā thus dispose of bodies, we Proofs that God can put a grea­ter body in a lesser. S. Beda in Lucam. S. August. de haeres c 82. tom. 6. Ambr. ep. 81. Leo ser. 1. & 2. de natiu. Nissen. ser. de occursu Domini. Damasc. l. 4. de fid. c. 14. doe not onely barely affirme, as Bel doth the contrary, but can proue by many waies.

13. First because Christs body in his nati­uity opened not his virgin mothers womb. Ergo then it occupied not a roome naturally proportionat to the greatnes. The conse­quence is euident. The Antecedent I proue, because it is a point of the Catholique faith as testify S. Bede and S. Austin, and appea­reth by vniuersal consent of al Fathers as S. Ambrose: S. Leo: S. Nissen, S. Damascen: [Page 97] and others, and professed in our Creed, that Christ was borne of a virgin, which vn­doubtedly Ideo clausa quia virgo. Ambr. de in­stit. virg. c. 7. August. sup. & l. 1. cont. Iul. c. 2. to. 7. Iouinian sayd Christs body shold be a phan­tasme if our lady had remayned a virgin in her trauail. Aug. cont. Iul. cit. Hieron. in Ezechiel. 44. Ambros. lib. de instit. vir­ginis c. 7. Aug. serm. 18. de tem­pore. is ment of a perfect virgin, as wel in body, as mind. And the contrary was the heresie of Iouinian, who (as S. Au­stin writeth) affirmed that our Ladies vir­ginity was lost pariendo by child bearing, which he could not otherwise vnderstand then by the Childs opening her womb, be­cause virginity can not be otherwaies lost pariendo by child bearing, and sure it is she lost not virginity by conceauing.

14. Moreouer holy Fathers proue this truth out of that prophecy of Ezechiel 44. v. 2. of a gate shut and not opened by vvhich the Lord alone should passe vnderstanding by this shut and vnopened gate the virginal womb of our B: Ladie. And Albeit some Fathers vse the word of opening the womb in their speech of our Ladies child birth, yet they meane not properly, but vse the name of the effect for the natural cause therof. For because children naturally do open their mothers wombs, both Scripture, and Fa­thers do sometymes cal child bearing ope­ning the womb, and barennes shutting the womb. Of Scripture this is euident out of Gen: 20: 29: 30. & 1. reg: 1. of Fathers it is manifest by S. Hierome who though he S. Hierom. dial. 2. cont. Pelagian. say Christ opened the gate of the virgins [Page 98] womb, yet he addeth that it continually re­mayned shut, wherby he explicateth how before he took the opening vz. of Child bearing without any proper opening, for otherwise the womb could not remayne stil shut.

15. Neuertheles Protestants, because it maketh for the Catholique Doctrin of the B: Sacrament, deny the Antecedent, and Willet proueth their denyal, because as S. VVillet cont. 13. p. 453. S. Luc. 2. v. 23. Luke saith, Christ vvas presented in the temple according to the lavv. Euery male opening the matrice shalbe holy to the Lord. But by the like reason he might proue that Christ was con­ceiued by mans seed, because S. Luke in the same chapter writeth that our Lady was purifyed according to Moises law, which was as we read leu: 12. of a vvoman which hauing receaued seed had borne a male child. The answere to both places is the same. Because naturally women conceiue by receauing seed, & children are borne by opening their wombs, therfore the law vsed these termes. But as the one law affirmed not, that no woman could conceiue without receauing seed, so nether the other, that no child could be borne without opening his mothers womb. And as willets heresy made him to open our Ladies wōb, so his cōscience made him to shut it againe. For why should he [Page 99] teach that it was shut after her deliuery, if he did not thinke the opening did preiudice her virginity? The like proofe might be drawne out of Christs entring to his Apo­stles See S. Hila­rie lib. cont. Constant. prope finē. the dores being shut saith S. Luke, and of his issuing out of the sepulchar before the Angel had remoued the stone.

16. Secondly God can by his omnipo­tency bring a Camel through a needles eye as wel as a rich man into heauen: but he can bring a rich man to heauen keeping his riches, Ergo a Camel keeping his greatnes through a needles eye. The Proposition is euident out of our Sauiours words Math▪ 19. v. 24. 26. The Assumption is manifest and approued by S. Austin epist. 89. quaest. S. Augustin. tom. 2. 4. And the same S. Austin lib. de spir. & lit. c. 1. and Nazian. Orat. 36. affirme that it is S. Gregor. Nazianz. possible for God to draw a Camel through a needles eye. Thirdly God made the for­nace Daniel. 3. of Babilon, though neuer so hote, not to heate, yea to refresh the three children, why then can he not make a great body to occupy but a smale roome? For to occupy place is an effect and accident of quantity, as to heate is of heate. Moreouer nature by condensation doth make a body to occupy lesse roome then is due vnto it, as appeareth in the freesing of water, and this it doth with out destroying any quantity therof, [Page 100] as many excellent Philosophers euen by na­tural reason do gather. And can not God work the like effect without condensation by some other supernatural meanes? Finally Bel teacheth that euery sinne of it nature Bel art. 6. p. 81. excludeth grace, and yet God of his power maketh some sinne to stād with grace: why then can he not make quantity to exclude no body out of the place, though of it na­ture it should so doe. And thus much tou­ching Bels reason. Now let vs see his au­thorities.

CHAP. II. The Authorities alledged by Bel against the Real Presence ansvvered.

AFTER the forsaid reason he alledgeth Bel pag. 20. some few authorities. The first is of Caietan who affirmed as Angles (saith he) re­porteth. That ther is no text that conuinceth the Rea­der to vnderstand these words. This is my body pro­perly. But Bel greatly wrongeth both Caie­tan and Angles, in changing the word He­retik into Reader. For Angles in 4. q. 4. attri­buteth that opinion to Caietan onely con­cerning Heretiks, and addeth q. 5. that he see­meth to haue recalled it. But how conuincent Luther. ep. ad Argenti­nenses. vid. Bellarm. lib. 1. de Euch. c. 1. the Scripture is in this point let Bel learne of Luther writing. That he vvas willing to deny the real presence and endeuored vvithal his [Page 101] povver, but could not satisfy the Scripture.

2. But suppose Caietan had said as Bel al­ledgeth. what then? Doth he therfore deny the real presence, or think those words not to be vnderstood properly? no surely? yea he plainly auoucheth both. Or doth Bel think that euety point of faith is so euidētly delyuered in Scripture, as the very words suffice to cōuince any reader though neuer so obstinate? why then are not al heretiks cōuerted by reading Scripture? yea why ad­mytteth Bel p. 134. 135. he a tradition which is not at al in Scripture? If not, why inferreth he the Scri­pture not to teach the real presence if it teach it not clearly?

3. The second is S. Tho: Aquinas whoe S. Thom. 4. d. 10. q. 1. art. 1. Bel p. 20. (saith he) affirmeth constantly. Corpus Christi non esse in pluribus locis simul, secundum proprias dimensiones, that Christs body is not in many places at once, according to the proper dimensions therof. Whose assertion (saith Bel) is my flat posi­tion. But Bel herein 1. contradicteth him Contradict. 9. vntruth 32. selfe 2. belyeth S. Thomas 3. vnderstandeth him not. He contradicteth him selfe, for before he said Aquinas held constantly as an article of the Christian faith, that the true body of Christ is truly and really in the Sacrifice of the Masse: & now he saith that he affirmeth constantly an assertion which is Bels flat position to the contrary. How [Page 102] can Aquinas hold constantly two contra­dictory points? He belyeth Aquinas, for he is so far from maintayning Bels position, as in the very place which Bel citeth, his conclusion is this. Vnder the Sacrament of the altar, is contayned the true body of Christ which he tooke of the virgin, and to say the contrary is heresie. Lastly he vnderstandeth not Aquinas. Bel vnder­standeth not Aqui­nas. For he thinketh that Aquinas by the for­said words meaneth, that Christs body can not be in many places at once with his pro­per dimensions, & therupon inferreth, that Aquinas thinketh Christs body can not be in many places at once, because (saith Bel) it can not be without those dimensions which na­turally pertayne vnto it. But (to omit Bels im­pious assertion, that God can not keep a body without his natural appurtenances) Aquinas meaning is playne and euident vz. That the total cause of Christs body being in two places at once, is not his owne dimē ­sions alone, but they together with the di­mensions of the body conuerted into his body. For he thinketh Christs owne di­mensions to be the cause of his being in that place where he is naturally, and the di­mensions of the body which is transubstan­tiated, the cause of his being, where he is Sacramentally. Which opinion of his, about the cause of Christs being in many places, [Page 103] maketh nothing to this purpose.

4. Thirdly he citeth Durand whom he Bel p. 20. Contradict. 10. vntruth 33. p. 34. saith holdeth the very same opinion. But in this also he both contradicteth him selfe, & belyeth Durand. For in the fourth mem­ber of this article, he telleth vs, that Durand holdeth the forme of bread to be changed vz. into the body of Christ. True it is that Durand (as before I cited) thinketh the quantity of Christs body not to be in the Eucharist, yet neuertheles most constantly, he both affirmeth and proueth the substance of his body to be there.

5▪ Fourthly he alledgeth S. Austin wri­ting. pag. 20. S. Aug. epist. 57. ad Dar­danum. De conse­crat. dist. 2. con. Prima quidem. lib. 20. cont. Faustum. c. it. tom. 6. That Christ as man is in aliquo loco Coeli prop­ter veri corporis modum: in some place of heauen for the manner of a true body. Again. His body must be in one place Item. He can not be at once in the Sun Moone and on the crosse according to corpo­ral presence. But in al these places he speaketh of the natural manner of bodies being in place, as appeareth both by those words (propter veri corporis modum) and because he disputeth against the Manichists, who Ex August. epist. cit. douted (as the Protestant vbiquists doe now) that because Christs body was vnited to his Godhead, it therby became euery where as God is, which (saith S. Austin) Ibid. is to destroy the nature of a true body, nether fol­lovveth it (saith he) that vvhat is in God be [Page 104] euery vvhere as God is.

6. But that Christs body being naturally in one place, might be Sacramentally in an other S. Austin neuer doubted, yea expresly S. Augustin. tom. 8. affirmeth ser: 1. in psal: 33. where, he saith. That Christ at his last supper carried him selfe in his ovvn hands secundum literam (that is truly and properly) and as no other man can carry him selfe. And lib: de cur: pro: mort. c. 16. He S. Augustin. com. 4. doubteth whether Martyrs be at once in different places which argueth that he thought they could be. And S. Chrisostom S. Chrisost. com. 4. hom: 17. in epist: ad hebr: In many places is offered not many Christs, but the same Christ euery vvhere, here and there vvhole, one body not many bodyes. And thus much of Bels first member of this article against the real presence. Now let vs proceed to the second against the Masse.

CHAP. III. The Masse proued, Bels argument against it answered and his manifold vntru­thes therin disproued.

S. Ignatius epist. ad Smyrnen. writeth S. Ignatius apud Theo­dorerum. dialog. 3. of old heretiks. That they admit not obla­tion and Eucharist, because they confesse not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Sauiour which suffered for our sins. And therfore no maruel if Bel hauing in the former member im­pugned [Page 105] the real presence, do in this inueigh against the oblatiō or sacrifice of the Masse, where, according to Christs owne action and institution, his body and blood vnder the formes of bread and wine, are offered vnto almighty God. That Christ at his last Christ offe­red sacrifi­ce at his last supper. supper made an oblation to God is proued many waies.

2. First because he did then giue his 1 body vnto some, for his Apostles: But to no other then to God. Ergo to him he then offered his body. The proposition I proue, because he sayd not this is my body which is giuen to you, but for you, and al the Greek and English Bibles haue in the pre­sent tense which is giuen, which is shed. Ther­fore then did he giue his body, and shed his blood to some person for his Apostles, though soone after he gaue, and shed them after an other manner on the Crosse. Se­condly because in S. Luke it is sayd of 2 the Cup that is was powered out for remis­sion Luc. 22. v. 19. 20. of sins: but at the passion there was no Cup powred out. Ergo at supper the Cup was powred out for remission of sins. The proposition is out of the Greeke text, wher the word powred out agreeth with the Cup, and with none els touto to poterion en to aimati mou to ecchunomenon. The assumption is playne for ther was no Cup at the passion. [Page 106] Thirdly at the same tyme when Christs 3 body was broken, it was giuen, and his blood shed for remission of sins 1. Cor. 11. v. 24. But it was in no sort broken on the Crosse as appeareth by S. Ihon. 19. v. 36. and in some sorte broken at the supper, be­cause it was really vnder the forme of bread which was broken, therfore then his body was giuen for remission of sins.

3. Many things more might haue bene said in defence of Masse which are largely, and learnedly handled by Bellarm. in his 2. booke de Missa to. 2. and somthing shalbe added hereafter as breuity wil permit, and occasion shal serue. Onely here because the Denial of Masse pro­per doctrin of deuils. Luther. l. de Missa angul. to. 7. fol. 228. Sainctes re­petit. 1. de Eucharist. c. 10. Bellarm. l. 1. de Missa c. 5. Surius com­ment. 1534. 1517. Genebrard. in chron. See Erasmus cont. epist. nō sobriam Lutheri. Reader may perceiue from what spirit the hatred of Masse proceedeth I aduertise him that Luther writeth of him self, that he had said Masse 15. yeares togither thinking it had bene a holy thing, vntil on a time Sa­than appearing visibly vnto him, and dis­puting with him against Masse, perswaded him to detest it. From this spirit proceeded first the hatred of Masse, and this confes­sion God wold Luther shold him self make, and publish in print, that al Christians who had any care of their souls, shold detest such doctrin, which the cheefe precher therof professeth he learnt of the diuel, & highly re­uerēce that which the diuel so much hateth.

4. On the other syd S. Iames his Masse S. Iames Masse. is yet extant, and Iewel in his sermon at Pauls Crosse 1560. confessed that the Masse Rastal in confutat. p. 156. had Ch [...]ists institution. Which is breefly to confesse that Masse was instituted by Christ and the Apostles, and that our Masse is good, which in substance is al one with that of S. Iames. Likwise the Masses of S. Basil and S. Chrisostome are yet extant and S. Basil and S. Chrisost. Masse S Ambros Masse. S. Ambros. l. 5. epist. 33. at this day vsed of the Grecians, as the Masse of S. Ambros is vsed in Milan where he was Bishop, and of him self he writeth thus. I abode in my function and began to say Masse. S. Austins vse and reuerence of Masse ap­peareth by his words serm. 91. de temp. In S. Augustin. tom. 10. the lesson vvhich shalbe read to vs at Masse &c. and by his complaint ser: 251 of some that compelled the Priest to shorten the Masse and by his testimony of a miracle wrought, by offering the Sacrifice of Christs body l. 22. de ciuit: c: 8: which Sacrifice saith he con: 1. in psal: 33. 17. de ciuit: c. 5 & li: de fid: ad Pet: is frequented in al the world.

5. S. Gregories deuotion to Masse, him S. Gregory. selfe testifyeth in these words we euery day say Masse in veneration of Martyrs. l. 7. epist: 29. Councels. Indict 1: And to omit the Councels of Ephesus, Agatha, Mileuit, & others, which Tom. 1. Conciliorum. S. Beda lib. 1. histor. 23. 25. & 26. approue Masse; it may suffice for English­men that certaine it is that S. Austin who [Page 108] first cōuerted our English nation to Christs faith, both said Masse and wrought mira­cles in confirmation of that faith & seruice of God which he preached. And in honor of Masse haue our Ancestors named diuers England nameth the feasts of the yeear of Masse. principal feasts of the year as Christ-masse Candle-masse Michael-masse Martin-masse, builded Churches, erected aultars, founded Monasteries, and endued Bishopricks and benefices, and liued and dyed in vse and honor of Masse. And not onely they, but al the Christian world as Grecians Arme­nians, Protestants cōfesse that al Chri­stians vse Masse. Chytreus o­rat. de statu Ecclesiae in Graetia. Clauin. l. 4. c. 18. & pa­rag. 1. & 11. Lindan. ep. dissuasoria. p. 108. Ethiopians, Moronits, Syrians, Rus­sets & others, as testifyeth Chytreus a Pro­testant. And Caluin confesseth that the whole world beleued Masse to be a propi­tiatory Sacrifice, & that in this the Fathers are against him. And who is so careles of his saluation as to forsake the Fathers toge­ther with the whole world, and follow one lewd Minister condemned of buggery, as the authentical processe yet extant in Noioun doth record.

6. Now then let vs heare Bels or rather Bel p. 22. the diuels arguments against Masse. The A­postle (saith he) telleth vs that Christ rising from vntruthe 34. the dead dieth no more: The Papists tel vs that Christ dieth euery day, nay a thousand tymes aday in the daily Sacrifice of their Masse. But better might we say that Bels tale of the Papists, [Page 109] 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. d [...] 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 [Page 110] 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 shalbe 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, [Page 111] 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 [Page 112] general axiom in the Popish Church which she condemneth as heresic in these words. Accursed be he who shal deny that whole Christ is [...]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. [...]. 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 Coūcel 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 incōuenience 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 absurdity is it more, then for a body to be in twoe places? for that being once done, one may carry him self as wel as an other. As the soule because it is in al parts of the body, as it is in the legges carrieth it selfe as it is in the body. The second absurdity is that Christ at his last supper was both liuing and dead. But this fol­loweth not, for he was a liue in the Sacra­ment, though there he shewed no acts of life, and as long as he is a liue according to his natural being, he is neuer dead in the sacrament, because his sacramental being is a memorial of his natural being represen­ting, and depending of it.

2. The third absurdity is that Christ was [Page 114] both visible and inuisible. Nether doth this follow. For though he were inuisible in the Sacrament, yet it is not true to say absolu­tely, he was inuisible, because he was there visible in his proper forme. But that he was visible in his proper forme, and inuisible in Math. 29. Mar. 16. Luc. 20. Ioan. 20. 21. the sacrament, is no more absurd, then that after his resurrection he was visible to the Apostles, and inuisible to the Iewes, vi­sible to S. Paul, and not to his Companions Act. 9. v. 7. Willet saith that S. Paul did see VVillet Cō ­trou. 4. q. 3. p. 11 [...]. no man. But we wil rather beleue Ananias saying that Christ appeared to him in the way. Act. 9. v. 17. The fourth absurdity is, that Christ was at his supper long and short, broad and narrow, light and heauy. But rather these fol­low, for what length bredth or weight Christ had in his proper forme, the same he had in the sacrament, albeit it had not there the like effects of filling roome, or weighing; as nether he had when he was Math. 14. Marc. 6. Ioan. 6. borne, and walked vpon the Sea.

3. The fift is, that Christ was a sacrifice for our sins before he dyed for vs. This which Bel condemneth of impiety, we haue before proued it out of Scripture to be certayne verity, & for such the holy Fathers auouch it, let Bel heare one or twoe for al. S. Gre­gory Nissen. orat. 1. de Resurrect. Christ of­fereth S. Gregor. Nissen. him self an oblation and hoste for vs being [Page 115] both the Priest, and the lamb of God. VVhen was this? when he gaue his body to be eaten and his blood to be drunk to his disciples. For it is manifest to euery one, that man can not eate of a sheepe vnles slaughtering goe before eating. Seing therfore he gaue his disciples his body to be eaten, he euidently shewed that the sacrifizing was already perfect, and absolute. S. Chrisostome also hom. de S. Chryso­stom. proditione Iudae. tom. 3. saith. On that table was celebrated both Paschaes of the figure, and of the verity. Againe Iudas was present, and parta­ked of that sacrifice. And the Fathers are so playne for this matter, as Kemnitius con­fesseth Kemnitius. they vsually say that Christs body and blood was at this supper a sacrifice, an oblation, an hoste and victime, and he could not escape their authorities, but by casting of a figure.

4. The Sixt and last absurdity or im­pietie which Bel inferreth is that al Christs sacrifice at his supper was imperfect, or at his pas­sion needles. But nether this followeth. For Christs sacrifice at his supper was a most perfect vnbloodly sacrifice according to the order of Melchisedech, and yet his sa­crifice on the crosse was needful, as the pe­culier price which God exacted at his han­des, for the redemption of the world, that Hebr. 2. v. 15. as the apostle saith, by death he might de­stroy him, who had the Empier of death. For albeit not only Christs whole body and [Page 116] blood in the Eucharist, but euen the least drop of his blood, had been a sufficient sa­crifice to redeeme the whole world: neuer­theles God, partly to shew his great hatred towards sinne (wherof Christ bore the pu­nishment: partly to manifest his infinite loue towards man kinde, for whose salua­tion he would not spare the life of his only sonne: partly for many other causes, exa­cted of Christ the superaboundant price, and ransome of his bloody sacrifice on the crosse. But let vs heare how Bel disproueth this.

5. He citeth fowre places out of S. Paule Heb 9. and 10. to proue that one oblation of the crosse was sufficient to take away al sinns in the world, and that by it once made we are made holy, and after it once donne Christ sitteth at the right hand of God. But what is this to the purpose. For we affirme not Christ to haue offered sacrifice at his last supper, because his sacrifice on the Crosse was not sufficient, or we not made holy by it: but because the scripture and fathers teach so, and Christ therby execu­ted the function of his priesthood, accor­dinge to the order of Melchisedech, and applyed vnto his apostles the vertue of his bloody sacrifice, as he applyeth it vnto vs by the dayly sacrifice of the Masse: and [Page 117] did not make perfect and consummate his bloody sacrifice, as Bel falsly chardgeth vs to thinke. As Bellarmin (whom onely I cite because Bel accounteth his testimony most sufficient) sheweth at lardge lib. 1. de Missa cap. 25. Wher also he answereth Bels arguments. But he should do wel to obiect the aforesaid wordes of S. Paul against Cal­uin blaspheminge lib. 1. instit. 16. num. 8. & 10. That nothinge had been done for vs if Christ Caluin. 2. in­stit. c. 16. pa­ragr. 10. had only suffered corporal death, but we needed a greater, and more excellent price. For this is plainly to say, that the oblation of Christs body once was not sufficient, nor that Christ perfected al by one oblation, which is expresly against S. Paule Hebr. 10. v. 10. Hebr. 12. 14. And thus much for Bels second argu­ment against the Masse.

6. The third is this, The Eucharist is a testa­ment. Bel p. 24. ergo either no sacrifice at al, or of no valew before the testators death because S. Paule Hebr. 9. Hebr. v. 17. denieth a testament to be of force before the testators death. Answer. The Antecedent we grant with S. Luke 22. v. 20. though Bel him selfe deny it soone after. The conse­quence we deny? for as the blood of calues, wher with the old testament was confir­med, was both the peoples sacrifice to God and his testament to them as appeareth Heb. 9. 20. and Exod. 24. v. 8. so Christs [Page 118] blood at his supper was both his sacrifice to his father, and his testament to his apostles: And as a sacrifice it tooke effecte imme­diatly, because a sacrifice is an absolute gifte made to God, dependinge of no condition to come: as the sacrifice of Abel and Noe Gen. 4. & 8. pleased god immediatly. But as a testament it was not of force, til (as S. Paule saith) it Hebr. 9. v. 17. was confirmed by death; because a testa­ment is a deed of gift, not absolute, but vpō condition that the giuers death ensue.

7. Bel hauinge (as you haue heard) labo­red to proue the Eucharist to be no sacri­fice, 11. Contra­dict. because it is a testament, strayght after inferreth thervpon, that it is not really Christs blood, because it is not really a te­stament. Bel pag. 25. For (saith he) as Christ sayd in S. Ma­thevv. Math. 26. v. 28. Luc. 22. v. 30. This is my blood of the nevv testament: so he said in S. Luke this cup is the nevv testament in my blood: But it is not really the nevv testament, be­cause remission of sinnes is referred to sheddinge of his blood, which was on the crosse, not at supper, Ansvver: The proposition I grante, & deny the assumption: for not onely the last wil of the testator, but euen the authentical eui­dence thereof is properly called a testa­ment. So we cal the Bible the testament, and Circumcision is called a testament, Ec­clesiast. 44. v. 21. and a couenant Gen. 17. And Christs blood is the authentical eui­dence [Page 119] of his last wil, or els he made none.

8. And Bels reason maketh quite against Bel reaso­neth a­gainst him self. him selfe. For Christs blood was shed at his supper for remission of sinns, as we pro­ued before, and him selfe testifieth sayinge then in the present tense, vvhich is shed for re­mission of sinns, as the Euangelists both in Greeke and English bibles testifie. But be­cause it was not shed or powred out then in a bloody manner, and proper forme, Bel Hovv Christs blood vvas povvred out at the last supper. wil not verefie Christs words in that tense wherin he spake them, not conside­ringe that euen then Christs blood being in a chalice in forme of wine, was in that forme powred out into the mouths of the Apostles for remission of their sinns; and Exod. 24. v. 8. Hebr. 9. v. 20 his testament therby made, as the old was by the sprinkling of Calues blood vpon the Iewes: though the ratifying and confirma­tion therof, was afterward by his death.

9 B [...]ls fourth argument is out of S. Paul Bel pag. 25. Heb. 10. v. 18. ouc eti prosphora peri hamartias. There is not hence forth an oblatiō for sinne, Some Catholiques answer that the Apostle mea­neth an other oblation in substance, as the oblations of the Iewes were, who offered dayly different beastes, and the oblation of the Masse is in substance al one with the oblatiō of the Crosse. This Bel impugneth, because then the Masse sacrifice should be of infinit [Page 120] valevv, vvhich no Papist dare auouch. Here is an vntruth 36. vntruth for many learned Papists auouch it, as Caietan, Siluester, Canus, Ruard, So­to: Caiet. 3. part. q. 79. art. 5. Siluest. ver­bo Missa. q. 9. Can. 12. de locis. c. 13. ad 10. Ruard. art. 16. parag. 2. Soto 4. d. 14. q. 2. art. 2. S. Thom. 4. d. 45. q. 2. a. 4. Scot. quodl. 20. Gabriel lect. 26. in Con. Bellarm. l. 2. de Missa c. 4. Scholastici 4. d. 45. and others, though they grant the ef­fect therof to be finit, as the passion, and intercession of Christ are of infinit valewe, though the effect they worke be but finit, because fevv are saued. But others as Tho­mas, Scotius, Gabriel, Bellarmin: and de­uines commonly deny Bels illation, for though the hoste offered in Masse be of in­finit valew, yet the offeringe of it by men, is of finit valew. Because al mens actions haue that valew which God by his grace giueth to them, which is but sinit. And Bel by the widdowes offeringe Luc. 21. might know that the valew of the offering is not alwayes correspondent to the valew of the thing offered. For rich mens gif­tes exceeded her 2. mytes, and yet their offering was inferior to hers. And much more inferior is mens offerings to the offe­ring of Christ, though they offer the selfe some hoste.

10. But in deed the Apostle in the place cited by Bel, doth not so much deny an other oblation in substance, as an other ful and perfect partakinge of Christs oblation, teaching the Hebrues (as he had done be­fore and as agayne in this Chapter v. 26.) [Page 121] that if after they haue bene baptized they returne agayne to the old lawe and Aposta­tate from Christ, they cannot haue the like aboundant remission of sinns applyed to them as was in baptisme. And this he ment by those words, vvhere there is remission of those (sinns) novv ther is not an oblation for sinne, which he vttereth more playnely v. 26. If vve sinn vvillingly after the knovvledg of the truth receaued, novv ther is not left an hoste for sinns, but a certaine terrible expectation of iudgment. Be­cause God hauinge once pardoned by ba­ptisme both offence and punishment, af­terward vseth not the like mercy, but pu­nisheth sinne.

11. After this Bel turneth to his old cu­stome Bel pag. 26. of iniuringe his Mayster Bellarmin, charginge him with denial of the Masse to be truely and properly propitiatory, because Bellarm. l. 2. de Missa c. 4. he saith, that Christ being novv immortal can neither merit nor satisfie. Wheras Bellarmin cap. 2. spendeth one whole chapter of that booke to proue Masse to be a propitiatory sacri­fice. And strayght after those wordes which Bel cyteth aproueth Masse to be a satisfactory cap. 4. cit. sacrifice, because by it, Christs passion accordinge to his institution, is applyed to take away the temporal paynes of the liue and dead. And by the wordes which Bel citeth, onely meaneth that Masse is not properly propitiatory as it procee­deth [Page 122] from any acte which Christ now hath, because now he can neither merit nor sa­tisfy. Wherefore falsly Bel doth accuse. Papists that with them Masse is one while a pro­pitiatory sacrifice and an other while not. For the Tridentin Councel whom they al fol­lowe, Conc. Trid. sess. 22. c. 2. & can. 3. Bellarm. c. 2. cit. hath defined it to be truely a propitia­tory sacrifice. And Bellarmin proueth it at lardge out of Scripture, Fathers, and Coun­cells. See Origen hom. 13. in Leuitt. S. Chri­sostom. Origen. to. 1. S. Chrysost. tom. 5. & tom. 3. S. Augustin. tom. 4. Bel pag. 26. lib. 6. de sacerd. & hom. de prodit. Iudae S. Austin q. 57. in Leuit. S. Beda lib. 4. Hist Chap. 22.

12. His fift and last argument against Masse is taken out of the decree & glosse de consecrat D. 2. Can. Hoc est thus translated by Bel. As therefore the heauenly bread, which is the flesh of Christ, is after it manner cald the body of Christ, when in deed it is the Sacrament of Christs body, of that body which is visible, vvhich is palpable, mortal, & nayled on the crosse. And that oblation of flesh, which is made by the hands of the priest is called Christs death, and Crucifix­ion, and not in truth of the thinge, but in a mi­stery signifyinge the thinge: so the Sacrament of faith by which baptisme is vnderstood is faith. Hetherto the decre now the glosse therof: The heauenly Sacramēt which representeth Christs flesh truely, is called the body of Christ, but impro­perly, wherefore it is said after it manner, but not [Page 123] in the truth of the thinge, but in the thing: signi­fied that this may be the sense, it is called Christs body (that is to say) it signifieth his body. These (saith Bel) are golden wordes (as God would) by pens of Papists deliuered.

13. I accept his confession. First then S. Cratian. de consecrat. d. 2. can. Hoc est. Austin and S. Prosper are Papists, for (as Gratian out of whom the decree is takē te­stifieth) the words of the Decree were first deliuered by S. Austins pen, and after re­corded S. Austin and S. Pros­per Papists. Sacrificing of flesh by Priests hāds allovved by Bel. 2, False translat. by S. Prosper. Secondly I hope Bel hereafter wil allowe of sacrificinge or of­fering flesh by the hands of the priests, be­cause these are part of the golden wordes of that decree. For this so gentle confession, I wil dissemble with a litle fault of Bels trans­latinge, quod visible quod palpabale mortale in cruce positum est. Thus, which is visible palpable mortal & nayled on the crosse. When he shoud haue said, which being visible palpable mortal was nailed on the crosse. Now let vs heare what he gathereth out of the aforesaid words to the confusion (as he saith) of Papists but he should haue said to his owne.

14. 1. That the blessed bread of the Eucharist is pag. 27. called the Body of Christ. What is here against Papists? who willingly so cal it, but rather against Protestants who seldom or neuer cal it so. 2. That it is also called the passion and 37. vntruth [Page 124] death of Christ. This is an vntruth: for not bread of the Eucharist, but the sacrificing of flesh with Priests hands is so called. 3. That it is not Christs body truely. This is most true, for the bread or rather the forme therof, in the Eucharist, is not Christs body truely & properly 4. That it is Christs body as the Sacra­ment of Baptisme is fayth. This is nothing a­gainst vs, who confesse bread (or rather the forme therof, called bread because it so seemeth to sense) to be but a Sacrament of Christs body.

15. 5. That it is not Christs body in truth but in signification. This S. Austin saith not but onely that the oblation of the flesh of Christ by the priest is his death and passion not truly but in a mistery signifyinge his death, which maketh nothing against vs or to this purpose. The glosse in deede saith that the Sacrament is not Christs body in truth, but in signification and the same say al Chatholiques namely Bellarmin Bellarm. l. 1. de Eucha. c. 14. The Sacrament of the Eu­charist is not Christs body but contayneth Christs body, for a Sacrament is asensible signe, and this sensible signe of bread and wine, is that which the glosse sayd is not in truth Christs body but is improperly so called: which is so far from being the vpshot of the contro­uersy, or not admitting any solution, (as Bel fondly boasteth) as in mans sight that Bel pag. 27. [Page 125] hath eyes, it requireth no solution. For who wil thinke that one denieth Christs body to be truely in the Sacrament, be­cause he denieth the Sacrament (which is the sensible signes of bread and wine) to be truly his body? So Bel may gather that a body containeth not a soule, nor a place a body, because the continents, are not the thing conteyned. But (saith Bel) if Christs body were in the Sacramēt really it should be there in rei veritate truely. As if the glosse had denyed that Christ is in the Sacrament in rei veritate. Suerly this sheweth that Bel neuer ment to deale in rei veritate. And thus much of the 2. member of this Article. Now let vs go to the third.

CHAP. V. Berengarius his Recantation explicated and S. Austins authority answered.

POPISH decrees (saith Bel) tel vs a long Bel pag. 28. tale of one Berengarius some tyme Deacon of a church in Gaunt. No maruail if this tale seeme long to Bel, which recounteth the foyle of his heresie against the real pre­sence, Berengar. condemned of 113. Bis­hops. Lanfranc. de Sacram. Eu­charist. in Berengarius the first brocher therof, in a general councel at Rome vnder Pope Nicholas the second, aboute the year of Christ 1060. wher he recanted publikly [Page 126] and (as him selfe saith) willingly, denoun­cinge al such to deserue eternal curse, who denyed Christs body and blood to be really in the Eucharist. Bel maketh him Deacon of Gaunt, wheras Bel lacketh latin. he was Archdeacon of Angiers in France, not being able to distinguish Andeauum from Gandauum Angiers from Gaunt; and because he abiured his heresie, Bel termeth him a silly Deacon, though his brother Buck­ly cal him an excellent and holy man. In deed Bucleis ans­vver to 8. reasons p. 62. he found more mercy at Gods hands then I read of any Arch-hereticke, and dyed a penitent Catholike. For dying on twelf day said (as Malmesbur. an English author Malmesbur. l. 3. histor. Angl. in Ga­briel. 1. p. 114. at that tyme writeth.) In this day of his appa­rition my lord Iesus wil appeare to some, to glory as I hope for my repentance, or to punishment as I feare for others seduced. The like repentance I pray God send to Bel ere he dye, that as he hath imytated Berengarius in heresie, and in abiuration also of it at Rome (if I be not deceaued) he may likewise imitate him in repentance and penance.

2. But because Berengarius in his recan­tation, which was afterward put amongst Distinct. 2. [...]it. the Decrees, professed that Christ in the Eu­charist sensualiter manibus sacerdotum tangitur, frangitur, & dentibus fidelium atteritur, is sensibly touched with hands of Priests, broken, and chewed with the teeth of the faithful, Bel exclaymeth [Page 127] mightely, calling his recantation (but yet without al proofe) cruel, barbarous, villanous, blasphemous, and horrible impietie. Gladly he would haue the reader beleeue, that Catho­liques professe Christs body to be in it selfe broken, and torne in peeces one member from an other, though him selfe soone after not only alleadge Bellarmin to the contrary, but confesse also that by the Popes p. 29. doctrin Christs body can not be broken or torne truely, and in deed, and cite the Glosse vpon the said decree saying, that it were a worse pag. 30. heresie to thinke we made parts of Christ, then to deny him to be in the sacrament. And this is euident by the Masse it selfe where we say, Christ nether broken, nor deuided is receaued Missa de corpore Christi. whole, and no cuttinge is of the thing, the breach is onely in the signe.

3. Neuertheles Christs body is said to be toucht, broken, and chewed in the Eu­charist, because the signe of bread in which it really is, is so vsed. As God is said to haue bene crucified, because the humanitie in which he was, was so handled, and Christ touched when his garment was touched. And these kind of speaches we learnd of the holy Fathers. For S. Chrisostom. spea­kinge S. Chrysost. hom. 24. in 1. Cor. to. 4. Hom. 83. in Math. to. 3. of the sacrament saith expresly that Christs body is broken, In other place we see, feel, eate, and haue Christ within vs. Agayne [Page 128] Christ gaue him selfe to vs to touch, to eate, and Hom. 46. in Ier. to. 3. & 61. ad po­pulum to. 5. Tertul. l. de Idolatria. fasten our teeth (marke Bel) on his flesh. Ter­tullian inueighinge against vnworthy re­ceauers saith Corpus Christi lacessunt. They vex Christs body. S. Ciprian of the same affirmeth: They vse violence to Christ [...] body and S. Ciprian. serm. de la­psis. blood and with their mouthes do offend him. And they learnt these speeches of Christ him selfe saying: This is my body which is broken. 1. Cor. 11. v. 24. in the greeck. Wil Bel now condemne Christ and these holy fathers of wickednes, villany, blas­phemy, and horrible impietie? Surely they vse the very wordes of touching, breaking, and fasteninge, or chewing with teeth. Nay Bel pag. 30. wil he condemne both English, and many forrayne Protestants whose constant doctrine Bel admit­teth Christs body to be consumed. (saith he) is that Christs body is broken torne & consumed with mouth and teeth. Behold good reader. for Papists to say Christs body is touched, broken, and torne, is villany wic­kednes, blasphemy and horrible impiety: but for Protestants to say the same and [...]dde consuming too, is good doctrine.

4. But Bel wil say that he addeth, that al Bel pag. 29. these are to be vnderstood significantly and sacramentally. True. And the same adde wee. For as him selfe citeth out of Bellar­min lib. 2. de Concil. c. 8. It is and al wayes Bellarm. was certayne that Christs body being now vncor­ruptible can be nether broken nor torne but in a [Page 129] signe or sacrament. But the difference is in the vnderstanding. For we say Christs body is Catholi­ques and Protestants agreement and diffe­rence about the brea­king of Christs body. broken in a signe, which really, and truely contayneth it; and Protestants say it is bro­ken in a signe, from which Christ is as far as heauen is from earth, and to expresse this difference, and to exclude the sense which Berengarius vsed, and the Protestants haue learnt of him, the Pope and Councel made him to professe. That he beleeued this to be in rei veritate in the verity of the thing. Not as if Christs body weare in it selfe so handled, for therof there was neuer doubt, but that it was not handled so in a bare signe, but in such a signe as in rei veritate truely contayneth Christs body. As the wo­man Luc. 8. did in rei veritate truely touch Christ when she touched his garment, in S. Luke. which he truely was: as appeareth by his words ib. v. 46. Some body hath touched me: But the Crucifiers, when they parted the S. Ihon. 19. v. 23. same garments, did not touch him in rei ve­ritate truely, because then he was not truely in them. And hereby appeareth how the contrariety, which Bel noteth betwixt the pag. 29. Councel and Bellarmine, is none at al, and how protestants can not verifie the brea­kinge of Christs body, so wel as Catholi­ques can, and least of al can (as Bel imagi­neth) verify Christs wordes of his body [Page 130] giuen, & blood shed for remission of sinns, because neuer was any bare figure giuen or shed for remission of sinnes

5, But a singuler note (saith Bel) and pag. 30. worthy to be marked, is gathered out of the glosse vpon the foresaid decree, when it aduiseth vs, That vnles we vnderstand Be­rengarius words soundly, we may fal into worse heresie. Marke these words (saith Bel) for th [...]y teach vs playnly, that it is a most dangerous thing to rely vpon Popish decrees, euen then when they pretend to reforme the Church and condemne here­sies. But better may we saye marke this note, for it discouereth Bels malice, and folly, & teacheth vs plainly that it is a most dan­gerous thing to rely vpon heretikes, euen when they promise to auouch no vntruth of any man, as Bel did a litle before. For pag. 22. what aduiseth the glosse, against the relying vpon Popes decrees, and not onely against misunderstanding them. May we not in like manner say of the scripture, that vnles we soundly vnderstand those wordes, [...]hon 6. except you eat the flesh of the sonne of man, and drinke his blood, you shal haue no life in you, but grosly as the Capharnaits did of eating it sodde or rosted, or cut in peeces (as testify Ciprian. de caena Do­mini. S. Augustin. tract. 27. in Ioh. S. Ciprian and S. Austin) we shal fal into greater heresie, then that of Berengarius was. What now Syr Thomas? may we [Page 131] therfore infer that it is a most dangerous thing to rely vpon scripture?

6. Finally Bel concludeth this third Bel pag. 30. 31. S. Augustin. tract. 59. in Ioan. member of his article with an argument drawne out of S. Austins words: Illi mandu­cabant panem Dominum, illi panem Domini con­tra Dominum. They (the Apostles) eat the bread our lord, he (Iudas) eat the bread of our lord against our lord. Out of which wordes Bel frameth an argument so inuin­cible in his conceypt, as he promiseth to subscribe, and neuer more to write against any parte of Papists doctrine, if it be ans­wered. Marke therfore I pray thee gentle reader his argument, and my answer, and iudge, whether he be not bound to turne his coate the third tyme, if he wil performe his promise. The argument he proposeth out of forme, but it may be reduced to this. Iudas receaued but Panem Domini the bread of our lord, and not Panem Dominum the bread our lord: therfore in the Eucharist is not Dominus our Lord. The Antecedent (saith he) is playnly auouched by S. Austin, the consequence is cleere, because if in the Eu­charist weare our lord, doubtles Iudas in receauing of it should haue receaued our lord. Before I answer this argument I must aduertise the reader of three things: first [...]ow slenderly this fellow is grounded in [Page 132] his faith, who promiseth to subscribe to the contrary, if one onely argument, groun­ded vpon one saying of one father can be solued. Euident it is that he hath neyther playne scripture, nor conuincent reason, nor the testimony of other fathers for his religion, who for answering of one fathers word, wil forsake it. Albeit this be les mar­uelous in Bel, because hauing already twise altered his religion, he wil find les diffi­culty to change the third tyme. 2. I note the extreame blindnes of this fellow, who bid­deth vs note and marke seriously that S. Austin Bel noteth a point quite a­gainst him self. telleth vs, that the bread vvhich the Apostles eate vvas our lord. I would Bel had marked this him selfe, for it is the very vpshot (to vse his owne tearme) of this controuersy, and vnaswerable by any Protestant. For if (as Bel noteth out of S. Austin) the bread which the Apostles eate was our lord, how can protestants deny it, and say it was bare bread? Or if (as S. Aust. speaketh) they eate bread our lord, how can Bel say they eate not our lord, but bare bread? Can one [...]ate flesh mutton, if the flesh he eate be no mutton?

7. Thirdly, I note his notorious abu­sing S. Austins authority. For first in Engli­shing Bels abu­sing of S. Austins vvords. his words he addeth to them, though in a parenthesis, these words (Not our lord [Page 133] but) afterward he saith S. Austin telleth vs, that vvhich Iudas receaued vvas but the bread of vntruth 38. our lord, then, as imboldened to lye, auou­cheth that S. Austin affirmeth most constantly, vntruth 39. that Iudas receaued barely Panem Domini bread of our lord, and lastly as cocke sure not to be tript in lying, professeth that S. Austin playnly auoucheth that Iudas receaued not Panem vntruth 40 Dominum bread our lord. Wheras S. Austin saith no one of al these, but onely, that the Apostles receaued bread our lord, and Iudas bread of our lord, without but or barely, or denyal of the other. Marke therfore good Bels steps of vntrue dea­ling. reader his steps. First his vntruth is cogged into S. Austins words with a parenthesis, 1 then is it put with a but, afterward with ba­rely, 2 and lastly playnly auouched. These 3 steps might Bel haue found in his ladder of 4 lying, better then he deuised the like be­fore, in the Popes ladder to his supremacy. But here may the reader take a taste of the vntrue dealing of heretiques. For who would not haue sworne, but that Bel would haue dealt truely in an argument, wherof he counteth so much, as if it be solued, he wil recant the third tyme. But now to come to his argument.

8. I answer directly by denying the An­tecedent. for S. Austin said not, that Iudas eate but, or barely Panem Domini, bread of [Page 134] our lord, and much les said he eate not Pa­nem Dominum: but onely said that the Apo­stles did eate Panem Dominum bread our lord, & he Panem Domini bread of our lord. Wher­fore the doubt can be onely why he altered his speech, calling that bread our lord, which the Apostles eate, and that bread of our lord which Iudas eate. The reason wherof can not be, because he thought the Apostles and Iudas receaued a bread of dif­ferent substance; [...]or Epist. 162. he expresly S. Austin saith Iudas eate our price. to. 2. S. Chrysost. tom. 3. writeth that Iudas receaued pretium nostrum our price which in substance is Panis Domi­nus bread our lord, and S. Chrysost. hom. de prodit. Iudae affirmeth, that Christ offe­red to Iudas the blood, which he had sold. and Theodoret. in 1. cap. 2. Cor. that he gaue to Iudas his precious body and blood. The reason therfore is that which S. Aust. Buccella Dominica ven enum fuit Iudae. See S. Austin l▪ 2. cont. lit. Petil. c. 47. tom. 7. S. Augustin. tom. 6. Cortuptio, carni hoc nomen im­ponit Aug. l. 2. cont. ad­uers. legis. Et prophet. c. 6. t0. 6. him selfe insinuateth in the words imme­diatly following illi vitam, ille paenam they eate life, he punishment, vz because the bread had a different effect, and operation in Iudas, then it had in the Apostles. For as him selfe proueth lib. 11. cont. Faust. cap. 7. one thing of different effects or operations may haue different names. What maruaile then if he called that which the Apostles receaued bread our lord, because it was both in substance and operation food, and [Page 135] life to them, and that which Iudas recea­ued bread of our lord, because though in substance it was the same, yet through his malice, in operation it was poyson and death vnto him And here by the way wold I propound one choise to Bel, whether he A choise for Bel▪ wil beleeue the Eucharist to be Panem Do­minum with Catholiques, or bate Panem Do­mini with Protestants. If the first, he may eate Panem Dominum with the Apostles, if the second, he may eate Panem Domini, but it shalbe with Iudas.

9. But suppose S. Austin had said (as he hath not) that Iudas did not eat bread our Lord, Bel could not therof infer that the Eucharist is not truly our Lord, seing he auoucheth that the Apostles (who vndoub­tedly receaued the Eucharist) did eat bread our Lord: but at most, that what Iudas re­ceaued, was not the Eucharist; which di­uers think, and it is a far different question, S. Hilar. can. 30. in Math. and maketh nothing to this purpose: But nether could Bel infer this, because S Austin S. August. e­pist. 162 to. 2. tract. 26. & 62. in Ioan. tom. 9. other where affirmeth Iudas to haue receaued the Sacrament, and our price which in substance is bread, our Lord, and because it is vsual to him to deny the name to a thing if it want the accustomed quality or ope­ration. So lib. 11. cont. Faust. c. 7. he saith. S. Augustin. tom. 6. In resurrection there shal be no flesh, and [Page 136] serm. 5. de verb. Apost. c. 12. There shalbe not the same body, because it shal not be mortal. Which kind of speech he vseth o­ther where, and proueth it out of 1. Cor. 15. and 2. cor. 5. The most therfore that Bel can infer (and he may wel do it) is, that the bread which Iudas eate was not in opera­tion our Lord, and life to him, but iudg­ment, and death: which I willingly graunt, but it maketh nothing for his purpose. Let now euery indifferēt Reader iudge whether this argument out of S. Austin be not sufficiently answered, and Bel if he wilbe as good as his word, bound to recant yet once againe. And thus much of this member.

CHAP. VI. Bels imaginary contradictions in the Masse answered, and true Contradiction in his Communion shewed.

THE fourth member Bel maketh of [...]l pag. 32. the apparent contradictions which are (as he saith) in the Masse. The first is that Catholiques say that Christs body is the same in the Masse which was on the crosse, & yet confesse it to be a figure therof. This he proueth to be a contradiction be­cause Bellarm. l. 1. de Euchar. c. [...]. a figure must needs be inferior to the thing figured as Bellarm: professeth, and [Page 137] S. Paul testifieth. Answer. First I deny al fi­gures S. Paul. Hebr. 10. to be inferrior to things figured: some be both figures & verity, as God the Sonne figure of the substance of his Father. Heb. VVhat fi­gures be in­ferior to th [...] things figu­red vvhat not. 1. v. 3. and yet true God. And Seth, an image of Adam Gen. 5. v. 3. and yet true man. And such figures are equal to the things figured, and such a figure of Christ is the Eucharist; Others be bare figures, as images are of men, and the Sacraments and Sacrifices of the ould law were, wherof S. Paul and Bel­larmin spake, and the Apostles Heb. 10. v. 1. calleth shadowes of goods to come. And these I graunt to be inferior to the things figured. But this maketh nothing against vs.

2. Secondly I deny that to be superior Bel igno­rant in lo­gick. and inferior, is contradiction: for, as euery logician knoweth it is relatiue opposition, which may agree to the same thing in diffe­rent respect. As the same soule as it is in the head, is locally superior to it selfe, as it is in the foote; a man as he is learned, is inferior in valew to him selfe as he is vertuous: And a token as it is from a friend, more worth thē it is of it selfe. And hereby appeareth the error of Protestants inferring the Eucharist not to be Christ, because it is a figure or re­membrance One thing may figure or represent it selfe. of him. For wel may one thing represent it selfe. As a King in a triumphant [Page 138] shew may represent, how he behaued him selfe in Battel. And Christs body and blood, as they are vnder the formes of bread and wyne, which are a sunder, represent them selues as they were a sunder in their proper formes on the crosse.

3. Thirdly I returne Bels argumēt vpon him selfe. Figures must needs be inferior to things figured: Ergo the Eucharist is some nobler substance then bread. The Antece­dent is his owne, the Consequence I proue, because the Paschal lambe was a figure of the Eucharist as S. Chrisostom S. Cyprian S. S. Ghrysost. hom. de prodit. Iudae tom. 3. S. Cyprian. l. de vnit. ec­cles. S. Hieron in 26. Math. S. August. l. 2. cont. lite­ras Petilian. c. 37▪ to. 7. S. Leo serm. 7. de Passio­ne. S. Gregot. hom. 22. in Euang. pag. 32. Chap. 1. pa­rag. 12. 13. Chap. 5. pa­rag. 2. p. 33. Hiero. S. Austin S Leo S. Gregory & others affirme, and may be gathered out of S. Paul saying Heb. 10. v. 1 That the law had a sha­dow of goods to come, and by Christs insti­tuting the Eucharist immediatly after the eating of the Pascal lamb. Whereby (saith S. Chrisostome) in one table both Paschals of the figure and verity was celebrated.

4. His second, and third contradiction is of a greater body being conteyned in a lesse, and of Christs body broken, and not broken, which haue bene answered before. His fourth is, that if Christs body be made pre­sent in the Eucharist by vertue of these words this is my body, ether the body is there before the last words be pronounced, or no▪ if before? then the last is superfluous, if not? then ether al the body is [Page 139] made by the last word, and so the three first stand for cyphers, or parte of his body by one word, and parte by an other? and so Christs body is torne in Bel ignorāt in logick. peeces. O worthy challenger ignorant of the principles of logicke. What shew of con­tradiction is there here, though we should grant any one of the three points inferred? But this good fellow is more skilful in ma­king contradictions, then in knowing what contradiction is.

5. Briefly I answer, that nether Christs whole body, nor any parte therof, is in the Eucharist before the pronounciation of the last word, yet are not the former words su­perfluous. For the last worketh the trāsmu­tation. not by his owne vertue alone, but with the vertue of them also, or rather God worketh al when the last word is pronoun­ced. For (as S. Chrisostom saith) It is not man S. Chrysost. homil. de prodit. Iudae tom. 3. that by the consecration of our Lords table, ma­keth the things proposed, the body and blood of Christ, but that Christ who was crucifyed for vs. The words are vttered by the Priests mouth, and consecrated by the povver of God. And the like answer must Bel make for diuers matters.

6. For in baptisme one may aske whe­ther a child be christened, before the name of the holy Ghost be pronounced, and then it is superfluous, and may be left out; or parte by the name of the father, parte by [Page 140] the name of the sonne, and parte by the name of the holy Ghost, and then is the child christened by peece meale: or onely by the name of the holy Ghost, and then the other twoe names are cyphers. And the like argument may be propounded in di­uers other matters, but I wil propound it in a matter more intelligible, and perhaps more proportionate to Bels capacity out of his owne name Thomas. When one calleth him by that name, ether he is al called by Tom, and then As is superfluous: or parte by Tom, and parte by As, and then is he called by peece meale: or al by As, & then is Tom: but a cypher, and As is al Bel, and so by conuersion, al Bel is an As▪ Let Bel study to solue this argument, and I doubt not, but he wil finde the solution of his owne.

7. The fifte contradiction which this pag. 34. contradictious fellow findeth in the Masse is, that Durand, Caietan, and foure Catho­liques more, before the Councel of Trent did otherwise explicate the manner of Christs real presence in the Eucharist, then was truth, and since the Church hath defi­ned, and explicated in the said Councel. Is not this a goodly cōtradiction in the Masse? did Bel find al these mens opinions there, Bellarm. l. 3. de Euchar. [...]. 11. & 18. or rather gathered them out of Bellarmin, [Page 141] as he hath done almost al his arguments? Or what maketh it against Masse, that three or foure Catholiques did in a difficult mat­ter, before it was defyned and explicated by the Church, dissent from the rest? Let Bel if he can shew this diuersity now since the Councel. As for Protestants, Sainctes aboue Lindan. Ca­talogo sa­cramentor. Sainctes de Euchar. Re­petit. 1. cap. vlt. 1577. ex Bel­larm. lib. 1. de Euchar. c. 8. S. August. l. 16. de ciuit. c. 6. tom. 5. 20. yeares agoe, gathered aboue 80. diffe­rent opinions of theirs about these foure words, This is my body. And an other since hath collected twoe hundred. This far ex­ceedeth the cōfusion of tonges at Babel, for there was but 72 tongues, but here be 80. yea 200. to expresse foure words. There one man kept one tongue, but here they alter speaking sometymes Lutherish, sometyme Zwinglianish, and otherwhyle Caluinish, and yet seing such horrible confusion, wil not giue ouer building of their Babilonian tower of heresy.

8. The sixt contradiction is that when pag. 34. the Priest proposeth the B. Sacrament to the people, they must adore it, albeit (saith vntruth 4 [...] Bel) if the Priest haue no intention to consecrate, or omit, or miscal any word of consecration it remayneth but bread, and the worshipers commit idolatry. A ioly contradiction no doubt, do we think Bel wanted not his wits when he proposed such matter for contradictions? Catholiques thinke in deed that when the [Page 142] Priest wanteth both actual, and virtual in­tention, or omitteth any essential word, that there is no consecration, and the Priest Si conscien­tia propterea lae [...]i nō potuit quia nesciuit &c Aug. lib. 2. cont. Cres­con. cap. 26. to. 7. Apoc. 22. v. 8. c. 19. v 10. S. August. q. 61. in Gen. [...]. 4. Genes. 29. v. 24. sinneth therin greeuously; but the people worshiping erroniously vpon inuincible ignorance offend no more, then did S. Ihon when he worshiped an Angel as God, thin­king (as saith S. Austin) it had bene God him self, or as did Iacob, when he lay with Lia who was not his wife, thinking verely it had bene his wife Rachel. But to say that there is no consecration when the Priest omitteth any word at al, or miscalleth any words, so as the sense be not altered there­by, is not Catholique doctrin, but Bels vsual false dealing.

9. His last contradiction is, that vvhen pag. 34. many Priests are made together in Rome, they al pronounce the vvords of consecration. This is true but what then? Papists (saith he) can not tel hovv many Gods, or hovv many times God is made in a peece of bread. O accusator fra­trum. Where didest thou heare of many Gods amongest Papists? Where of making of God? we say after S. Hierom and S. S. Hieron. e­ [...]ist. ad He­l [...]odor. S. Pontian. epist. 1. De­cretali. Pontian that Priests conficiuni Corpus Christi make Christs body, but dreame not of ma­king God. These be the slanders malitiously obiected to Catholikes against thine owne knowledge and Conscience. But where is [Page 143] the contradiction? Forsooth because Ino­centius h [...]ldeth that al such Priests do consecrate, Durand thinketh that he only who first pronoun­ceth the words, and Caietan is of an other opinion. I graunt these contradict one an other. But what is this to the Mass [...]? are these contra­dictions in it? You promised to shew vs Bel decea­ueth his Reader. contradictions in [...]he Masse, and twise you haue told vs of durand & Caietans contradi­ctions, & as often of other matters, which had no shew of Contradiction. Besides that the matter in which these three Authors contradict one an other is no point of faith. For with Catholiques it is no more matter of faith, whether al the said Priests or one only consecrate, then it is with Protestants, whither al or one should christen a child, if many at once should dippe him into the font, & pronounce the words of Baptisme. So the letter be wel sealed, it skilleth not whither one or many be thought to make the print, when many together put their hands to the seale.

10. But if Bel when he looked vpon the Masse booke, had looked on his commu­nion booke, and with the like eyes and af­fection, Gilby ad­monition to England and Scot­land. fol. 70. he should haue found other stuffe in it then he did in the Masse. For besyde that it is made out of our breuiary and Mis­sal (wherupon Gilby called King Edward [Page 144] the sixt his booke, an English mattins pat­ched forth of the Popes Portesse) more then a thousand Ministers (whome the vniuersity of Oxford acknowledged to be Ansvver to the Petitiō. their brethren, and fellow laborers in the Lords haruest) in their petition exhibited Exhibited in April 1603. to his Maiesty, say that they groan vnder a burden of humaine rites and ceremonies, finde enormities in their Church discipline, A thou­sand mini­sters censure of the com­munion booke. and in their Churches seruice, want of vni­formity of doctrin, Popish opinions, and honor prescribed to the name of Iesus with diuers abuses, which they are able (say they) to shew not to be agreable to Scripture. Thus Syr haue your owne ministers deminished the credit of your communion booke. And Reynolds (an excellent ornament saith Ansvver to 8. rea­sons. Confer. p. 63. 86. pag. 25. pag. 59. Buckley) in the conference at Hampton court 1. proued the communion booke to contradict twise the Byble, & the Bishops were faine to amend it. 2. he argued it to contradict the 25. Article of their faith. 3. to conteyne manifest errors, directly repug­nant to Scripture: 4. he requested it to be pag. 23. fitted to more encrease of piety. 5. profes­seth that vrging men to subscribe vnto it, pag. 58. is a great impeachment to a learned mi­nistery, wherof he giueth diuers reasons, as the repugnancy therin to Scripture, the corruption of Scripture, the interrogato­ries, [Page 145] and ceremonies in baptisme, and cer­tayne D. R [...]inolds censure of the commu­nion booke. words in matrimony. Thus syr the excellent ornament of your Church hath adorned your communion booke, and this black verdict hath he giuen therof.

11. And if I should but reckon the con­tradictions Protestants contradi­ctiōs about their com­munion. in Protestants doctrin about the Eucharist, I shold neuer make an end, only I wil requite Bel with some few. 1. how Christs body (saith Willet) shold be verily 1. VVillet Te­trostyl. col. 2. part. 3. p. 82. present, and yet not really. Can there be verum and not res, or ens: vere, and not realiter? 2. how there can be a real presence 2. Perkins Re­form. Cath. p. 185. 189. of Christ in the Sacrament (as saith Perkins) and yet Christ no otherwise present, then a thing to it name. 3 How God giueth Christ 3. Perkins sup. in this Sacrament (saith the same Minister) as really and truly as any thing can be giuen to man, and yet he is giuen by only faith 4. 4. Caluin. 4. in­stit. c. 17. pa­ragr. 10. How (as Caluin teacheth) the Eucharist is no empty signe, but hath the verity of the thing vnited to it, and yet Christ is only in heauen. 5. How there is (saith Caluin) 5. Caluin. sup. parag. 19. & 15. a true and substantial communication of Christs body, and blood in the Eucharist, and yet Christ no more there, then he was 6. Sainctes de Euchar. re­petit. 6. c. 1. p. 208. Mich. Fabrit. ep. de Beza. in the Sacraments of the Iews, which were before his body was any substance. 6. How Christs body is truely really, and substan­cially in the Eucharist (as Beza wrote in his [Page 146] confession exhibited to the Count Palatine and vttered publikly in the disputation at Surius An. 1556. Poysi) and yet withal as far from the Eu­charist, as heauen from earth; Surely such fellows as these haue yea, & no, in their re­ligion, 2. Cor. 1. v. 17. 2. Cor. 4. v. 2. or els walking in craftines adulterat (as the Apostle speaketh) Gods worde. For if their words be vnderstood as they sig­nify, & purport, they include ma­nifest contradiction, and thus much of the second Arti­cle. VVherfore be myndful Apotal. (Bel) from whēce thou are fallen and do pe­nance Apoc. 2.

CHAP. I.

BEL beginneth this Article as he did Bel pag. 36. the two former with vntruthes, and dissimulatiōs. His vntruths appeare in that he chargeth S. Antonin, and Austin of An­cona, Antonin. 3. part. tit. 22. c. 5. parag. 8. vntruth 42. vntruth 43. with teaching the Pope to haue equal powre with God. Because S. Antonin wri­teth. That seeing the Pope is Christs vicar, none can lawfully withdraw him self from his obedien­ce: And that Christ hath giuen him most ful powre, as S. Cyril (saith he) teacheth lib. thesaur. which proofe out of S. Cyril this honest challenger left out. Austin of Ancona affir­meth: Augustin. do Ancona in summa p. 152. that The Pope as Christs vicar hath vniuer­sal iurisdiction ouer al Kingdoms and Empiers. Did euer man see greater impudency, what word is here of equal powre with God? Nay expresse word of inequality, if vicars be vnequal to principals: deputies to Kings. Did Christs humanity when it receaued most ful powre. Math. 28. v. 18. and autho­rity S. Mathevv. ouer al kingdoms, and bounds of the [Page 148] earth. psal. 2. v. 8. receaue equal powre to Dauid. God? And if the powre of Christ as man (though neuer so ful, and vniuersal) were create, and vnequal to Gods powre, who can imagin the powre giuen by Christ as man to a pure man to be equal to Gods? I omit Bels error in affirming that Austin of Ioan. 12. li­ued 956. August. de Ancona 1305. Onuph. in chron. Ancona dedicated his booke to Pope Ihon the twelft who was dead almost 400. years before him. But he shold haue said Ihon 22. and this error can not be laid vpon the Printer seeing the number is set downe not in cyphers but letters.

2. His dissimulation is euident. First be­cause Dissimula­ti [...] 4. he concealeth that the opinion (That matrimony only contracted may be vpon vrgent occasion dissolued) is held but of some Canonists, and of very few deuines, who commonly hold the contrary. But im­pugneth Bel impug­neth an opi­nion of Ca­nonists and of Prote­stants as a matter of faith. 5. Dissimula­tion. Surius Ann. 1540. Vid. Lindan. l. de concor­dia Haereti­cor. p. 69. it, as if it were held of al Catholi­ques, and as a point of their faith. Secondly he imposeth the said opinion vpon Catho­liques only, dissembling that Protestants think not only matrimony contracted, but also consummated by carnal copulation may be dissolued, & impugne Catholiques for not admitting any cause of dissoluing such matrimony.

3. Luther the Protestants first Father writ a booke 1540. where he auoucheth it to [Page 149] be hard, and vniust, that the innocent per­son may not marry an other after separa­tion made for adultery. Caluin calleth it a Caluin. 4. in­stit. c. 19. pa­ragr. 37. most vniust law. Likwise Bucer in cap. 19. Math. Melancht. de loc. tit. de coniugio: Kemnitius in 2. part. exami. And Willet in VVillet con­trou. 15. q. 2. p. 526. 527. name of English Protestants. Al these af­firme that adultery is a iust cause why euen 1 consummated marriage may be dissolued, and a new contracted. Luther addeth other Luther. in c. 7. ad Co­rinth. edit. 1523. causes as the one persuading the other to sinne: much debate betwene them: and 2 long absence of the one party, which if it 3 be done of malice seemeth iust cause to 4 willet, and therto he citeth Beza 1. Corinth. VVillet sup. 7. and other Protestants. And this was pra­ctized in K. Edward 6. tyme, when Syr Ralf Sadler hauing maried one Mathew Baro his wife in his absence, though Baro had begotten children of her, yet could not recouer her, but by Parlament she was ad­iudged to Sadler. Caluin addeth want of Caluin. Bu­cer. sup. consent of parents, if the parties be yong, 5 and Bucer addeth incommodious behauior, 6 of ether party to be a sufficient cause.

4. Wherfore if the Pope by dissoluing Bel pag. 37. contracted matrimony (which he doth very seldom, and vpon vrgent occasion, & weighty cause) challenge (as Bel saith) po­wre equal to God. Surely Protestants by [Page 150] dissoluing consummated matrimony often, and vpon so many causes wherof some are very smale, and not sufficient to dissolue a meere ciuil contract, do challenge powre aboue God. But let vs see how he against some Catholiques, and generally al Prote­stants, proueth that contracted matrimony can not be dissolued, but by God alone for any cause whatsoeuer.

5. His reason is because Christ said Math. pag. 38. c. 19. v. 6. what God hath ioyned let not man se­perate, and Luc. 16. v. 18. Euery one that putteth away his wife, and marieth an other committeth adultery. And S. Paul 1. Corinth. c. 7. v. 10. Those that are ioyned in matrimony command not I but our lord, that the wife depart not from the husband, but if she depart, abide vnmaried, or be reconciled to her husband. To this the Cano­nists answer. That Christ and his Apostle spake only of consummated matrimony: because Math. 19. Christ forbiddeth sepera­tion of such, as immediatly before he had said to be made one flesh, which is by con­summation of matrimony. And likewise Luc. 16. prohibiteth mariage after dismis­sion of a wife carnally known, as is gathe­red out of Math. 5. v. 32. where he vseth the same words, and citeth the law of diuorce Deut. 24. v. 1. which speaketh of a woman carnally known saying. If a man haue taken a [Page 151] vvife and had her, and she haue not found fauor in his eyes for some filthines, he shal &c. And hereby are answered the words of S. Paul, in which he referreth him self to the pre­cept of Christ. Besids that S. Thecla virgin was by him soluta à nuptijs losed from ma­riage as writeth S. Epiph. haer. 78. which S. Epiphan. fact S. Ambros. lib. 2. de virg. commen­deth, S. Ambros. and it argueth that the Apostle tought vnconsummated mariage might be dis­solued.

6. Against this answer Bel bringeth many replies in number, but none of force. 1. That if contracted matrimony were not de iure pag. 38. diuino the greatest Popish Doctors vvold not deny the Popes dispensation therin. Lo here when it maketh for his purpose, he confesseth the greatest Catholique Doctors to think con­tracted matrimony to be indissoluble. Why then doth he impugne the contrary as an Article of our faith? To his argument I answer, that though al Catholiques be­leeue the institution of contracted matri­mony to be of God, and Deuines for the most part probably thinke the con­tinuance also therof to be iure diuino, and commanded by God: yet neuertheles Ca­nonists do probably teach that the conti­nuance of it is not absolutly, and in al cases commanded by God, but may vpon [Page 152] great, and vrgent causes be dissolued by the Church.

7. Secondly he replyeth that Christ spea­keth absolutly, and maketh no mention of copula­tion or popish consummation. Answer. Though in that verse he spake absolutly, yet imme­diatly before he made mention of copula­tion. And wil Bel forbid vs to expound a sentence of Scripture by the antecedents, or consequents? But I maruel much why he tearmed consummation, or copulation popish. Me thinketh he shold rather cal it Ministerish. For Papists can say with S. Au­stin lib. de bono coniug. c. 13. tom. 6. VVe S. Austin see lib. 5. cont. Faust. c. 9. haue many brethren and companions of the hea­uenly inheritance of both sexes, vvho are continent, ether after experience of mariage, or are free from al such copulation, such are innumerable. But for Ministers their first father Luther imita [...]ing Luther. lib. de vit. con­iugali 1522. See S. Iren. lib. 1. c. 1. Raro haere­ticus diligit castitatem. Hieron. in c. 7. Oseae. pag. 38. the beastly Valentinians, writeth that it is as necessary to haue a wife as to eat, drinke, or sleepe: and how wel ministers practice this doctrin let al England be iudge.

8. His third reply is that Papists thinck matri­mony contracted to be a Sacrament ergo (saith he) perfect before copulatiō & indispensable by man. For as Canus saith: The holy Ghost and grace of Canus lib. 8. de locis c. 5. Sacrament is not giuen by copulation. Answer, graunting the Antecedent I deny the con­sequence. For though it haue the essence, [Page 153] yet hath it not the perfection of the Sacra­ment before copulation. Because before, it signifyeth only the spiritual coniunction of Christ with a soule by grace, as S. Thomas, S. Thom. 4. d. 27. q. 1. art. 3. q. 1. Innocent. 3. c. delictum de digamis. and Innoc. 3. teach, which as it may by man be dissolued, so also may matrimony before consummation; but after, it signifieth also the coniunction of Christ to the Church by flesh, which as man can not dissolue, so ne­ther can he dissolue matrimony after con­summation. And as a seal is the parfection of a bargain making it more hard to be bro­ken then otherwise it shold be: so copu­lation is as it were the seal of the couenant of wedlock made betwixt man & woman, & maketh it more indissoluble then other­wise it should be.

9. As for Canus he meaneth of sinful co­pulation betwixt persons only affianced when they (saith he) after spousals company together. But as for coniugal copulation after matrimony is contracted, if it be done in that manner and for that end it should be, it giueth grace, and is meritorius, as appea­reth by S. Austin l. de bon. coniug. c. 21. 22. See S. Austin l. 1. de nupt. & concup. c. 12. 13. 14. 15. tom. 7. tom. 6. where though he prefer the chastity of single life before the chastity of mariage, yet he compareth Abrahams merit in his holy vsage of mariage with S. Ihons merit in liuing single. Besides lawful copulation [Page 154] is a good worke as I hope Bel wil not deny, but according to his owne doctrin art 5. Artic. 5. p. 61. euery good worke is meritorius or impetra­torius of Gods fauor, & reward. His fourh reply vz, that matrimony should not be fully perfected in the Church, if copula­tion do perfect it, containeth no new diffi­culty.

10. Fiftly he argueth it to be absurd. That matrimony beginneth to be a Sacramant by pag. 39. copulation, and was not by the Priests action. 44 vntruth But more absurd it is to vtter vntruths. For Catholiques say not that it beginneth to be See Bellar. l. 2. de Mona­chis. c. 38. The contra­ry is a par­ticuler opi­nion of Ca­nus l. 8. de loc. c. 5. Conc. Trid. sess. 24. c. 1. de Reform. pag. 39. a Sacrament by copulatiō, or by the Priests action: but that it beginneth by the mu­tual consent of the parties, and is perfected by their copulation, though that it be law­fully contracted, the Priests ptesence be re­quired. His sixt obiection is that Matrimony was perfect in Paradise betwixt Adam and Eue. But this is to assume that which he was to proue. His seuenth reply is: If contracted ma­trimony were not de iure diuino both parties a­greeing, they might dissolue it them selues, as they can dissolue spousals, because as the lavv saith euery one may yeeld vp his right. Answer. Contra­cted matrimony is a Sacrament instituted by God, and therfore can not be dissolued but by such as succeeding the Apostles are dispensers of Gods misteries 1. Corinth. 4. S. Paul. [Page 155] v. 1. The like reason is not of spousals, nor of any other contract instituted by man.

11. Eighthly he replyeth. That mariage betwene the B. virgin and Ioseph was per­fect, where doubtles wanted copulation. That it was perfect he proueth because the Math. 1. angel called her Iosephs wife. And S. Am­brose saith. That not deflowring of virginity S. Ambros. de institut. virg. ca. 6. tom. 1. S. August. l. 2. de con­sens. Euang. c. 1. tom. 4. Lib. 1. de nupt. & concup. c. 11. to. 7. but coniugal couenant maketh wedlock. And S. Austin writeth. That we rightly vnderstand Ioseph to be maries husband, by very copulation of wedlock without commixtion of flesh. Againe. God forbid that the bond of wedloock (rumpatur) be broken betwixt them, who are content vpon mu­tual consent, to abstein for euer from vse of carnal concupiscence. For it was not falsly said of the Angel vnto Ioseph, Fear not to take thy wife mary. Answer: Al these proofs conuince no more, then that contracted matrimony is true ma­riage, as we willingly confesse was betwixt Ioseph and our B. Lady, For the Angel cal­leth her not Iosephs perfect, wife, but ab­solutly his wife. Wherupon S. Hierom l. S. Hierom. pr. fin. cont. Heluid. saith S. Ioseph was rather a kee­per, then a husband, and in c. 1. Math. When thou hearest an husband do not suspect mariage, but remember the custome of Scripture that spou­ses are called husbands, and spousesses wises. And S. Basil hom. de human. Chris. gener. cal­leth S. Basil. that dispousation wherwith S. Ioseph, [Page 156] and our Lady were maried, beginning of Ma­riage As for S. Ambrose he denyeth not that deflowring perfecteth mariage, but that it maketh it. And S. Austin in the first place affirmeth that we truly vnderstand Ioseph to be Maries husband without copulation, but addeth not that he is so perfectly.

12. To the secōd place I answer that S. Au­stin speaketh there only of cōsummated ma­riage, both because his intention in those Lib. 1. c. 1. books was as he professeth in the beginning to shew against the Pelagians. That though childrē infected with original sinne do pro­ceed from mariage, it selfe is no sinne, which difficulty hath no place but in cōsummated mariage. As also because after he had proued in the forsaid 11. chapter that the bond of wedlock is not broken by purpose of ab­steining from vse (as he speaketh) of con­cupiscence, or exercise of marigeable acts, in the next chapter he concludeth thus. VVher­fore Cap. 22. then may not they remain man and vvife, vvho of consent leaue of companying together, if Ioseph and mary remayned man, and vvife, vvho not so much as began to company together. By which Conclusion of his, it is euident that before he had spoken only of consummated ma­riage, and only meant to proue that it is not broken by priuate determination, or pur­pose of the parties to absteine from exercise [Page 157] of copulation. Which he proued by an ar­gument a fortiori, because vnconsummated matrimony of our B. Lady, and Ioseph was not broken by their purpose of absteining from al carnal knowledge. But whither vn­consummated matrimony which is not broken by such priuate purposes of the par­ties maried, may vpon iust and vrgent cause be dissolued by 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 [Page 158] 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.

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 [Page 160] cōcupiscence 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 cō ­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 shalbe 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 P [...]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, [Page 161] 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 [Page 163] 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 mani [...]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. calleth it iniquity: and lib. 1. de nupt. & concupisc. cap. 27. filthy and vnlavvful. Hence Bel pag. 53. inferreth inuoluntary More requi­red to for­mal sinne then to euil. concupiscence to be formal, and proper sinne, but he is far deceaued. For formal sinne beside euil, and vnlawfulnes requi­teth voluntarines, as I shal hereafter proue, and is euident in fooles, and beasts, who though they haue these inuoluntary acts are no formal sinners.

5. Fourth Conclusion: whensoeuer it is any way voluntary ether in it self, or in any needles cause therof, it is formally sinne. This is euident: because then it hath [Page 164] the whole essence or definition of sinne: for it is a voluntary act against Gods law, or right reason. I say needles cause, because if the cause be necessary, or honest, it excuseth the actual concupiscence following therof from fault.

6. Fift Conclusion: Habitual, and actual Al Concu­piscence may be cal­led sinne & vvhy. Concupiscence whatsoeuer, euen in the regenerate may be called sinne. This is ma­nifest out of that which hath bene said in the 2 and [...]. conclusion. For ether it is vo­luntary, and then it is formal sinne, & pro­perly so called: or though it be vn volun­tary, it is the cause, effect, punishment, or material part of sinne: and any of these rea­sons suffice to make it figuratiuely be cal­led sinne. 1 And they al are taken out of S. Austin. For 1. de nupt. & concup. c. 23. he saith Concupiscence may be called sinne, because it is the effect of sinne, as writing is called a hand. 2 And in the same place be­cause it is the cause of sinne: as coldnes is called sluggish because it maketh sluggish. 3 Likwise 1. Retract. c. 15. he calleth it sinne, because it is the punishment therof. So Za­char. vlt. v. 19. punishment of sinne is cal­led sinne. And finally lib. 5. cont. Iulian. c. 4 3. he calleth actual concupiscence sinne, be­cause it is a disorderly act; and it wanteth nothing of sinne, but voluntarines, and [Page 164] therfore may as wel be called sinne as a dead body is called a man. And who wel remembreth what is said in these fiue Con­clusions, need no more to answer al Bels arguments. For, as we shal see, he proueth no more then they containe.

7. Sixt Conclusion: Actual concupis­cence Actual Cō ­cupiscence if inuolun­tary is no formal sinne. whensoeuer it is inuoluntary is no formal or proper sinne, or offence to God. This is against Bel in this whole Article. But I proue it. First because some acts of Concupiscence be but temptatiōs to sinne, and are before sinne be brought forth. Ergo such are no formal sinne. The consequence is euident. For what is but tentation to sinne, and goeth before sinne be, is no pro­per sinne. The Antecedent I proue out of S. Iames saying Euery one is tempted by his Con­cupiscence, S. Iames c. 1. v. 14. 15. See S. Austin lib. 6. cont. Iul. cap. 15. to. 7. behold an act, but a tempting of vs to sinne: aftervvard vvhen concupiscence hath conceaued it bringeth forth sinne, behold also an act of Concupiscence going before sinne be brought forth. Willet saith nothing to VVillet con­trouers. 17. q. 1. p. 558. the first part of tentation, but to the second of bringing forth he answereth. That it fol­lovveth not Concupiscence to be no sinne, because it bringeeh forth sinne, because one viper may bring forth an other. But we infer not Concupis­cence to be no sinne, because it bringeth forth sinne: for we wel know that one [Page 165] sinne may bring forth an other: but we ga­ther that that act of Cōcupiscence, which S. Iames tearmeth conceauing of sinne, is no sinne, because he affirmeth it to go before the bringing forth of sinne, in saying Af­tervvard vvhen Concupiscence hath conceaued it bringeth forth sinne, and this could not be, if it were sinne, it self. Caluin answereth this Caluin. lib. 3. instit. c. 3. pa­ragr. 13. Bellarm. l. 5. de amiss. grat. & stat. peccat. c. 7. argument otherwaies, whom Bellarmin confureth.

8. Secondly because whiles a man with the minde serueth the law of God he can not by sinne serue the dyuel. But S. Paul euen when he had inuoluntary motions of concupiscence, serued with the minde the law of God. Therfore then he sinned not. The Proposition is euident by the saying S. Math. 6. v. 24. S. Paul. of Christ. None can (at once) serue tvvo mai­sters. The assumption S. Paul testifieth Ro­man. 7. v. 25. saying, I my self vvith the minde serue the lavv of God, but vvith the flesh the lavv of sinne.

9. Thirdly nothing inuoluntary, or done against our wil is sinne, diuers acts of Con­cupiscence be such. Ergo no sinne. Bel Bel pag. 50. Perkins re­for. Cath. tit. Of original sinne. wold gladly (as some of his fellowes do) deny the proposition, and therfore streight after he had propounded the argument, tel­leth vs (though falsly) that S. Austin pro­ueth inuoluntary motions to be sinne in­deed, [Page 166] and towards the end of this Article auoucheth a man to be guilty of sinne in that pag. 57. vvhich he doth against his vvil, and can not auoid, yet at last resolueth rather to deny the As­sumption: pag. 51. wherfore I proue them both: The proposition I proue out of that very place of S. Austin, which Bel citeth to the S. Augustin. to. 1. contrary. Sin (saith he 1. Retract. c. 13.) is so far forth voluntary euil, as it is no vvay sinne, if it be not voluntary. And this (saith he lib. de vera relig. c. 14.) is so manifest, as nether the fevvnes, of learned, no [...] the multitude of vnlearned doth deny it. And wil Bel now deny that which in S. Austins tyme nether learned, nor vnlearned would deny? Now let the 46. vntruth Reader iudge, with what face Bel affirmed that S. Austin in the foresaid place 1. Re­tract. proueth inuoluntary Concupiscence to be sinne, where he most manifestly affir­meth nothing to be any way sinne if it be not voluntary, and therupon laboreth to shew original sinne in infants to be some way voluntary. And in an other place he S. Augustin. lib. de duab. animab. c. 1 [...]. tom. 6. & 1. Retract. c. 23. to. 1. S. Hierom. auoucheth it to be high iniustice, and madnes, that a man shold be guilty of sinne, because he did not that which he could not do And S. Hierom. epist. ad Damas. de exposit. fid. Accurseth their blasphemy vvho say that God hath comman­ded any impossible thing, as no doubt he hath, if we sinne in that which we can not auoid: [Page 167] See him dialog. cont. Pelag. S. Chrisostom S. Chrysost. tom. 4. S. Prosper. S. Augustin. tom. 10. Tom. 7. hom. 13 ad Rom. Prosper de vita contempl. c. 4. S. Austin serm. 61. de temp. de nat. & grat. c. 69. in psal. 56. and others. By reason also it is manifest. For if inuoluntary acts done against our wil be true sins, much more the acts of fooles, and mad men, yea of beasts, which are not done against wil, but only without wil, and they true male­factors, and sinners before God and men, which I think none, but a madde man, wil graunt. And I doubt not but Bel would think him self vniustly executed, if he were put to death for a thing done against his wil, and which he labored al he could to hinder.

10. The Assumption I proue, because if If Concu­piscence be not some tymes inuo­luntary no­thing is in­uoluntary. that be not inuoluntary, wherof we giue no occasion, nor consent vnto, yea detest and hinder al we can, (as it hapneth often­tymes in the motions of Concupiscence,) I can not see what can be inuoluntary vnto vs. And if they be Papists, (as Bel tearmeth them pag. 51.) who cal such acts of Concu­piscence S. Paul. S Augustin. serm. 43. de verb. Dom. See serm. 3. 5. and 12. de verb. Apost. Bel a Papist by his ovvn iudgment. inuoluntary. A Papist is S. Paul saying, Rom. 7. v. 19. I do the euil which I vvil not. And S. Austin when he saith. I vvil not that Cōcupiscence couet. we wold ther were no Cōcupiscences, but wil we, nil we, we haue them. Yea Bel him self no les then they, thrice in [Page 168] this Article pag. 50. 51. and 57. in plaine ter­mes calleth these motions inuoluntary.

11. But to this argument he answereth. Bel pag. 51. That they be voluntary in their origin, and therto citeth S. Austin affirming original sinne of S. Austin 1. retract. c. 13. tom. 1. infants to be voluntary in their origin, and calleth this the Gordion knot which Pa­pists can neuer vntie, and so clear and eui­dent a solution of the argument, as euery child may behold the weaknes, falshood, and absurditie therof. But Bel is ignorant VVhat is to be volun­tary in the origen. what it is to be voluntary in the origen. For this is nothing els but to be willed of him, from whom we took our origin, and whose wil is accounted ours. As original sinne is voluntary to infants in their origin, because it was willed of Adam in the eating of the forbidden Aple, and his wil was in that fact accounted theirs. And this ment S. Austin loc. cit. But as for actual motions 1. Retract. c. 13. to. 1. of concupiscence, he neuer said they were voluntaty to vs in their origin; nether can VVhy in­uoluntary motions are not volun­tary in their ori­gen. S. Gregory. they both because Adam had no wil of cō ­mitting these acts, as he had of leesing ori­ginal iustice in eating the Aple; as also be­cause his wil was not accounted ours in any other act, then in his keeping, or first leesing of original iustice. Besides as S. Gregory writeth l. 15. moral. c. 22. Original sinne being blotted out, children are not held by the iniquity of [Page 169] parents, and therfore Adams wil, can not make those acts in the regenerate to be sinne, which of their nature are none.

12. And though the forsaid motiōs were Inuolunta­ry motions though they vvere vo­luntary in their origen could be no sinne. voluntary in their origen, yet could they be nether, original, nor actual sinne. Not ori­ginal, because they are acts, and not common alike to al: Nor actual, because they haue no actual wil of the doer, and as vo­luntary in general is essential to sinne in ge­neral, so is actual voluntary, to actual sinne. Yea for an act now done to be formal sinne when it is done, sufficeth not, that it was actually voluntary in the cause done long ago, if now it be against wil. For albeit when I gaue cause of an vnlawful effect, which I did see wold after ensue, I was guilty of the effect, when I did the cause: yet if after the cause done I repent & be sory before the ef­fect follow, I do not sinne a new in the ef­fect. As if by some thing yesterday done, I gaue occasiō that disordinate motiōs rise to day, though I was then guilty of these mo­tions rising, yet if I since repented I do not sinne a new when they rise now against my wil. Els I should against my wil leese that grace which I got by repentance. Wherfore wel wrote S. Gregory to S. Austin our Apo­stle. S. Gregory epist. ad Au­gustin. Cant. c. 10. Oftentymes it is done without fault which cō ­meth of fault. And much les should inuo­luntary [Page 170] motions be sinnes in vs, though they were originally voluntary vnto vs only by the wil of an other. Thus is this Gordion knot two waies vntyed. But him selfe hath with his tong tyed so fast a knot for proofe Bel dispro­ueth him selfe. of my conclusion, as with his teeth he wil not be able to loose. For pag. 48. he affir­meth S. Paul to haue bene most free, and innocent 12. Contra­dict. touching actual sinne, and he proueth it, be­cause he fought mightily against his raging concupis­cence, and did in no wise yeeld therunto: which is both to confesse that S Paul had inuo­luntary motions of the flesh, which him selfe acknowledgeth Rom. 7. v. 15 17. 19. 23. & yet to proue them to be no sinne in him, because they were inuoluntary, which is both my conclusion, and reason.

13. As for S. Austin he is so far from S. Augustin. 10. 2. See S. Austin lib. 2 cont. Iul. c. 3. & 10. l. 5. c. 3. 15. thinking that we sinne by inuoluntary mo­tions of the flesh, as he saith epist: 200. ad Asellicum: That if we consent not to them we need not say: Forgiue vs our trespasses: which he repeateth againe l. de spit. & lit. c. vlt. ad­ding Tom. 3. that if we cōsented not to these act [...] we should disproue that saying of S. Ihon: If vve say vve haue no sinne vve deceaue our selfs, and proueth it l. 1. de ciuit. c. 15. thus. If concupiscential disobe­dience Tom. 5. be vvithout fault in the body of one sleeping, hovv much more in the body of one not consenting. And l. 1. de nupt. & concupis. c. 23. explica­teth [Page 171] how it is called sinne vz: as vvriting is called a hand, or cold sluggish vvhich is figura­tiuely, & improperly. Nay he not only ex­cuseth vs from sinne, when we consent not vnto inuoluntary motions of the flesh, but auoucheth that then we do much good, a great Merit in re­sisting Con­cupiscence according to S Au­stin. Tom. 7. Tom. 10. matter, for vvhich vve shal be crovvned: lib. 1. de nupt. & concupisc. c. 29. He doth much good vvho doth that vvhich is vvritten. Follovv not thy lusts. And serm. 5. de verb. Apost. c. 6. It is a great matter for me not to be ouercome of con­cupiscence, and cap. 9. who consenteth not doth much, it is a great matter he doth. And lib. 2. de Gen. cont. Manich. c. 14. Somtyme rea­son Tom. 1. doth manfully refraine and bridle Concupiscence euen stirred vp vvhich vvhen it is done vve fal not into sinne (mark Bel) but vvith some striuing are crovvned. Wherfore if they be Papists (as Bel Contradict. 13. saith pag. 46. and 49.) who say we merit when we resist Concupiscence, surely S. Austin is one. Yea Bel himself if he account it a good deed (as I hope he wil) to resist lust: for art. 5. pag. 61. he graunteth al good deeds to be meritorious. S. Gregory also epist. ad S. Gregory. August. c. 11. teacheth, That pollution in sleep is not at al to be feared vvhen it proceedeth of su­perfluity, or vveaknes of nature, And lib. 21. mo­ral. c. 3. vnclean cogitation defyleth not the mynde when it beateth, but vvhen it subdueth the mind vnto it by delight. More Fathers I might adde [Page 172] but it were needles, because Caluin lib. 3. Caluin. instit. c. 3. paragr. 10. confesseth that al the Fathers before S. Austin are of the same opinion vvith S. Austin.

14. Seauenth Conclusion: habitual Con­cupiscēce in the regenerate is no proper, or formal sinne. This euidently followeth out of the former. For if the acts be not formal sinne, but by consent of wil, much les the proanes vnto them: but it may be proued also otherwaies. First because if it be any sinne, it is original (for actual it can not be, being no act) but original it is not, because by regeneration, vve put of the old man. Co­loss. 3. v. 9. or lay away the old man Ephes. 4. versic. 22. and put on the nevv: Coloss. 3. v. 9. and Ephes. 4. v. 24. And by keeping original sinne we keep on the old man as by first contracting it we put him on. But it is contradiction at the same tyme to keep on, and put of or lay away the old man. Ergo in our regeneration we keep not ori­ginal sinne. And this is confirmed: because by sinne we bear the image of the earthly man, by regeneration the image of the hea­uenly according to that 1. Corinth. 15. v. 49. As vve haue borne the image of the earthly (man) let vs bear also the image of the heauēly. But these two images be opposit. For vvhat 2. Cor. 6. v. 15. agreement vvith Christ and Belial. Therfore we [Page 173] can not haue damnable sinne, as original sinne is, and be regenerate.

15. Secondly in regeneration either we remaine guilty of damnable sinne, or be­come guiltles of al such sinne. If we remaine guilty, then is not our sinne forgiuen: con­trary to that article of our Creed. Forgiuenes Symbol. A­post. of sinnes. For it is impossible to be guilty of sinne, and to haue sinne forgiuen. Then re­maine we also guilty of damnation the sty­pend Vbicunqu [...] peccatum est illic se profert ira & vltio Dei. Caluin. 3. in­stit. c. 11. pa­rag. 2. of sinne, Rom. 6. v. 23. For the guilt of punishment riseth of the guilt of sinne, as necessarily as fatherhood riseth of beget­ting a child. Wel may God chuse whether he wil punish a malefactor, or no, yet he can not make, that a malefactor remaining a malefactor, and guilty of sinne, shal not be guilty also of punishment. But a iusti­fied o [...] regenerate man can not be guilty of damnation; because There is no damnation to S. Paul. them vvho are in Christ Iesus: Rom. 8. v. 1. And Bel pag. 45. confesseth That a man can not be Bel. iustly condemned for sinne remitted. If in rege­neration we become guiltles of al damna­ble sinne, then haue we no such sinne in vs. For as S. Austin saith, To be not guilty of sinne S. Augustin. l. 1. de nupt. & concup. c. 26. to. 7. is to haue no sinne: And again: Sinnes remaine but by their guilt. As adultery once committed remaineth in the Committer, only because he is stil guilty of the adultery he did, vntil [Page 174] it be remitted.

16. Protestants answer. That by regenera­tion Perkins re­for. C [...]thol. pag. 36. See S. Austin lib. 6. cont. Iulian. c. 6. guilt is taken from vs, but not from the sinne which is in vs. But this is contradiction: for if the guilt be in the sinne, & the sinne stil in vs the guilt is also stil in vs. Beside the guilt of sinne (wherof we speak, and not of the guilt of punishmēt) can not be in our sinne, which can not be guilty of it selfe, but in vs only, who are guilty of sinne, which we haue cōmitted. And the remaining of sinne in vs consisteth only in the remaining of this guilt (as saith S. Austin) as the remaining of adul­tery S. Augustin. 1. de nupt. cōsisteth only in this that a man is stil guilty of the adulterous fact he did. And VVhat it is for sinne to remayne. therfore if this guilt of the fact be taken frō him, it is impossible for adultery to remaine in him. Beside it is manifest contradiction to say one hath sinne in him, and yet is not guilty of sinne, or a sinner, as it is to say the ayer hath darknes in it, and yet is not darke.

17. Thirdly God in regeneration taketh away sinnes: Ioan. 1. v. 29. Miche. 7. casteth S. Ihon. [...]icheas v. 19. Psalm. v. 12. them into the depth of the sea: Seperateth from vs as far as the East is from the vvest: psal. 102. But concupiscence is not taken away, it is not cast into the depth of the sea, nor sepa­rated from vs as far, as the East from the west. Ergo it is no sinne. Againe: By iusti­fication [Page 175] he maketh vs more white then snow: psal. 50. v. 9. but how can we be whiter then snow, if the blacknes of sinne stil re­maine in vs? Fourthly Adam by his sinne de­priued of grace, and transfused sinne into al them that are generate of him. Ergo: Christ by his merit expelled sinne, and transfused grace into al them that are regenerat of him. The Antecedēt is euident. The consequēce I proue. For els Christs merits had not bene so potent and effectual to do good, as A­dams sinne was to do euil, seeing Christs merit can not as really, and truly take sinne from vs, as Adams sinne transfused it into vs. Which is both contrary to Christs ho­nor, and to the Apostles doctrin Rom. 5. v. S. Paul. Bel dispro­ued by him self. 17. 18 19. Fiftly how shal one be iustly condem­ned for that which is remitted in baptisme? it can not be. Ergo after baptisme there remayneth no damnable sinne. The Antecedent is the very words of Bel pag. 44. and 45. and agre­able to S. Paul Rom. 8. v. 1. There is no damna­tion to them, that are in Christ Iesus. The conse­quence is euident for one that hath damna­ble sinne may be iustly condemned.

18. I need not cite Fathers for proofe of this Conclusion because as I said before Caluin confesseth that S. Austin had faith­fully, Caluin. lib. [...]. instit. c. 3. p [...] ­rag. 10. and very diligently gathered the sentences of al holy Fathers, and yet disagreeth from him. [Page 176] For S. Austin (saith he) dare not cal concupis­cence sinne, but is content to tearme it infirmity. Let now any indifferent Reader iudge whi­ther we haue not reason to boast (to vse Bels tearms) that S. Austin is on our side. S. Augustin. to. 7. And no maruel. For 1. de nupt. & concupis. c. 23. he writeth thus: Truly this same Con­cupiscence is now no sinne (mark Bel) in the re­generat when consent is not giuen vnto it to vn­lawful acts. And soone after. But in a certain kind of speech it is called sinne: and he giueth there two reasons of this figuratiue speech, because (saith he) it was made of sinne, and maketh sinne if it ouercome. Again: So is (Con­cupiscence) called sinne, because it was made by sinne, vvheras novv in the regenerate it selfe is no sinne (mark again) as speech which the tong maketh is called a tong, & writing a hand vvhich a hand maketh. So also it is called a sinne, because it maketh sinne if it ouercome as cold is called sluggish, because it maketh sluggards. Can any Catholique now speak more plainly. In these few words al in one chapter, he twise denyeth concupiscence in the regenerate to be sinne, once affirmeth it to be improperly so called, and giueth two reasons, and two examples of such figuratiue speech: The S. Augustin. to. 7. Bellarm. l. 5. de amiss. Grat. & stat. peccati c. 8. same doctrin he teacheth l. 1. contr. duas epist. Pelag. c. 13. and l. 2. cont. Iulian & in al his tomes as Bellarmin sheweth. So that [Page 177] whatsoeuer Bel hereafter shal obiect out of S. Paul: S. Austin, or others calling concu­piscence S. Austin hath pre­uented al Bels obie­ctions. sinne, I need not answer my selfe, but referre the Reader to these words of S. Austin, wherin he explicateth both why, and how, S. Paul, him selfe, and others meane not properly, but improperly and fi­guratiuely, when they cal concupiscence sinne. Yet because Bels arguments containe diuers vntruths requisite to be taxed, I wil answer them al in such order as he propo­seth them.

CHAP. II. Diuers vntruthes of Bel disproued, his ar­guments out of S. Paul against the doctrin in the former chapter ansvvered.

BEL beginneth this Article as he did Bel pag. 41. the rest with vntruths 1. That S. Paul in vntruth 47 the whole 7. chapter to the Romans proueth ori­ginal concupiscence in the regenerate to be sinne. This is not so: for he doth not proue it to be any sinne at al, but supposing it to pro­uoke to sinne, calleth it sinne. 2. That Papists vntruth 48 can not abide the Apostles doctrin. Forsooth because we can not abide Bels exposition. 3. That the cause of our denying Concupiscence to vntruth 49 be sinne is because it ouerthroweth our holy so sup­posed [Page 178] iustification (thus blasphemously he de­nyeth Bel blaspbe­meth iusti­fication. iustification to be holy) our inherent pu­rities, condigne merits, & works of supererogation. This is vntrue: for it might be such sinne, as Bel wold haue it (to wit venial) and de­stroy Bel art. 6. p. 81. none of al these. But the true causes are Scriptures, Fathers, & reason before al­leadged, and Bel confesseth that the reason pag. 50. which we euer haue in our mouth is the in­uoluntarines of concupiscence 4. That the Maister of Sentences vtterly condemneth vs in cal­ling vntruth 50 3. sent. d. 19. concupiscence culpam. But he meaneth im­properly as is euident by his owne words 2. dist. 32. Concupiscence after baptisme (saith he) is only (mark Bel) punishment of sinne, but be­fore baptisme both punishment, and fault.

2. Thus hauing made his way with vn­truths, Bel pag. 42. he proueth cōcupiscence to be sinne out of S. Paul. Rom. 7. v. 25. saying. I my selfe with the mynd serue the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sinne. And hence noteth that the regenerate do serue the law of sinne. But he forgot to note that it is but with the flesh, and that with the mynd (without which Ibid. there is no formal sinne) they serue the law of God. He also noteth. That the best liuers can not merit grace, and glory ex condigno: because by sinne they deserue death. VVhich because S. Austin (saith he) at the first could not disgest, he vnder­stood S. Paul in the 7. chapter to the Romans, only 51. vntruth [Page 179] of the vvicked, not of the godly. But remitting Bel forget­teth his matter. the matter of merit, and desert of sinne to their proper places art. 5. and 6. false it is that S. Austin changed his opinion about the vnderstanding of those words of S. Paul Rom. 7. I am a carnal man solde vnder sinne: and the like, because he saw that iust men sinned. For as him selfe testifyeth 1. Retract. S. Austin. c. 23. (and Bel wrongly cited 22.) he rea­ding other expositors, found that the fore­said words might be vnderstood of the A­postle him selfe, as the word carnal may be verifyed of him in respect of his body, not yet spiritual, and the word sinne in respect of concupiscence, which is sinne vz: im­properly, as the same S. Austin explicateth Lib. 1. de nu­pt. & concu­pis. c. 23. & l. 1. cont. duas epist. Pelag. c. 13. in the books to which he referreth vs, and we cited them before. Wherby we see, that S. Austins error was in vnderstanding the foresaid words of formal, and proper sinne (as Bel doth) and corrected it by vnder­standing them of improper sinne. And yet euen when he was in that error, he was so far from thinking (as Bel doth) that the best liuers in rigor deserue eternel death, that then he wold in no wise thinke the Apostle to speak of a mā in grace, assuring him selfe, that no such man is solde vnder sinne that deserueth eternal death.

3. His second proofe is out of the 23. Bel pag. 42. [Page 180] verse of the same chapter where S. Paul writeth I see a lavv in my members subduing me to the lavv of sinne. VVhat (saith Bel) can he Bel forget­teth vvhat he is to proue. merit who is prisoner to the law of sinne. But be­side that, Bel for got what he was to proue: vz. Concupiscence in the iust to be sinne, not their merit to be none: S. Paul by the word (me) vnderstandeth only his flesh, as he had expounded him selfe before v. 18. when he said. There dvvelleth not in me that is in my flesh good. And S. Austin interpreteth 1. de nupt & concupis. c. 30. and 31. And v. 23. saith that he vvas prisoner to the lavv of sinne in his flesh, and in his mynd serued the lavv of God: what maruel then, that one prisoner in flesh, but free in mynd (from which al our merit, or sinne proceedeth) may by seruing Gods law, merit.

4. His third proofe is out of the 19. verse Bel pag. 43. where (as he citeth) S. Paul saith. The euil vvhich I vvold not that I do. Omitting the false False tran­slat. 3. translating of on thelo and Nolo: I vvold not: as though S. Paul had not had a present, and absolute wil not to lust, but an imperfect velleity which euen the wicked haue, and in english we signify by vvold, and vvold not. I answer that S. Paul improperly saith; He doth that which he wil not, and therfore in the very next verse, as it were correcting that speech saith. If I do that I vvil not, I vvorke v. 20. [Page 181] it not, wherin he both affirmeth & ptoueth that we do not what we wil not. And the A man ra­ther doth not then doth vvhat his vvil doth not. See S. Tho­mas 1. 2. q. 74. art. 3. ad 3. reason is euident. For as the commonwelth is principally the Prince, Pieres, and Magi­strats, which gouerne the rest: so a man is principally his wil, which commandeth the rest. And therfore as the cōmonwealth doth not that, which they do not, though some of the commonalty do it: so a man doth not, what his wil doth not, though some of his inferior powres do it. If ther­fore S. Paul did but improperly say, he doth what he wil not, Bel can therof inferre but improper sinne. Besides though it were a proper speech, therof can be inferred no proper sinne, for want of voluntarines. And here by the way Bel straweth his Bel pag. 43. flowers of leasing, saying. That the cause why S. Austin epist: 105. vvrote that God crovvned 52. vntruth nothing but his ovvne gifts, vvhen he crovvneth our merits, is, because the regenerate by inuoluntary asts of Concupiscence sinne, and become guilty of damnation. For nether doth S. Austin speake there of inuoluntary acts, nether any where S. August. 2. de Cenes. contr. Ma­nich. c. 14. tom. 1. doth he say they exclude merit, or deserue damnation, yea plainly auoucheth that vve are crovvned vvhen vve haue them against our vvil. And the true cause of his speech shal be giuen in the next Article of merit, and his very words conuince that our merits [Page 182] are no sinnes, and much les deserue damna­tion: VVhy me­rits are no sinne, out of S. Austin. for he calleth them Gods owne gifts and saith he crowneth them: but God ne­ther giueth nor crowneth sinne.

5. Fourthly Bel alleadged the Apostle pag. 43. Cap. 1. parag. 3. 4. 6. 13. 18. calling Concupiscence sinne: Rom. 7. v. 14. and 20. But this we answered before. Bel replyeth that it wil not suffice to say with Bellar­min 53. vntruth that it is called sinne only because it prouoketh to sinne, as a mans vvriting is called his hand, be­cause 54. vntruth it is vvritten vvith his hand. Here be two vntruths fathered vpon Bellarmin. For ne­ther doth he say Concupiscence is called sinne only because it prouoketh to sinne: yea lib. 5. de amiss. grat. & stat. pec. c. 8. he Bellarm. giueth an other reason out of S. Austin, be­cause it is the effect of sinne. Nether doth he say that it may be called sinne, because it prouoketh to sinne, as writing is called a hand, because it is made by a hand; for so it is a cause, and writing an effect; but as cold is called sluggish, because it maketh slug­gards. But let vs hear why S. Paul may not be vnderstood of improper sinne. First be­cause Bel pag. 43. the Maister of Sentences graunted Concupis­cence to be sinne. This is twise sod colworts set again before his reader for want of other meat, but reiected before. Secondly because it maketh a man to serue the lavv of sinne, vvhich Sup. parag. 1. seruice can neuer be but sinne. Here the question [Page 183] it self is begged. For the question it self is, Bel assu­meth vvhat he vvas to proue, and yet conclu­deth no­thing. whither the seruice to the law of sinne done by the flesh not by the mynd (as S. Paul speaketh Rom. 7. vers. 23.) be proper sinne, or no, and that Bel beggeth of vs to graunt But he must win it, ere he get it. And though we did graūt it to him, yet could he no more infer therof that habitual Concu­piscence, which causeth it, is sinne, then he can infer the powre of our wil, which is a gift of God, to be sinne, when it causeth sinne. Thirdly (saith Bel) because the euil vvherof S. Paul speaketh he hateth and vvil not (Bel hath wold not) do it, which must needs be meant of sinne. True, but of material, and improper sinne. For such also is to be hated, and not to be willed.

6. Bel hauing thus sillily proued his he­resy Bel pag. 43. 44. out of S. Paul, endeuoreth to proue it out of our doctrin thus. Al reprobataes are re­probated both negatiuely, and positiuely for origi­nal sinne. Ergo: Concupiscence is sinne euen after baptisme. The Antecedent (saith he) is a maine vntruth 55. point, and settled ground of Papists religion, and he vvillingly graunteth it. The consequence he proueth because some reprobates are baptized. Answer. First I deny the Antecedent. For 1. Ansvver. nether doth any Catholique affirme it to be any point at al of Popish faith, & much lesse a maine point, or ground therof: nether [Page 184] (though some beleeue it as a school opini­on) is it true, because original sinne being as truly forgiuen in baptisme to many repro­bates, as it is to predestinates, they can be no more positiuely sent to hel for it, then predestinates. For as S. Paul saith Rom. 11. S. Paul. v. 29. Gods gifts are vvithout repentance, so that what sinne he truly forgiueth he neuer af­terward punisheth in hel. wherfore S Pro­sper S. Prosper in resp. ad ob­iect. 2. Gal­lor. writeth that vvho goeth from Christ, and endeth this life out of grace, vvhat goeth he but into perdition? yet he falleth not againe into that vvhich is forgiuen, nor shalbe damned in original sinne. Only as al sinns are sayd to returne by Hovv reprobats may be sayd to be reprobated for original sinne. ingratitude, according to the parable of the vngrateful seruant Math. 18. because a sinne, after others haue bene pardoned, becometh greater by the ingratitude, then otherwise it were: so original sinne pardoned to some reprobats in baptisme, may be said to re­turne to them through their ingratitude in sinning after the said pardon, and they being positiuely damned for such sinne, may in some sort be said to be positiuely damned for original sinne. Secōdly though 2. Ansvver the Antecedent were true, it could not fol­low therof, that Concupiscence in repro­bates is formal sinne, but only that original sinne is not truly forgiuen in baptisme to any reprobat, which though it be false, per­teineth [Page 185] not to this question. For as for ha­bitual Cap. 1. parag. 2. & 3. Concupiscence, it nether before ba­ptisme, nor after is formal sinne, but be­fore only materially sinne, and after only languor, and weaknes as is before explica­ted. But how Bel admitting al reprobates to be reprobated positiuely for sinne, agreeth with his Maisters Caluin, Beza, and others Caluin, Beza Rom. 9. teaching that they are reprobated for Gods pleasure, and that he made them to damne, and reprobate them, let his breethren in Bel contra­dicteth his sellovv Mi­nisters. Bel pag. 45. the lord enquire. Now to his places taken out of S. Austin, whom he promiseth to shew to be so plaine for his doctrin, as none can stand in doubt therof. But who wel re­membreth S. Austins words, and Caluins Chap. 1. pa­rag. 13. & 18. confession before cited, can neuer stand in doubt but that Bel most braggeth wher he hath lest cause, and like a [...]prating petty­fogger cryeth lowdest, when he hath lest proofs.

CHAP. III. Bels arguments out of S. Austin touching Concupiscence ansvvered.

THE first place he alleadgeth out of S. Bel pag. 45. Austin is tom. 7. l. 6. contr. Iulian. c. 3. where he writeth. As blindnes of hart is sinne, punishment of sinne, and cause of sinne. So cōcupiscence of the flesh is sinne, [Page 186] punishment, and cause of sinne. Answer. S. Austin compareth concupiscence with blindnes of hart, in the material disorder of sinne. For as sinne is against the rule of reason, so disordinate lust, not in formality of sinne. Nether say I this only, but can proue it. And omitting that other where he Lib. de Spir. & [...]it. c. vlt. l. 1. de nupt. & concup. c. 23. l. 1. con. duas epist. Pelag. c. 13. plainly auoucheth it to be no formal sinne, as is before shewed, I proue it, first by his reason, where with he proueth it to be sinne: vz because it is disobedient to the rule of reason, which conuinceth it to be material sinne, and a disorderly and euil thing, but not to be formally sinne, for want of vo­luntarines, which him selfe necessarily re­quireth to formal sinne as is before shewed. Secondly because it sufficed to S. Austin to [...]ap. 1. parag. 9. proue concupiscence to be material sinne, for to disproue Iulian the Pelagian against whom he there disputed, who taught, as S. Austin there and other where testifyeth, Lib. de nupt. & concup. c. 34. to. 7. & l. 6. cont. Iul. [...]. [...]. that it was laudable & good, against whom he there proueth by the example of blind­nes of hart, that it was not only punish­ment and cause of sinne, but also sinne; that is, naught, euil, and disorderly; because it is against the rule of reason, which is to be sinne materially, though it want the forme of sinne which is voluntarines.

2. Next he bringeth these words. Some Bel pag. 46. [Page 187] iniquity is in man when the inferior parts do stub­bernly S. Augustin▪ tom. 7. striue against the superior, albeit they be not suffered to ouercome. And quoteth for them l. 6. contr. Iulian c. 8. as he found it through the Printers error, falsly quoted in Bellarm: Bellarm. l. 3. de amiss. grat. & stat. pec. c. 9. Bels chalēg nothing but Bellarmins obiections. Sup. c. 1. pa­rag. 3. & 4. but they are, l. 6. c. 19 which added to that, that almost al he saith is found in Bellarmin, conuinceth that he made this boasting chal­lenge out of his obiections. As for S. Austin his meaning when he calleth concupiscēce iniquity is sufficiently explicated before. And the very word, Some, argueth that he thinketh it not to be formal sinne, but in some sort vz: materially. Besides that him selfe l. 2. contr. Iulian c. 5. expoundeth the like words out of S. Ambrose of no sinful iniquity.

3. The third place cited by Bel is l. 1. de pag. 46. nupt. & concupis. c. 25. where S. Austin S. Augustin. tom. 7. writeth. If (concupiscence) can both be in the baptized parent and be no sinne, vvhy is the selfe same no sinne in the child? To this I ansvver (saith S. Austin) That concupiscence is not so forgiuen in baptisme, that it is no more, but that it is no more imputed to sinne. Item. There remaineth not any thing vvhich is not remitted. Wherupon Bel in­ferreth both that concupiscence is formal sinne, els it need not be forgiuen, & that it is true sinne, as wel after baptisme, as before though it be not imputed to sinne after bap­tisme, [Page 188] and biddeth vs mark that S. Austin said not: Nothing is sinne that remaineth, or no sinne remaineth: but not any thing remaineth vvhich is not remitted. Answer. The forme, & VVhat is the essence of habitual sinne▪ Cap. [...]. essence of habitual sinne is the guilt of actual sinne before done, according to S. Austin in the same book, and next chapter, as the forme of habitual sinne of adultery is the guilt of actual adultery before com­mitted: & the forme of that habitual sinne which we haue by origin, is the guilt of Adams actual eating the Aple, which guilt Hovv Con­cupiscence needeth for giuenes. being annexed to Concupiscence maketh it formal sinne, and to require forgiuenes, but that guilt being taken away by Gods forgiuing the sinne (as the same holy Do­ctor teacheth in the same place, and lib. 6. S. Austin. contr. Iulian. c. 17. and lib. 1. Retract. c 13) Concupiscence need no more forgiuenes (as the same B. Saint writeth. lib. de spirit. To. 3. & 1. & lib. 1. contr. duas epist. Pelag. c. 13. & lit. c. vlt. and epist. 200.) Nor remaineth any more true sinne, more then the body remaineth a man after the soule is departed. And in this very place which Bel citeth, when he asketh why Concupiscence is sinne in the childe, if it be in the parent ba­ptized, and be no sinne in him, euidently supposeth that it is no true sinne in the baptized.

4. As for that of not imputing sinne, [Page 189] what S. Austin meant therby we wil rather VVhat no [...] imputing of sinne is vvith S. Austin. learne of himself then of Bel, he therfore in the very words which Bel citeth hauing asked why Concupiscence is not sinne (mark Bel) in the parent baptized as wel as in the childe vn­baptized, answered that by baptisme non impu­tatur None but an infidel vvil say sinne is not ta [...]ē avvay in baptisme S. August. l. 1. cont. duas epist. Pelag. c. 13. to. 7. in peccatum it is not imputed for sinne. In which answer vnles he did by not im­puting for sinne, meane making no sinne, he had not answered the question, why Concupiscence was no sinne in the bapti­zed parent. Therfore with him Concupis­cence not to be imputed to, or for sinne, is to be made no sinne. And cap. 32. he saith that Concupiscence to be imputed, is to haue the guilt (vz of Adams actual sinne) which it hath, with it: and consequently to be not imputed is to haue this guilt taken away, but to haue no guilt is to haue no sinne, as him self saith c. 26. therfore with him Con­cupiscence to be not imputed is to be made no sinne. Nether indeed can God other­wise not impute sinne but by taking it away. For his iudgment is according to truth. Rom. 2. v. 2. and therfore if ther be sinne S. Paul. in vs, he must needs impure it to vs, and account vs sinners, els he shold not accoūt vs, as we are, and according to truth. And albeit S. Austin did not in this place say in plaine tearms. Nothing is sinne that remaineth. [Page 190] or: No sinne remaineth yet he manifestly sup­posed the first, when he asked why concupis­cence is not sinne (mark Bel) as wel in parents baptized as in the child, & affirmed them both in equiualent tearms when he answered that by not imputation concupiscence be­came no sinne in the baptized, as is already shewed. And otherwhere plainly affirmeth. That al sinnes are forgiuen (in baptisme) and S. Austin. l. 1. contr. duas epist. Pelag. c. 13. In Psal. 72. l. 6. cont. Iul. c. 16. 17. Tract. 41. in Ioan. serm. 6. de verb. Apost. lib. 20. de ciuit. c. 26. novv are no more at al. What is this but to say no sinne remaineth. And nothing more vsual with him then to say. That in baptisme al sinnes are taken avvay, do dye, are vvholy for­giuen, al iniquity blotted out: the baptized haue no sinne. Infants christened haue no filth. Beside in sense al is one to say. Nothing remaineth which is sinne: and nothing is sinne that remaineth. For God by remitting taketh away the guilt of sinne, as S. Austin saith l. 1. de nupt. & concupis. c. 26. l. 6. contr. Iulian. c. 17. and l. 1. Retract. c. 13. which guilt is the very forme of sinne as is before explicated out of S. Austin.

5. The fourth place is taken out of S. Bel pag. 47. S. Augustin. to. 7. Austin l. 1. de nupt. & concupis. c. 29. He doth much good who doth that which is written. Follow not thy lust, but perfecteth it not because he fulfilleth not that thou shalt not couet, or lust. Hence Bel inferreth. First that the iust can do no good, nor striue against lust so perfectly but it is [Page 191] annexed to sinne. This is grounded vpon S. Austins words of not perfecting good, and not fulfilling the law of not coueting. But the illation is quite contrary to his meaning in this place and others before cited, where he saith. That as long as we consent not, we sinne Epist. 200. l. de Spir. & lit. c. vlt. l. 1. de nupt. & concupis. c. 29. lib. 2. de Gen. contr. Manich. cap. 14. Non est cul­pae deputan­dum si non­dum potest esse tanta di­lectio Dei quanta ple­nae perfectae­que cogni­tioni debe­tur. Aug. de spir. & lit. c. vlt. tom. 3. Aristotel. Quae parti­cipatio iusti­tiae cum ini­quitate. 2. Cor. 6. not, we need not aske forgiuenes, yea do much good and are crowned. And though he say we per­fect not our good, yet not to perfect is not to sinne, especially when it is against our wil that we perfect it not, as it is in this case. And S. Austin is so far from saying here we sinne when we perfect not this worke, as he affirmeth that we do much good. And Bel can as wel combine good and sinne in one act, as he can annex light and darknes, heauen and hel, God and diuil. For as the Philosopher saith bonum ex integra cansa, malum ex quolibet defectu. It is no good act vnles it be good euery way, and it is sinne if it be euil any way.

6. As for fulfilling the law: I answer that who consenteth not to Concupiscence fulfilleth it in al things which it comman­deth to be performed vnder sinne as S. Au­stin expresly affirmeth in many places: as lib. de spirit. & lit. c. vlt. epist. 200. lib. 1. Sup. c. 1. pa­rag. 13. & 18. de nupt. & concupisc. c. 29. lib. 2. de Genes. contr. Manich. c. 14. whose words we ci­ted before: though if he haue Concupis­cence, [Page 192] he fulfil it not in a thing which the law, though it command not vnder sinne Hovv to haue no Cō ­cupiscence is comman­ded by the lavv and hovv not. to be performed, yet it commandeth as the end to which we ought, al we can to ende­uor and labor to attaine vnto. That to haue no Concupiscence at al, is commanded by the law, only as the end which we ought to endeuor vnto, is manifest both by S. Au­stins affirming that there is no sinne, when See more herafter ar­tic. 8 chap. 2 paragr 3. and chap. 3. parag. 2. there is no consent, as also because in the very next words to those which Bel citeth he saith. To this end the law said thou shalt not couet, that in this precept we mihgt know both what in this mortality we ought to endeuor vnto by profiting, and whither we ought to attaine vnto in that most happy immortality. Behold how he saith in this life we ought to endeuor, and in the next we ought to attaine to haue no lust. And tract. 41. in Ioan he saith. I can not fulfil that which is said thou shalt not couet, what S. Augustin. to. 9. therfore is it needful to fulfil? that. Goe not after thy concupiscences. Behold he prescribeth this Item 10. de Gen. cap. 12. tom. 3. Cap. 5. to. 10. only as needful to attaine vnto. And in the same place, and serm. 12. de verb. Apost. he noteth that S. Paul said not you shal haue no il desires, or let not sinne be in your members, but let not sinne raigne. As if he said. We are not bidden vnder sinne to haue no lust at al: and the reason saith he, and S. Gregory after S. Gregor. l. [...]1. Moral. c. 2. him, is, because it is impossible.

7. The second thing which Bel infer­reth Bel pag. 48. and biddeth vs marke it wel is, That the tenth commandement forbiddeth original lust Original lust made actual by Bel. committed without consent, and habitual concupis­cence. Did euer man read more markable folly? 1. He maketh original lust to be com­mitted, which is to make original actual, because what is committed is actual, as commission is action: 2. That habitual, & original inclination to euil is forbidden by the tenth commandement, and calleth the contrary most absurd. But nothing can be more absurd then to say that original, and habitual inclination to euil is forbidden by this commandement: Thou shal not couet. For S. Augustin. to. 7. to couet is to doe, ipsum agere concupiscere est. saith S. Austin serm. 5. de verb. Apost. c. 7. and therfore to make habits and inclina­tions forbidden in these words, is to make habits doings, inclinations actions. Or who Peccata pro­pria non ha­bent vnde illos merito Innocentes nūcupamus. Aug. 1. cont. Iul. c. 6. to. 7. euer heard that new borne infants sinne against the tenth commandement, surely if that be so, we must cal them no more In­nocents.

8. But let vs hear him proue this absur­dity. For although (saith he) S. Paul were most pag. 48. free, and innocent from actual sinne, because he fought mightily against his raging concupiscence, and did in no wise yeeld vnto it, yet was he guilty by reason of original concupiscence. Behold Bel [Page 194] prouing idem per idem, and withal ouerthro­wing Bel proueth idem per idem. whatsoeuer he manteineth in this ar­ticle. For the doubt is, whether original Concupiscence be sinne, and this he pro­ueth because S. Paul was guilty by reason of it. what is this but to proue original Concupiscence to be sinne, because it is sinne. And he affirmeth S. Paul to haue bene Contradict. 14. most free, and innocent from actual sinne, and proueth it because he fought mightily Bel ouer­throvveth at once vvhat he intended to proue in al this Arti­cle. Babilon is vvonne, Bel is confoun­ded. Hiere. 50. v. 2. against his raging Concupiscence, and in no wise consented vnto it. which is in plaine tearms to confesse that inuoluntary mo­tions of the flesh are no sinne, because they are not voluntary. O force of truth which breakest out of thy professed aduersaries mouth. Surely Protestants may haue great ioy of such a challenger. And no maruel if he be desirous of an aduersary to fight with­al, who for want of one falleth thus to fight with him self, and maketh his aduer­saries sport to laugh, & moueth his friends to compassion and shame. But let vs see more of his pastime.

9. S. Paul had not known lust to be sinne ex­cept Bel pag. 49. Rom. 7. v. 7. the law had said. Thou shalt not lust. But he could not be ignorant that Concupiscence with con­sent was sinne, seeing the very heathens did know, and confesse it. Againe. voluntary lust is forbid­den Math. 5. v. 22. in the sixt, seuenth, and eighth cōmandement [Page 195] as Christ him selfe expoundeth them. Therfore the tenth forbiddeth the very habitual desire, and in­clination and fruits therof though not consented vnto: Ansvver. S. Paul was so far from kno­wing by the law that natural inclination to sinne is formal sinne, as nether he, nor any man of iudgment could imagine it til Bel See S. Austin serm. 4. de verb. Apost. c. 4. & 5. to. 10. with a new kinde of philosophy taught vs that habits are acts, and inclinations actiōs. But to the argument I deny the assumption. For he might be ignorant that lust which Concupis­cence indi­rectly vo­luntary knovvne of S Paul by the lavv to be sinne. is only indirectly voluntary, and in the cause, because it is not preuented, is sinne, and this he might know by the law: nether can Bel shew that euer any heathen knew this. Yea he might be ignorant, that Con­cupiscence directly voluntary, when it is not put in execution, is true sinne & learne this by the law. For if Iosephus, and Kimhi Iosephus l. 12. Antiquit. c. 12. Kimhi in psal. 66. though they had the law, and were great Rabbins in it, yet thought such concupis­cence no sinne: and Iosephus reprehended Polybius for condemning it as a sinne; why might not the Apostle haue bene ignorant of this, if the law had not taught it him. Neither doth Bels reason cōuince the con­trary. For though some Heathen by great study in moral philosophy came to know this truth, yet perhaps S. Paul could not or rather as he saieth did not. And Bel as we [Page 196] shal see hereafter citeth a place out of S. Ambros where he writeth, that the Apostle S. Ambros. in cap. 7. ad Rom. thought Concupiscence no sinne because it delighted, and seemed a harmles thing to couet. yet better it is to say: (as I haue already) that S. Paul meaneth, that by the law he came to know al voluntary concupiscence, though it be but indirectly voluntary, to be sinne, and this nether he nor any Heathen could haue known, but by the law, or by Gods reuelation.

10. Bels second reason maketh against him self. For if inuoluntary motions be as true sinnes as voluntary, why are not they forbidden as wel in the sixt, seuenth, and eighth cōmandement as these? And albeit voluntary motions were implicitly forbid­den, when the external acts were prohibi­ted, yet it was necessary to forbid them ex­presly in the last commandement for to in­culcat it into the hard hartes of the Iewes: nether yet with this expresse forbiddance wold some of them beleeue voluntary con­cupiscence without the fact to be sinne, as appeareth by the example of Iosephus Kimhi, and diuers Iewes, Math. 5. v. 29. After this Bel alleadgeth a place of S. Au­stin wher he calleth desires of Concupis­cence il, filthy, and not lawful, which haue bene explicated before, and are verifyed of Chapt. 1. pa­rag. 2. & 3. [Page 197] inuoluntary Concupiscence, because it is materially sinne, wanting nothing to be Chapt. 1. pa­rag. 2. & 3. formally so but voluntarines, which Bel here goeth about to proue that they want Chapt. 1. pa­rag. 11. not, but his proofe hath bene refuted be­fore.

11. After the said ptoofe he auoucheth Bel pag. 51. Bellarmin to confesse that S. Austin ack­nowledgeth Bellarm. lib. 5. de amiss. grat. & stat. pec. c. 10. vntruth euen inuoluntary motions to be properly sinne, and flatly condemned by the tenth Commandement, and in the margent biddeth vs see S. Austin lib. de spi­rit. & lit. c. vlt. because Bellarm in writeth that S. Austin teacheth al kind of motions of Con­cupiscence to be aliquo modo in some sort prohibi­ted by that lavv. Thou shalt not couet. Wheras Bellarmin professeth. That S. Austin not only Bellar. sup. c. 8. no where in plaine words saith al Concupiscence is properly sinne, but also affirmeth the contrary in al the tomes of his works, and in the words cited by Bel is so far from saying, that S. Austin thinketh al motions to be flatly condem­ned, as he wold not absolutly say they were condemned but only with this limitation in some sort, vz as far, as they lye in our powre, which limitation though Bel with­out proofe cal deceitful, and contrary to S. Austins meaning, yet haue we before she­wed Sup. parag. 6. it out of S. Austin to be his true mea­ning. And I wold Bel had seene that place [Page 198] of S. Austin to which he sendeth vs: for there should he haue heard S. Austin tea­ching him that inuoluntary Concupiscence is so far from sinne, as if we consent not to it we need not say in our lords prayer. For­giue vs our trespasses. And thus much of his proofs out of S. Austin.

CHAP. IIII. Bels arguments out of S. Ambros, S. Bede, S. Thomas touching Concupiscence ansvvered.

AFTER his proofs out of S. Austin Bel pag. 52. Bel very methodically (forsooth) re­turneth to Scripture citing a sentence of S. Ihon in greek, pas ho poion hamartian cai ten ano mian poiei, cai he hamartia estin anomia: and translateth it thus. Euery one that sinneth trans­gresseth the lavv; and sinne is the transgression of the law. This place he citeth againe art. 6. to proue al sinne of it selfe to be mortal, and for that purpose it hath some shew of Be [...] forget­teth his matter. proofe: but how it proueth al kind of Con­cupiscence to be proper sinne, passeth my intelligence. For suppose that al sinne were transgression of the law, (which he labo­reth much to proue, & wil neuer performe) what is this to proue. That al Concupis­cence is sinne? And lest of al it concerneth [Page 199] habitual cōcupiscence. For S. Ihon speaketh only of actual sinne, as appeareth by those words poiei amartian poiei anomian, committeth sinne committeth iniquity. And yet spendeth he fowre leaues in nothing but in prouing ano­mia to signify transgression of the law, and euery sinne to be transgression of the law, & saith that Papists are put to a non plus. about the pag. 58. doctrin of concupiscence in the regenerate: for both anomia and adicia is truly, and fitly tearmed ini­quity: But what shal a man say to such va­nity? Be anomia, or adicia what you wil, be al sinne transgression of the law: proue you that al concupiscence is formal sinne? The question is now, not what anomia or adicia, or sinne is, but what concupiscence is, from which Bel flying into an other question, sheweth him selfe to be at a non plus. Wher­fore remitting this place of S. Ihon with al which he bringeth to proue that euery sinne is transgression, to the 6. article, to which it belongeth and nothing concer­neth this: I wil answer only foure authori­ties, which he abuseth to proue inuoluntary concupiscence to be sinne.

2. The first is of S. Ambrose in. c. 7. Bel pag. 56. S. Ambros. Rom. where he saith that a man is not free from cryme, because he sinneth inuitus vnwillin­gly or against his wil. Where Bel noteth that he calleth concupiscence cryme, or mortal [Page 200] sinne. And, That a man sinneth in that which he doth against his wil. But besides that the Author of those commentaries is not S. Ambrose: he meaneth not of concu­piscence but of custome of sinning, which begun in the sinner (saith he) by his owne fault, and sloath, and wherby he is laded and sooner yeeldeth to sinne then to the law, and though he wold do good, yet is he oppressed by custome. And therfore when he saith that such a one is not free from cryme in sinning against his wil, he meaneth not of absolute, and reso­lute wil to the contrary (for custome can not make a man to do a thing against his abso­lute wil, but of an imperfect wil which di­uers cal velleity, which most sinners, though neuer so accustomed to sinne, haue to do good, and against which kind of wil they sinne: but are not therfore (as that Author saith truly free from cryme, because (not­withstanding this imperfect wil of doing wel) they haue an absolute and perfect wil to sinne. And so this place concerneth no­thing acts of concupiscence altogether in­uoluntary and against both perfect, and im­perfect wil.

3. An other testimony he citeth out of S. Ambrose in the same place where he saith. That S. Paul separated not this concupis­cence from sinne, but mingled it. But he mea­neth [Page 201] only of voluntary acts, as is euident by the reason, wherwith he proueth that this concupiscence seemed no sinne, because (saith he) it delighted, and seemed simplex causa, a harmles matter to couet a thing of our neighbour.

4. The third authority is of S. Bede, Bel pag. 57. S. Beda 1. 10. 3. whom he confesseth to haue bene renow­ned through out the christian world for learning, and vertue. And if he thinke as he writeth he thinketh Papistry to be true piety. For S. Bede was a notorious Papist approuing Masse, honoring of reliques, images, prayer for the dead, purgatory, and other such points of Papistry as is euident out of his Ecclesiastical history. Bel allead­geth him because he saith. They sinne who of frailty (lat: infirmitas) corrupt innocency. What is here to the purpose? who deny that sinne may be done as wel of frailty, as of malice? For seeing none is so fraile, but he is assisted by Gods grace in which he may do al: Phi­lip. 4. v. 13. and is not suffered to be tempted S. Paul. aboue his powre. 1. Corinth. 10. v. 13. if he sinne of frailty he sinneth voluntarily.

5. His fourth authority is out of S. Tho­mas Bel pag. 59. S. Thom. 12. q. 74. art. 3. saying. That what a man doth without de­liberation of reason he doth it not perfectly, because the principal thing in man doth it not, and therfore it is not perfectly a humaine act, and so perfectly ne­ther [Page 202] vertue, nor sinne, but imperfectly. VVherfore such a motion of sensuality, preuenting reason is a venial, & imperfect sinne Out of these words Bel noteth these important obseruations as he calleth them 1. That S. Thomas is a Popish Saint. 2. That for his great learning (and Bel to pag. 132. his confusion confesseth him to haue bene a great Cleark indeed) he was surnamed the Angelical Doctor. 3. That P. Vrban 4. and Inno­cent 5. confirmed his doctrin for authentical and gaue it the first place after Cononical Scripture. How wel these three notes are gathered out of S. Thomas his foresaid words let euery one be iudge. But Bel can gather quodlibet ex quolibet, water out of a flint stone.

6. But I must note out of Bels important obseruations diuers important vntruths. 1. vntruth 57. That P. Vtban 4. and P. Innocent 5. con­firmed vntruth. 58 S. Thomas his doctrin for authen­tical. 2. That P. Vrban 4. gaue it the first Vrban. in Confirmat. doctrinae S. Thomae. place after Canonical Scripture. Indeed P. Vrban 4. highly admired his doctrin, as if it were sent from heauen, & P. Innocēt in a Innocent. in sermo. Ecceplusquam Salomon hic. sermon as a preacher by way of exaggeratiō n gaue it the first place after Scripture, but neither did they confirme it as authentical, nether did both of them giue it the next place after Scripture. The 3. vntruth (which vntruth 59. he repeateth twise in this page, & very often in his booke) is. That we are bound to defend, [Page 203] and beleeue S. Thomas his doctrin, and may not in any case refuse or deny it. This is a manifest vntruth. For albeit S. Thomas be, and that worthely of the greatest authority amongst schoolmen, yet his doctrin may and is often denyed in schools (as Bel hath heard many tymes) where it concerneth no matter of faith, yea Bel him selfe art. 7. pag. 133. affir­meth Contradict. 15. him to be commonly denyed about the conception of our Lady. And P. Vrban 4. commanded only the vniuersity of Tho­louse to teach, and follow, especially (saith he) his doctrin. Wherby we see he com­manded them not to follow his doctrin only, and none others, but chiefly his, nor as an infallible truth, but as most probable. Other vniuersities, and Catholiques are left to their liberty to follow (excepting matter of faith wherin al agree, or only erre of ig­norance) what schoolmen they please.

7. And this is so notorious as when we obiect to Protestants their dissention in matters The disa­greement of Schoolemen far different from that of Prote­stants. S. Austin. of faith, they returne vpon vs the disagreement of schoolmen. But there is a great difference. For the disagreement of schoolmen is in things wherin S. Austin l. 1. contr. Iulian. c. 6. The learnedest, and best defenders of Catholique verity, may salua fidei compage, disagree, and one say better and truer then an other. And if of ignorance any of [Page 204] them erre it is alwaies with readines to submit them selues to the iudgment of the Catholique Church. Wheras Protestants disagree about matters, which belong (as S. Austin speaketh) ad ipsa fidei fundamenta. Sup. And omitting those notorious dissentions amongst them, about the real presence, the number of Canonical books, Christs suf­fering the paines of hel, his discent into hel, & the like I wil propose a few other points Dissentions of Prote­stants tou­ched in their late Conference. of dissention amongst them, gathered out of the conference at Hampton court. as 1: whe­ther baptisme by vvoemen be allowable: pag. 8. 14. 15. 17. 18. 2. vvhether confirmation be lawful pag. 10. 3. vvhether baptisme be necessary pag. 16. 4. 1 vvhether after receauing the holy Ghost we may to­tally 2 depart from grace. pag. 28. 5. vvhether the 3 communion booke contradict the 15. article of their 4 faith. pag. 25. 6. vvhether there ought to be any 5 6 Bishops. pag. 36. 7. vvhether the intention of the 7 Minister be essential to the Sacrament. pag. 38. 8. 8 vvhether a man once iustifyed remaine truly iust before God, whatsoeuer sinne he commit. pag. 41. and 14. 9. vvhether a iustifyed man falling into 9 greeuous sinnes shal be saued without repentance for them 16. 10. vvhether the English Byble be truly 10 translated. pag. 45. 46. 11. vvhether the commu­nion 11 booke corrupt the Byble in two places. pag. 63. 12. vvhether the Crosse be to be vsed in baptisme. 12 pag. 65. 13. VVhether the Church can institute, an 13 [Page 205] external significant signe. pag. 67. 14. vvhether 14 the Churches institution can bynde in conscience. pag. 70. 15. VVhether the communion booke 15 containe errors repugnant to Scripture. pag. 59.

8. Moreouer more then a thousand Mi­nisters In their Supplicatiō exhibited in April 1603. Ansvver to the Suppli­cation. whom the whole vniuersity of Ox­ford calleth their brethren and fellovv laborers in the Lords haruest in the supplication to his Maiestie exhibited in April. 1603▪ professe. That there is not in their Church an vniformity of doctrin. This the Oxonians deny against their owne knowledge, and the knowlege of al England. For what vniformity is there, where a thousand Ministers their fellow laborers professe them selues to disagree in points of religion from the rest, yea his Ma­iestie witnesseth him selfe to haue receaued Conference p. 5. 22. many complaints through the dissentions in the Church, and purposeth (as he saith) to setle an vniforme order through the vvhole Church, and to plant vnity Wil now the Oxonians say there are no dissentions? wil they make his Ma­iestie actum agere in setling vniformity, and planting vnity where none wanteth. And in like sort of the Scottish Church he testifyeth. That there is such dissention euen in Conference p. 44. the Catachisme doctrin, as vvhat vvas Catachisme dostrin in one congregation vvas scarsly accepted as sound and orthodox in an other. And this dissention amongst Protestants about mat­ters [Page 206] of religion is with such obstinacy, as notwithstanding proclamations, disputa­tions, conferences, and decrees, or Canons of their Church it remaineth stil amongst them, and wil as long as heresy remayneth in them, which teacheth them to expound Scriptures according to their priuate spirits and to recant nothing, because (as his Ma­iestie Conference p 102. saith of the Scottish Ministers) it stan­deth not vvith their credits.

9. The fourth note, which Bel gathereth out of S. Thomas his words, is more to the purpose vz. That motions of concupiscence pre­uenting reason are venial sinnes. But if Bel had amongst his important obseruations obser­ued also that S. Thomas spake immediatly before of deliberate reason, he might haue noted that he meant only of such motions as preuent perfect but not imperfect deli­beration, and therfore are (as he saith) imper­fect or venial sinnes: VVherfore be myndful (Bel) from vvhence thou art falne and do penance. Apo­calip. 2.

CHAP. I. Of the Protestants enmity to good vvorks and friendship vvith euil.

BEL beginneth this Article Bel pag. 60. with a greeuous complaint a­gainst Papists who (saith he) most vnchristianly slander the pro­fessors of Christs Ghospel, as though they vvere enemies to good vvorks, of vvhich they thinke, speak, teach, and vvrite more christianly, and more religiously then Papists do. Both these points he proueth no otherwise then with an (I say) I say (saith he) that good vvorks though they can not go before, yet do euer follovv iustification, are necessary to saluation, and true effects of predestination. As if Bel were al the new Ghospellers, or they al agreed with him concerning good works: We alleadge their words, produce their deeds, shew the fruits, and effects of their enmity to good works, and Bel thinketh to answer al this [Page 208] with an (I say) Surely he presumeth of be­neuolous, and partial iudges, or he wold neuer answer thus. He with an (I say) may slāder Popes, Princes & Papists whatsoeuer, and an I say, yea manifest proofe to the con­trary, wil not suffice him. Such force his I sayes haue: Dixit & facta sunt: But Syr I both say, & wil proue by words, and deeds that both you, and your Ghospellers are not only enemies to good works, but great frends to euil works. And as for enmity to good works.

2. First they bid vs beware of good works. Let vs bevvare (saith Luther) of sinne, Luther. ser­mon. de no­uo testamē ­to seu de Missa. Colloquiū Attenburg. but much more of lawes, and good works. And some of his schollers in the conference of Altenburg teach vs to pray that we perseuer vnto the end in faith vvithout good vvorks: 2. they teach good works to be harmful: Good vvorks (said the forsaid Lutherans) are per­nitious to saluation. Againe. Christians vvith good vvorks belong to Sathan: And as Surius, Surius com­ment. Ann. 1564. Staphil. in Apolog. Staphilus and others report a Minister was not allowed in Saxony because he beleeued not this: 3. because they say al good works are sinne, and vnciean so Luther art. 23. Cal­uin 3. instit. c. 14. parag. 9. & 11. c. 15. parag. 3. and 4. whitaker contr. Durae. l. 1. p. 49. Bucley answer to 8. reasons p. 111. and 109. Perkins tit of merit. and Bel art. 4. pag. 48. [Page 209] teacheth that sinne is alwaies annexed to Epicur [...] vvold see­me to loue vertue though he made plea­sure his end. good works: 4. They teach that good works of their nature deserue damnation: There was neuer (saith Caluin lib. 3. instit. c. 14. parag. 11.) any work of a godly man which if it were examined by Gods seuere iudgment were not damnable. How can Protestants Habentes speciem pie­tatis virtu­tem autem eius abne­gantes. 2. Ti­moth. 4. v. 5. now be friēds to good workes which they bid beware of, account hurtful, sinne, and damnable? Surely their friendship can be no better then Ioabs was to Amasa when he kissed him, but withal thrust his dagger into his body. 2. Reg. 20.

3. And on the contrary side their friend­ship Frendship of Prote­stants to euil vvorks. to euil works is manifest. 1. because they teach that euil works make not an euil man, nor any can damne a man but in­credulity: this Luther teacheth in plaine Luther. tearms: lib. de libert. Christian. and lib. de capt. Babil. c. de baptis. 2. because they make God author of sinne: Zuinglius saith. Zvvinglius sermon. de Prouidentia ad Princi­pem Catto­rum 1530. c. 5. Caluin in playne ter­mes maketh God author of sinne. Numen ipsum author est eius quod in nobis est iniustitia: God him self is author of that which in vs is iniustice. And Caluin lib. 1. instit. c. 18. parag. 3. After he had brought diuers proofs hereof concludeth thus: Iam satis apertè ostendi Deum vocari eorum omnium authorem quae isti Censores volunt otiosè tantum eius permissu contingere. Now haue I plainely enough shewed that God is called the Au­thor [Page 210] (heare Bel, & Blush) of al these things which these Censurers wil haue to fal out only through his idle permission. And Me­lanchton wrote, That the adultery of Dauid, Melanchton in cap. 8. ad Rom. and treason of Iudas was the work of God like as the vocation of S. Paul. 3. Beza teacheth that our spirit must wrastle against sinne, but so Beza Rom. 6. v. 12. as it ouercome not: Are not these (Bel) par­ticuler fauors to euil works to say they make no man euil, that none but one of them damne men, that God is their author, that we must let them ouercome, or were not these whom I named professors of your Ghospel.

4. But if we look into their deeds, and fruits, therin we shal clearly see how mor­tal foes they are to good, and great frends to euil works. For there is nether man nor nation, which of a Catholike becommeth a Fox Consi­derat. 3. saith En­glish Prote­stants are soe il as he thinketh they could not be vvor se if they vvould. Read consi­derat. 4. be­fore his Martyral. Protestant, but he doth fewer goodworks, les fast, and pray, seldomer giue almes, do fewer works of charity then before, and more euil then before, as in ryot pride aua­rice, iniustice, & the like. For proofe hereof I propose only England for example, whi­ther there be not now les fasting, praying, almes giuing, building of Churches, Hos­pitals, Colledges, Schools, then there was in Catholique tyme. And on the contrary side whither prisons be not fuller of male­factors, [Page 211] more endited of thefts, murders, rapes, and other villanies, and far more exe­cuted then in former tymes. And whether it be not growne almost into a common prouerbe that a mans obligatiō now, is not so good as his word was in former tymes. And in these 46. yeares of Protestantisme, when more then so many thousands of Protestants haue bene executed for mur­ders, theft, robberies, rapes, coyning, purse­cutting, and like villanies; let Bel name how many Catholiques haue bene so much as called in question for such offences: yea this encrease of sinne, and euil works by Protestantisme is so notorious as Prote­stants confesse it. Luther said his followers Luther. a­pud Sur. 1566. Bullinger. in Coron. A­polog. cont. Brent. were become ten tymes worse then Sodomits: a Bullinger testifyeth that in his church euery where encreaseth haughtines, pride, auarice, vsury, blasphemy, slander, ribauldry, drunkenes, gluttony ryotousnes, lechery, incest, wrath, murder, conten­tion, and enuy. Wigand confesseth that youth VVigand de malis Ger­maniae. See Sur. 1566. grovv worse, & les tractable, & dare commit those vices to which men of ripe years in tymes past were not subiect. Erasmus writeth of Protestants that he hath seene many of them become worse but none better. Let these different fruits shew Ex fructibus eorum cog­noscetis cos. Math. 7. v. 16. the difference of these trees, let the effects testify, whither Protestants or Catholiques think more religiously of good works, [Page 212] whether ministers or Priests teach the peo­ple more to eschew euil, and do good. Now let Psalm. 36. vs come to Bels positions of good works, whereby he hopeth to wipe away this de­serued name which Protestants haue of being enemies to good works.

CHAP. II. Of Bels positions touching good vvorks.

BELS first position containeth two partes the first is that good works nether do, Bel pag. 60. nor can go before iustification. Behold Bel euen where he wold proue him self to be a friēd to good works, shewing him self to be an enemy, & excluding them from any going before, or any way concurring to iustifica­tion, to which they so concurred in S. Ma­ry Magdalen as our Sauiour said many sins Luc. 7. v. 47. are forgiuen her, because she loued much, making her loue a kinde of cause, vz disponent of her iustification. But because Bel proueth his position not at al, I wil stand no longer to disproue it. The second part of his posi­tion is: That good works euer follow (as fruits the tree) the persons that are freely iustifyed. This is most manifestly false in infants wherof many iustifyed in baptisme, dye before they do any goodworke. And if his compa­rison [Page 213] of the tree be good, some iustifyed, neuer do good worke, and al want them long tyme, some giue ouer doing good, as some trees are barren, some cease to beare fruit, and none beare alwaies. And I wold know of Bel, whither Dauid were iustifyed when he committed adultery, and murder. If then he were not iust? then lost he his fruits, if iust? I wold know of Bel what good worke he did in tyme of his adultery, and murder. Likwise whither Protestants be euer doing good works, or some tymes be not iust, and become infidels.

2. His second positiō is: That good workes Bel pag. 60 72. goe so necessarily before saluatiō, that no man with­out them can attaine eternal life, when possibility is graunted to do them, and afterwarde calleth them the vsual ordinary means by which God bringeth men to saluation. This is true do­ctrin, Sup. c. 1. pa­rag. 2. if it be meant of good works com­manded, but how it agreeth with Prote­stants doctrin before cited, passeth my ca­pacity, yea how it agreeth with his owne doctrin that there is no good worke which wan­teth pag. 48. sinne; is thinke we sinne necessary to saluation, or an vsual, & vndoubted meane to come to heauen? moreouer if Protestants thinke their works to be the meane to sal­uation, they wil no more charge Papists with trusting to be saued by their works.

3. His third position is: That good works Bel pag. 61. are the true effects of Predestination. This if it be so meant, that al, and only predestinate do good works, is most false: for many infants are predestinat, and yet dye before they do good works, and many reprobate men do good works, as appeareth by Simon Ma­gus who beleeued, and cleued to S. Philip act. 8. v. 13. But most absurd it is which he Act. addeth that the children of God by good works make their saluation sure vnto them selfs, and ma­nifest to the world, if he meane as Protestants do of such security, as is void of al doubt, or feare of the contrary. Because none can be so assured of Gods wil touching their saluation, but by manifest reuelation from God him self; but good works are no such reuelation ether to our selfs, or to others. Ergo by them nether we, nor othets can be assured of our saluation. The proposi­tion is manifest. The assumption I proue: 1. because reprobats may somtymes do good works, as did Simon Magus. Ergo: good works are no reuelation of saluation, 2. be­cause In omnibus actionibus in quibus ti­bi es bene conscia nū ­quam au­de [...]s esse se­curus. Am­bros. epist. 84. Iob v. 21. euen the worker is not assured that his work is good, wanting no cōdition re­quisit to goodnes: for as Iob saith c. 9. al­though I be simple, this same my soul shal not knovv, and much les others can be assured of the goodnes of the work: for they not [Page 215] knowing the purpose and intention for which the worke is done (according to that of Ieremy. Mans hart is inscrutable, vvho Hierem. 17. v. 9. 1. Corinth. 2. v. 11. shal knovv it? and that of S. Paul vvhat man knovveth the things of man, but the spirit of man that is in him) can neuer be assured that the worke is fully good. 3. though I and others were assured that I do good works this day, yet nether I nor others can be assured, that hereafter I shal do good works, whensoeuer I shal haue possibility, or tyme, and yet Bel pag 61. 72. auoucheth that vnles we do good works when we haue tyme, or possibility therto we can not be saued. Ergo: good works make no vndoubted assurance of saluation. 4. good works are sinful and offensiue to God (as Protestants affirme) Ergo: accor­ding to their doctrin, they can be no eui­dent signe of Gods fauor, and of our salua­tion: but rather of his wrath, and our dam­nation. And if Bel be so wel skilled in mens fortunes, as by their works he can euident­ly foretel their saluation, let him play the Aegiptian and tel Protestants whether they shal be saued, or damned. For if he can as­sure them of their saluation he wil get more in one day then his fifty pound pension, wherewith he is hyred to preach and write against Catholiques: and I can send him to one Protestant noble man, who wold giue [Page 216] him ten thowsand pownd to be assured of his saluation. Finally this doctrin of his is not only against Catholiques, but also against his Maister Caluin who saith labas­cit Caluin. 3. in­stit. c. 11. pa­rag. 11. fides &c. faith quaileth if it respect good works: for none of the holiest men shal finde there wheron to trust: And good reason for if good works be sinne (as Caluin and Protestants teach) what assurance or confidence can sinne giue vs of saluation.

4. His fourth position is: That good works Bel pag. 61. are nether cause of predestination, nor of iustifi­cation, nether do, nor can merit ex condigno eter­nal life. Touching the first point of prede­stination, there is no controuersy. For al Catholiques do with S. Austin against the August. l. de bono perse­ueran. epist. 105. & alibi. Pelagians deny predestination to grace, to proceed of our merits, and the same do De­uines commonly affirme of predestination to glory, though this be no matter of faith. See Bellar. l. 2. de Grat. & lib. arb. c. 15. Nether is there any difficulty about the se­cond point concerning iustification. For Conc. Trid. sess. 6. c. 8. though faith and repentance dispose to iu­stificatiō: yet Catholiques thinke them not to be proper cause and merit therof. as Cal­uin, Caluin. 3. in­stit. c. 14. pa­rag. 11. Perkins re­for. Cathol. p. 64. VVillet con­tract. 17. q. 3. part. [...]. p. 588. Perkins, and Willet confesse. But the third point of meriting de condigno is that about which I (saith Bel) contend with the Pa­pists at this present, and namely with the Councel of Trent. But because he proceedeth in this [Page 217] article confusedly enough confounding Bel impug­neth a Schole point for a point of faithe. many questions together, and in stead of a point of Catholique faith impugneth a schoole point, I wil particulerly by Conclu­sions set downe the Catholiques opinions concerning this matter.

CHAP. III. The Catholiques doctrine touching merit particulerly set dovvne and proued.

AS about any matter, the first kinde of question is about the existence, whe­ther it be or no? the second about the na­ture, or quality, what a one it is? and the last about the causes thereof, why it is such or such? So about merit of eternal life the first kinde of question is, whether there be any, or none. The second about the nature of this merit, whether it be ex condigno, and worthely deserue the reward, or de congruo, & only haue a certaine cōgruity, & agreea­blenes therto. And if it be de condigno: whe­ther it be absolute, and suppose or require no condition of Gods promise to reward it: or conditional, supposing the said promise: Likewise whether it be perfect hauing iust, and arithemetical equality to the reward, as a penny hath to a penny worth; or im­perfect hauing only due proportion, and [Page 218] vertual equality to the reward, as accidents be a proportionat disposition to substance, and great labors for Gods Church a pro­portionat desert of a Bishoprik, and seed vertually equal to the tree: The third kinde of question is about the causes of this na­ture of merit, to wit, whether this condig­nity of merit rise, partly of any proportion or sufficiency which is in the merit vnto the the reward, or wholy and entirely of Gods free acceptation, who seeing vs do the best we can to deserue heauen, accepteth it as a condigne, and sufficient merit therof, though of it selfe it be not. And to these questions I wil answer by the Conclusions ensuing.

2. First Conclusion: There is merit of eternal life, and our supernatural works done by Gods grace (wherof only we speak in this matter) are meritorious of eternal life, and glory. This is a point of faith with Catholiques, defyned in the Councel of Trent. sess. 6. can 32. and de­nyed Concil. Tri­dent. Bel pag. 75. by no Catholique though Bel falsly affirme the contrary of some, and taught of holy Fathers, and antient writers, as Bel pag. 61. confesseth, and therfore graunted by him selfe in words, though he expound merit by Impetration. This he calleth a godly sense, which is indeed his vsual vngodly shift [Page 219] vsed of him hereafter art 6. & 8. & of Pro­testants commonly, when they dare not deny an Authors words, to deny his mea­ning For who seeth not that merit is a quite Merit quite different from impe­tration. different thing from Impetration; for to merit is to deserue, to impetrate is to obtain by request, beggars may be said to impetrat 1 but not to merit their almes, and an hyred 2 seruāt meriteth, not impetrateth his wages. 3 Merit supposeth some iustice, Impetration 4 only prayers, in the obteiner, and liberality 5 6 in the giuer, merit may be, though the re­ward 7 be not giuen: Impetration supposeth the graunt therof▪ Merit answereth to re­ward: Impetration to gift. Merit requireth at lest some proportion in the worke to the reward: Impetration none at al.

3. And euident it is that Fathers by me­rit vnderstād not impetration. For S. Austin S. Augustin. tom. 2. Deus pro­posuit re­gnum caelo­rum vaenale in ep. 93. S. Ireney. S. Basil. pro­pe fin. S. Greg. Naz. orat. 3. in bapt. S. Hierom. S. Chrysost. to. 4. epist. 105. writeth that. As death is rendred as a stipend to the merit of sinne, so is euerlasting life as a stipend to the merit of iustice. S. Ireney l. 4. c. 72. saith. By good works we conquer heauen: S. Basil. orat. in init prouerb: By good works we buy heauen S. Gregory Nazian: For good works we may exact reward, not as grace but as playne debt. S. Hierom epist. ad Celant. God hath cause to reward vs. S. Chrisostom hom. 7. in epist. Rom. calleth vs. Gods creditors, and vsurers and him our debtor. and hom. 3. Tom. 2. [Page 220] de Lazaro: that by good workes we deserue heauen, as by euil hel. Yea Bel him selfe ad­mitteth Bel pag. 77. more then impetration, when here­after he cōfesseth heauen to be due to good workes; for where duty is there is not meere Contradict. 16. impetration, & that works are to heauen as the loane of a cloake in a shower of rayne vpon promise of an hundred pownds, for here is some iustice. And professeth to de­fend pag. 79. Durand. 2. d. 27. quaest. 2. expresly ad­mitteth condigne me­rit. Cap. 1. parag. 2. Durands opinion who vndoubtedly admitteth more then simple impetration. But if Bel had remembred his owne, and the common doctrin of Protestants before rehearsed that al good works whatsoeuer are sinne, he wold neuer haue graunted that they are impetratorious of Gods fauor, and reward. For how cā sinne impetrate fauour, or reward, and not rather offence, and pu­nishment? Wherupon Perkins in plaine Perkins re­for. Cathol. Of merits. p. 112. 104. Caluin. 3. in­stit. c. 15. pa­rag. 4. & 2. tearms affirmeth that our righteousnes is not capable of merit, and vtterly renoun­ceth al merit of man. And Caluin not only abhorreth the name of merit, affirming it to be proude, and to obscure Gods grace, and to make men proude, but professeth that our good vvorks are euer sprinkled vvith many filthinesses for vvhich God may be iustly offended, and angry vvith vs: so far (saith he) are they from purchasing his fauour, or procuring his liberality towards vs. Thus we see how conformably [Page 221] Bel speaketh to his owne, and his fellow Bel against his fellovv Ministers. Ministers doctrine.

4. Second Conclusion. Good workes done in Gods grace are condignely merito­rious of eternal life. This is that which Bel impugneth in this Article as a point of our faith and auoucheth it to be defyned by the Councel of Trent but falsly. For the Coun­cel hath no word of condigne merit but only of true merit which in plaine tearms Bel him self dare not impugne or deny. If any shal say (saith the Councel) that a iusti­fied Ttident. sess. 6. can. 32. man by good works which he doth by the grace of God and merit of Iesus Christ, whose li­uely member he is, doth not truly deserue increase of grace, eternal life, and consecution therof, if he departe in grace, and also increase of glory, be he accursed. Here are good works defyned to be true merit of glory, without determi­ning whither they be cōdigne merit therof or no. Wherupon vega who was one of the Vega. Deuines of the coūcel writeth de fid. & ope. q. 4. That some noble schoole diuines being moued (saith he) with no light arguments and vsing a certaine sober and prudent mo­deration, haue denyed that there is any con­digne merit of eternal happines. And a­gaine. It is certaine (saith he) that there is merit in our works and some of them be meritorious, but of what reward and how [Page 222] they are meritorious, it is in controuersy, & there are diuers opiniōs amōgst the schoole diuines. And q. 5. he affirmeth Gregory, Gregor. 1. d. 17. q. 1. Du­rand. q. 2. Marsil. in 2. VValden. de sacra. c. 7. Burgens. in psalm. 35. Eckins in centur. de predest. Durand, Marsil, Walden, Burgensis and Eckins to deny condigne merit. Satus also an other diuine of the sayd Councel l. 3. de Nat. & Grat. c. 7. saith that there is some difference amongst Catholiques about con­digne merit, and c. 8. after he had proued condigne merit out of the Councel and otherwaies, yet concludeth not that it is a point of faith but only calleth it conclusionem probatissimam a most approued Conclusion. And Bellarmin whome Bel tearmeth the mouth of Papists, lib. 5. de iustific. cap. 16. after he had rehearsed twoe opinions of Catholiques, wherof the one seemeth plainly to deny condigne merit, the other admitteth it only in a large sense, propo­seth and defendeth the third opinion which defendeth condigne merit absolutly, only as verissimam & communem sententiam Theolo­gorum, most true and the common opinion of Diuines as indeed it is and we shal proue it anone against Bel. Hereby appeareth Bels shameful proceeding in this Article, in im­pugning condigne merit as a point of faith defyned by the Councel of Trent, which hath no word of condigne merit, and omit­ting the question of true merit which the [Page 223] Councel defyned & Catholiques defend as a point of their faith against Protestants.

5. The third Conclusion is: that This This see­meth defy­ned. Conc. Trid. sess. 6. c. vlt. & in Bulla Pij 5. & Gre­gor. 13. condigne merit is not absolute, but suppo­seth the condition of Gods promise made to reward it. This is held of the best Diuines and proued at large by Bellarmin. l. 5 de iu­stifi. c. 14. The fourth Conclusion is that This condigne merit in our works, is not perfect, hauing actual, and perfect arithme­tical equality before explicated: This mani­festly S. August. in psal. 93. to. 8. S. Chrysost. 2. Cor. 9. S. Bernard. serm 1. de Annuntiat. the Fathers teach with al Catholiques, and Bels arguments hereafter brought con­uince it, and no more. The fifte Conclusion is that the imperfect cōdigne merit which is in our works to heauen, riseth not meerly of Gods acceptation, but partly of the due proportion, and sufficiency before explica­ted, in them to the reward. This likewise is no matter of faith, yet truth taught by S. Thomas 1. 2. 4. 114. ar. 1. & 3. Bonauent. S. Thomas. S. Bonauent. 2. d. 17. and Deuines in that place cōmonly: Bellar: l. 5. de Iustif. c. 17. though Scot. 1. Bellarm. Scotus. d. 17. and some others deny it with whom Bel also falleth in league towards the end Bel pag. 7 [...]. of this Article. The sixt Conclusion is: that the said condignity riseth not of any due proportion, which is in the substance of our worke if it be considered in it selfe, but as it is the fruit of the holy Ghost mouing vs to [Page 224] do it, and the effect of Gods grace helping vs in doing it: which grace making vs parta­kers (as S. Peter speaketh) of deuine nature, 1. Pet. 1. v. 4. Coloss. 1. v. 10. 2. Thessal. 1. v. 5. so dignifyeth our works, as (according to S. Paul) we walke vvorthely of God, and become vvorthy of Gods kingdome. And because Bel de­nyeth none of these Conclusions but the second and fieft, them only wil I proue.

6. That good works are a condigne, or worthy merit of heauen in the sense before explicated, followeth of that they are a true merit therof, because as I thinke only con­digne merit is true merit. For congrual me­rit hath no iustice in it (as appeareth in good works disposing to iustification, which some cal congrual merits) and therfore no true merit, which can not be without some title of iustice. But I proue it other waies: First because the Thessalonians suffered to S. Paul. [...]is to cata­Ziothenai humas. be made or accounted worthy of Gods kingdom 2. Thess. 1. v. 5. Ergo: sufferances make men worthy or (which commeth to one purpose) to be truly accounted worthy of Gods kingdom. Secondly. Apocalip. 3. v. 4: They haue not defyled their garments, and Apocal. they shal vvalke vvith me in vvhite, because they be vvorthy Ergo: Saints are worthy to walke with God in glory. These places make Pro­testants confesse that Saincts are worthy of heauen, but haue a shift of saying They are [Page 225] vvorthy for Christs merits, not for their ovvne. But Perkins re­for. Cathol. Of merits. p. 113. as plainly as S. Paule affirmeth the Thessa­lonians to be worthy of Gods kingdome, so plainly he affirmeth their worthines to come of their owne sufferances. And like­wise S. Ihon ascribeth the worthines of Saints, to their not defyling their garments, which is their owne merit. Moreouer Christ speaking of mans labours, saith. The worker is worthy of his hyer Luc. 10. v. 7. S. Luk [...]. S. Paul. S. Austin. And we worke our saluation. Philip. 2. v. 12. And S. Austin epist. 105. saith that Eter­nal life is giuen to the merit of our iustice, as death is to the debt of our sinne, and that God crowneth our merits. And in psal. 93. that we buy heauen with labour. Therfore the wor­thines of Saints proceedeth from their owne merits, though it proceed also from the merits of Christ. For we are branches, he Ioan. 15. v. 5. the vyne, & therfore as grapes, which spring out of the branches, proceed from the vyne, which giueth them their vertue: soe al worthines, which proceedeth from Saints, riseth from Christ as the roote and fountaine thereof.

7. Thirdly: condigne merit requireth not perfect, and arithemetical equality in the worke to the rewarde, but only propor­tion: but good workes haue proportion to glory. Therfore they are condigne merits [Page 226] thereof: The Proposition Bel him selfe pag. 77. alleadgeth, and approueth out of Ihon de Combis, and it is euident in mens de­serts of a Bishopricke, which being a spiri­tual dignity passeth al price, and yet may be worthely deserued of men: The assumption Infra parag. 9. shal be proued a none. Nether is our con­digne meriting of heauen either blasphe­mous against Gods free mercy, or iniurious to Christs merits, as Bel bableth, but rather Bel pag 62. Rom. 6. v. 23. Math. 5. v. 12. Math. 11. v. 12. Ioan. 1. v. 16. S. Austin. e­pist. 105. Philip. 3. v. 14. 2. Timoth. 4. v. 8. S. Austin ep. 105. S. Ambros. in c. 6. Rom. S. Chrysost. hom. 7. Rom. S. Gregor. Nazianz. o­rat. 3. in S. la­uacrum. Our merits honourable to Christ. honourable. For though eternal life, as it is giuen to good workes, be mercy, or grace, (as S. Paul calleth it) yet neuer shal Bel proue, that it is meere mercy, or grace. Our Sauiour calleth it a rewarde, and saith we get it by violence. S. Ihon according to S. Au­stins exposition calleth it grace for grace, that is, grace of glory not absolutly, but for grace of merits, or grace mixt with iu­stice. S. Paul calleth it a goale, a crowne of iustice. The Fathers cal it a stipend, a debt. And by whose authority then doth Bel cal it a meere grace, or mercy. Harken to S. Paul. 1. Timoth. 6. Bel, and leaue these same nouelties of wordes.

8. Likewise it is not iniurious to Christs merits but rather honourable to them. For as it is not iniurious to Gods doing good, that we by his grace do good for our selfs, but rather honourable according to our [Page 227] Sauiours saying. In hoc clarificatus est pater Ioan. 15. v. 8. &c. In this my father is glorifyed: Nor to Christs prayer, or impetration, that we also through him pray and impetrate for our Our merits no more in­iurious to Christs me­rits then our prayer to his pra­yer. selfs: So likewise it is not iniurious to Christs meriting, but rather honourable therto, that we also through him, and as his liuely members do in some sort merit for our selfs. What iniury is it to the tree that the branch thereof bringeth forth fruit: nether are we therfore more partners with Christ in merit, then we are by prayers partners with him in impetration.

9. That our merits haue proportion, Merits haue proportion to glory. and vertual equality to their reward follo­weth also out of the former. For condigne merit requireth at lest due proportion to the reward, but especially I proue it. First because the reward consisteth in the cleare sight of God face to face, and in perfect loue of him, and our merit consisteth prin­cipally in faith which is a sight, or know­ledge of God in a glasse, and in louing him aboue al things. But there is due propor­tion between the sight of a thinge in a glasse, and the cleare sight thereof, and be­twixt perfect loue, and the loue aboue al things: Ergo: Secondly good workes are fruits of the holy Ghost. Galat. 5. v. 22. and of Christs passion: for by it we do these [Page 228] good workes. Ergo it is iniury to the holy Ghost, and to Christ to say that their super­natural fruits haue no proportion to a su­pernatural rewarde. Thirdly glory is grace: Rom. 6. Ioan. 1. and our merits are grace, but there is proportion between two gra­ces: 4. Grace is the seed of glory accor­ding to that 1. Ioan. 3. The seed of God remai­neth in him, therfore in vertue it conteineth glory as the seed doth the tree: 5. Glory is a floode making glad the citty of God psal. 45. and grace is a fountaine of water lea­ping into eternal life. Ioan. 4. but there is proportion between a floode and a foun­taine which springeth into the place of the floode. Now let vs come to Bels argu­ments, which beside that they impugne no matter of faith as is before said, they disproue no such condignity of merit as Catholiques teach, and is already explica­ted, but such as is both absolute, and per­fectly equal to the rewarde. And at last after he had runne him selfe out of breath, confesseth that he can not impugne condi­gne merit as it is defended by Bellarmin, who in truth teacheth no other herein then is the common doctrine of the Church.

CHAP. IIII. Bels arguments out of Scripture against condigne merit ansvvered.

HIs first argument is taken out of S. Bel pag. 62. Paul Rom. 6. v. 23. To de Charisma tou theou Zoe aionios en Christo Iesou to curio hemon: which he citeth in greeke perhaps to make the Reader beleeue he hath great skil in that tongue though the wordes be in his booke neither accented nor printed right; but remitting this fault to the printer, the text he englisheth thus: But the gift of God is life euerlasting in Christ Iesus our lorde and then argueth in this manner. Eternal life is the free gift of God, therfore it can be no way due to the merit of mans workes.

2. Answer: First the consequent see­meth opposite to this other proposition of his: pag. 77. Eternal life is due to the workes of Gods elect. Secondly the Antecedent is false, Foure rea­sons vvhy eternal life is grace. and neither here, nor any where els taught by S. Paul. He calleth here eternal life grace, as it may be called for diuers causes: 1. because God gratiously couenanted with 1 vs to giue it as a rewarde of our good wor­kes, which (we being his slaues by creation) he might haue exacted of vs without any rewarde at al. This is S. Thomas his reason: S. Thomas. [Page 230] 1. 2. q. 114. art. 2. 2. because the workes 2 them selues for which God giueth vs life eternal, were freely giuen vnto vs by Gods grace. This is S. Austins reason epist. 105. 5. Austin. 3. because the workes haue no perfect a­ctual 3 equality to eternal life, but only vir­tual, and proportionate, and this reason gi­ueth Theodoret. in cap. 6. Rom. where he Theodoret. saith that temporal paines, and eternal ioyes in aequilibrio non respondent, and Bel falsly tran­slateth, Bel pag. 63. Fals tran­slation. 4. are nothing answerable. 4. because as workes are rewarded euen aboue their vir­tual 4 and proportionate equality as Deuines say vltra condignum. No maruel if S. Paul called eternal life rather grace, or gift, then a stipend, seeing it hath much more of grace then it hath of iustice: yet notwithstanding he no where called it meere grace, yea in 1. Cor. 3. Philip 3. v. 14. 2. Timoth. 4. v. 8. S. Paul might haue called glory a stipend. S. Austin. calling it a rewarde, a goale, and crowne of iustice he clearly declareth that it is no meere grace, nor free gift: beside that as S. Austin writeth epist. 105. he might haue called it a stipende as he calleth death in respect of sinne, but forbore lest we should thinke it were so iustly deserued by good workes, as death is by euil. And perhaps he called it so in the next verse before, where he calleth eternal life in greeke telos, which as Beza Beza Rom. 6. confesseth may there signify vectigal or mer­cedem, and is equiualent to stipend.

3. Notwithstanding this, Bel exclai­meth pag. 62. against the Rhemists that they transla­ted Charisma grace in steed of gift, for to extenuate the clearnes of this text: wherin he sheweth his malice, and folly. For malice it is to ac­cuse men to corrupt Scriptures of set pur­pose, and to bring no proofe therof, yea to confesse (as he doth) that they follow the aun­cient vulgar edition, of which S. Hierom was either Author, or amender. And folly it is, to condemne that translation as done for to extenuate the clearnes of Scripture, and withal to confesse (as he doth) that it is ac­cording to the olde vulgar edition, and that it may be here admitted, and to approue an other translation of Donation or Gift (which maketh no more for his purpose then Grace, which him selfe in the next page englisheth Free grace,) and finally to alleadge in his owne behalfe Theodoret. S. Chrisostom, Origen, Ambros, Theophi­lact In cap. 6. ad Rom. and Paul of Burges, whoe al in the very places which he citeth for him selfe, read as the Rhemists translate grace, though some of them explicate it by Gift, as it is indeed, though no free gift.

4. But let vs heare why the Rhemists did not wel translate the worde Charisma by Bel sup. Perkins re­for Cathol. p. 107. Grace. Because (saith he) it signifieth a gift freely bestowed. If so Syr, why did not you, your [Page 232] mates, and your Bibles so translate it, but Bibles printed by Bar­ker. 1584. absolutly by gift. So you condemne other, and commit your selfe the like fault. Re­member what S. Paul saith to such Rom. 2. But how proueth he Charisma to signify a Gift freely giuen. Forsooth autos ephe This Lexicon Grynaei Basileae. 1539. vvho citeth Bu­daeus. Lexicon Ge­sneri auctū per Arle­mium, Iu­nium, Har­tengum, Ba­sileae. great Grecian hath said it contrary to the Lexicons made and printed by Protestants, who make Charisma al one with Charis, and to signify Grace, or gift without mention of Free gift; contrary to the old vulgar translation, contrary to the vniforme rea­ding of Fathers, contrary to his owne, and his fellows translations. Are these your cleare and euident demonstracions, which shal be able to put al Papists (as you promise) to silence for euer in this be­halfe? pag. 62.

5. Novv (saith he) let vs vievve the iudge­ment of holy Fathers vpon this text. With a good wil Syr; But marke good Readers how the Fathers are holy, their wordes are golden, See Bel p. 62. 64. 65. 71. 75. 67. 59. 104. 132. their mouthes golden, and them selfes gli­stering beames and strong pillers of Gods Church, when they seeme to make for Bel, who otherwise amongst Protestants are but plaine Austin, and Hierom, and their do­ctrine stubble, errors, spottes, & blemishes: Likewise when Popish writers seeme to fa­uour Bel, they are with him famous, re­nowned, [Page 233] zealous, great schoole doctors, great Clerks indeed, whoe other whiles are but parasites, and dunces.

6. First he produceth out of Theodoret pag. 62. Theodoret. in c. 6. Rom. that S. Paul did not cal here eter­nal life a revvarde, but grace, because it is the gift of God, and al our labours are not of equal poise vnto it. This is nothing against vs who nei­ther say that S. Paul did in this verse cal eternal life a rewarde, nor deny that it is the gift of God, nor affirme, that our labours are of equal poise vnto it. Next he produ­ceth S. Chrisostom in c. 6. Rom. writing, S. Chrysost. p. 63. that The Apostle called not eternal life a revvarde, but grace (as Brixius translateth) or gift, (as Bel hath) to shevv that they vvere deliuered not by their ovvne strength, nor that there is debt, re­vvarde, or retribution of labour, but that al those things came by Gods grace, or (as Bel hath) they receaued them freely by Gods gift. Here S. Chri­sostom at the first sight seemeth to deny Genes. v 1. Prouerb. v. 18. 2. Paralip. v. 7. Sap. v. 16. Eccl. v. 22. Isai. v. 10. Math. v. 12. 1. Corinth. v. 8. S. Chrysost. eternal life to be a rewarde or retribution of good workes, which is not only con­trary to Scripture Gen. 15. 2. paralip 15. pro­uerb. 11. psal. 118. Sapient 5. Eccles. 18. Isai. 40. Math. 5. 1. Corinth. 3. Apoca. vlt. v. 12. but euen to him selfe hom. 43. in 1. Corinth. saying, that VVe shal haue perfect revvarde, and most ful retribution not only for the good vve do, but also for the euil vve suffer. And hom. 1. de [Page 234] Resur. tom 3. VVhat care (saith he) vvil he haue of vertue, vvho expects no retribution of la­bours: And hom. 15. in Math. that we haue God our debtor, when we do any good, and may exact vsury of him. And the like spee­ches he hath hom. 3. and 36. in Math. and 42. in Gen. and in Philog. and other where, which alone might assure vs, that he mea­neth not to deny eternal life to be a true re­ward of our supernatural labors. But ether by labors he vnderstandeth natural labors done (as he speaketh there) by our ovvne strēgth, of which labors doubtles eternal life is is no reward, debt, or retribution. Or ra­ther, by eternal life he there vnderstood not heauenly glory, but only iustificatiō, which he may cal eternal life, because it causeth eternal life, as our Sauiour for the same cause calleth faith so, Iohn 17. v. 3. and for S. Ihon. the contrary sinne is called death, and this doubtles is no reward, debt, or retribution of any labour at al of ours. That this is his meaning I proue it: I because he saith eter­nal life was called grace to shew that they were not deliuered &c. Therfore by eter­nal life he vnderstandeth some thing, which had deliuered the Romans already from some thing vz. from sinne 2. because he saith that they, to whom S. Paul wrote had re­ceaued that eternal life, wherof he speaketh [Page 235] but they being yet aliue had not receaued eternal glory, but only iustification. And S. Chrisostom being thus expounded speaketh not against him selfe other where, nor a­gainst Scripture, and truth.

7. Thirdly he cyteth Origen saying. Bel pag. 63. Origen. in c. 6. ad Rom. Deum vero non erat dignum militibus suis stipen­dium quasi debitum aliquod dare, sed donum, & gratiam, quae est vita aeterna: which Bel thus englisheth. But it was not a thing worthy beseeming God to giue stipends to his sol­diers, as a due debt or wage, but to bestow on them a gift, or free grace, which is eternal life. Here Bel translateth donum a gift, and False tran­slat. A. 5. gratiam free grace, albeit before he prefer­red the word donatio which is al one in this matter with donum, before gratia, be­cause it better insinuateth the freenes of the gift. But if you aske him wherfore he tran­slateth gratia, free grace, he can giue no bet­ter reason then his Grandsier Luther did when he translated fides iustificat, faith alone iustifyeth vz: Sic volo, sic iubeo, stat pro ratione Surius Ann. [...]530. voluntas. As for Origen he meaneth nothing els, but that it beseemed not God to giue a stipend so due to good works, as (saith he) the king of sinne payeth stipends due to them, that obey his tyranny, which is most true. For al­though S. Austin ep. 105. to. 2. S. Anselm. Rom. 6. the iust by good works deserue life, yet not so iustly, as the wicked by sinne deserue [Page 236] death, nether is life so due to them, as death to these, as is euident by what hath bene said before, and Willet in affirming vs VVillet con­trou. 17. q. 3. art. 3. p. 587. to teach the contrary sheweth a trick of his Ministery.

8. S. Ambrose he also alleadgeth, but pag. 63. S. Ambros. Rom. 6. his words are rather against him, for he saith. As the followers of sinne get death, so the followers of Gods grace, that is the faith of Christ, which forgiueth sinnes shal haue eternal life. What is here for Bel, or rather not against him. But most clearly doth S. Ambrose S. Ambros. confound Bel immediatly before the words cyted. VVho from hence forth (saith he) ab­steine from sinne receaue a stipend eternal life. And serm. 7. in psal. 118. affirmeth that Dauid could say to God I am a souldier, I ex­act a stipend of my captaine.

9. He citeth also Theophilact because Theophi­lact. Rom. 6. he saith S. Paul called erernal life grace, and not a revvard, as if he should say, for ye receaue not re­vvards of labours, but al these things are done by grace in Christ Iesus, who worketh, and doth them. But this is nothing against vs, who willin­gly acknowledge eternal life to be grace, and not to proceed of our owne labours done by our selfs, but done and wrought also by the grace of Christ: After this he ci­teth Anselme, and Photius but alleadgeth not their words; yet confesseth that in ef­fect [Page 237] they are the same with others, and therfore seeing S. Anselme vpon this place S. Anselme. of S. Paul teacheth plainly that eternal life is a stipend of iustice, and that S. Paul might haue called it so, we may be assured that in effect other Fathers do cal it so, as he after S. Ambros and S. Austin doth in expresse S. Austin ep. 105. S. Ambros. Rom. 6. Bel pag. 64. vntruth 60 words. Wherfore vainly doth Bel boast that it is manifest by the foresaid testimonies of holy Fathers that eternal life is the free gift of God, for rather the quite contrary is manifest, be­cause none of them say it is a free gift, or any thing whereof it may be iustly infer­red, and some of them expresly say it is a Vt Retribu­tionem non vt gratiam sed plane debitum occupas. S. Greg. Na­zianz. orat. [...]. in sanctum lauacrum. Burgens. ad­dit. 2. in c. 6. Rom. stipend, and such a one as a souldier may exact of his captaine, such as death is to sinne, which are euidently no free gifts. Wherfore to helpe vp this matter he addeth these wordes of Paulus Burgens. He would not therfore say eternal life is the stipend of iustice, because the same merits, to which it is rendred are not of our selfs, but wrought in vs by God through grace. These words, make not any thing for him, but rather against him. For in that he saith, eternal life is rendred to merits, he insinuateth it to be no free grace, and in saying S. Paul chose rather to cal it grace, then stipend, insinuateth that he might haue called it a stipend, and in saying it is grace, because it is repaid to merits, which [Page 238] we do by grace, he affirmeth it to be partly grace, which no Catholique denyeth.

10. The second text of Scripture Bel bringeth out of Rom. 8. v. 18. and transla­teth [...]hus: I account that the afflictions of this False tran­slat. 6. present tyme are not worthy of the future glory: Answer: Here is euil translation: for where the Apostle saith afflictions, are Non condi­gnae ad futuram gloriam ou [...] axia pros ten mel­lousan doxan, are not condigne to the future glory Bel translateth: are not worthy of the future glory. And the Apostles mea­ning is not to tel there whether sufferances of this life be condignely meritorious, of future glory or no, but intendeth to say that they are not comparable to future glory ether in greatnes, or in continuance which hindereth not their condigne merit, as is euident in Christs sufferances. For ha­uing v. 17. immediatly before said, that we shal be coheirs with Christ, if we suffer with him, lest we should be vnwilling to attaine to such glory by sufferance he addeth in the verse cited, that sufferances are not condigne, (that is, not comparable in greatnes, or continuance) to future glory. which meaning of his he vttereth in plainer tearms: 2. Co­rinth. 4. v. 17. saying our tribulation which pre­sently S. Paul. is momentary, and light, worketh aboue measure exceedingly an eternal weight of glory in [Page 239] vs. Where he saith our tribulations are mo­mentary, and light, and the glory is eternal, and weighty, which he meant when he said here, they are not condigne to future glory. And hereby are explicated the words both of Theodoret, and S. Anselme vpon this place. For Theodoret saying the Crovvns ex­ceed the conflicts, and the labour is not comparable to the revvard compareth them not in the respect of desert, and reward, but in great­nes of paine, and pleasure: for (saith he) the labour is litle, and the gaine great. And the same comparison in bitternes of paine and great­nes of pleasure made S. Anselm when he S. Ansolm. Rom. 8. said. Al the bitternesses of al the paines of this life should not be a digne merit to future glory: For doubtles the bitternes of al the paines of this life is not so great, as the pleasure of heauēly ioyes. But this worthy Champion who challengeth al Papists to combat, she­weth him selfe ignorāt in translating Theo­dorets words. Superant certamina coronae: thus: Bel vvan­teth latin. The conflicts of the crovvne remaine; taking the nominatiue case for the accusatiue, and the genitiue for the nominatiue, and perhaps superant, for supersunt both contrary to the latine, and to sense. For who heard of con­flicts of a crowne, or that conflicts remaine in heauen. Surely this challenger should rather be set to schoole to learne latine then [Page 240] to challenge Deuines to disputation, rather taught to construe the Fathers, then to dis­pute out of them. But as S. Hierome wrote S. Hieron. epist. ad Euagr. Imperitia confidentiam parit. None so bold as blinde Bayard.

11. The third text he cyteth is out of S. Bel pag. 65. Paul Tit. 3. v. 5. Not by vvorks of iustice, which we haue done, but according to his mercy he hath saued vs by the lauer of regeneration, and renoua­tion of the holy Ghost. By which vvords (saith Bel) it is most cleare that we are not only iustifyed, but also saued by meere mercy, and consequently eternal life hath no merit vpon the behalfe of man. Omit­ting that before our good works were me­rit in a godly sense, & now there is no merit on mans behalfe: I answer, that the Apostle meaneth only of sauing from sinne. vz iust­ification. First because speaking of him selfe, and others then aliue he saith God hath saued vs: Secondly because hauing said in the third verse. VVe vvere somtymes vnwise incredu­lous &c. he addeth v. 5. and God according to his mercy hath saued vs, vz. from the foresaid sinnes. Thirdly because explicating by what means God had saued them, he saith it was by the lauer of regeneration, and renouation of the holy Ghost, which most plainly expresseth iustification. And no doubt but saluation from sinne proceedeth of Gods meere mer­cy but this is not to the purpose. And of this [Page 241] saluation speaketh S. Anselme vpon this place, whose words Bel curtailed leauing out these words, By the lauer of regeneration, and renouation of the holy Ghost, that is, by bap­tisme, because they clearly shew of what sal­uation this holy Saint did meane. And of the same meant Dionis. Carthus. vpon rhis Carthus. place as is plaine by his explicating what the saluation was, vz. from povvre of the Dyuel, and guilt of eternal torment. And thus much of Bels first reason out of Scripture now to his arguments out of Fathers.

CHAP. V. Bels arguments out of holy Fathers against condigne merit ansvvered.

S. Austin he alleadgeth epist. 29. ad Hie­ron, Bel pag. 66. whose words I wil set downe at S. Augustin. tom. 2. large that the Reader thereby may see how falsly Bel auoucheth him to confirme his doctrine. Charity (saith he) is a vertue, with which we loue that, which is to be loued. This is great in some, in others les, in others none at al, but mostful charity, which can be no more encreased, is in none, whiles a mā lyueth here, but whiles it may be encreased surely that vvhich is les then it should be, is ex vitio, of vice. (Bel translateth sinne) by reason of vvhich vice thereis no iust on earth, which doth good, and sinneth not: by reason of [Page 242] which vice no liuing man shal be iustifyed in Gods sight. For vvhich vice if vve say we haue no sinne we sedute our selfes, and there is no truth in vs. For which also though vve haue profited neuer so much, we must of necessity say Forgiue vs our trespasses, euen when our vvords, deeds, & thoughts are already forgiuen in baptisme.

2. Hence Bel gathereth 1. That S. Austin pag. 67. vntruth 61 saith that no man can haue charity in that perfect degree which the lavv requireth. This is vntrue: for he only saith, that no man hath in this life that most ful charity, which can not be encreased. 2. That the want therof proceedeth of vice. This is true, but of what kinde of vice he meant, him selfe had explicated a litle be­fore in the same place: saying: VVho therfore is without some vice, that is without some fomite, or as a roote of sinne. Wherfore he meant not that the want of most ful charity procee­deth of formal sinne, but of that which is cause, and roote of sinne, to wit, concupis­cence. And by this are answered al the rest of Bels notes out of this place. As that by reason of this vice euery man is a sinner, none iustified before God, if we say we haue no sinne we be lyers, we haue need to aske God forgiuenes euen after baptisme. For al these things are verifyed of Concupiscence, not formally but effectiuely, that is, Con­cupiscence (which S. Austin calleth vice, [Page 243] because it is the roote, and cause of formal vice) causeth sinne in vs, which sinne ma­keth vs formally sinners, not iustifyed be­fore God, and to neede forgiuenes euen af­ter baptisme. And hereby are explicated Bel pag. 68. the like words of S. Ambrose which S. Ambros. e­pist. 84. to. 4. prope finem hereafter he citeth: That by reason of the rebel­lion of the flesh that is vnderstood of euery one, which S. Ihon saith. If we say we haue no sinne we seduce our selfs.

3. But suppose that S. Austin had said al Bel forget­teth his matter. that Bel inferreth, though it would proue Concupiscence to be formal sinne, yet would it not proue that our workes are no condigne merit, which is the question now in hand. For though Concupiscence were as Bel rhinketh venial sinne, which he art. 9. calleth sinne not regnant, yet might other supernatural works of ours, as faith, hope, and charity be condigne merit. But Bel careth not how he speaketh to the pur­pose so he say somwhat: Euen so in the for­mer Article when he should proue Concu­piscence to be sinne, he proued our merits to be none, and now when he should proue our merit to be none he proueth Concu­piscence pag. 67. to be sinne: After this he citeth S. Austin saying tract. 4. in 1. Ioan. that Our S. Augustin. to. 9. iustice of faith is imperfect. Ergo saith Bel there is no condigne merit. wheras he should [Page 244] haue inferred the quite contrary. For if in vs there be imperfect iustice, there is iu­stice, and if there be iustice, there is condi­gne merit to that whereto we haue iustice. And the most that Bel could inferre for him selfe, is that there is no perfect condi­gne merit, which I willingly graunt: Albeit indeed S. Austin in that place calleth not our iustice imperfect, because there is any thing wanting to it selfe, which is requisit to iustice, for epist. 105. he calleth it true iustice, but because we, who haue it, delight S. Augustin. to. 2. in other things, and haue rebellion, which things being seperated from it, our iustice (saith he) Tract. 4. cit. shal be perfected vz. not by any addition but by seperating our iniustice from the com­pany of it.

4. He citeth also S. Chrisostom affir­ming Bel pag. 68. S. Chrysost. l 2. de com­punction. cordis. that Though we dye a thousand tymes, and accomplish al vertues of the mynde, yet do we no­thing worthy to those things, which ipsi percepi­mus, we haue receaued of God: But besides that S. Chrisostome speaketh not of eternal glo­ry, but of benefits of this life, which we (saith he) haue receaued, and Bel falsly englis­hed, False tran­slat. 7. we receaue. He is to be vnderstood of perfect equality, or of works considered in their owne nature not as they proceed of grace, and are fruit of the holy Ghost. Next pag. 69. he alleadgeth Theophilacts words in c. 3. [Page 245] Tit. He hath saued vs for euer, not of works which The ophi­lact. we did, that is, nether did we works of iustice, ne­ther by them are we saued, but al our saluation his goodnes, and clemency hath wrought. But besi­des that these words I found not in that place, they may be vnderstood of saluation from sinne, vz. of iustification: as appeareth because the text which they expound, doth so meane, as is before proued, as also spea­king Cap. 4. pa­rag. 11. of men aliue he saith we are saued, which he calleth saluation for euer, because iustification is such in hope, according to that Rom. 8. v. 24. Spe salui facti sumus.

5. Bel finding so few Fathers to speake Bel pag. 69. 70. any thing, to his purpose, thought best to supply the rest of this chapter with the words, of S. Bernard, and Angles, whom Caluin lib. 4. instit. cap. 7. parag 22. Perkins re­for. Cathol. Of merits. p. 109. pag 70. Bel promi­se [...]ij to yaeld if he haue charged any Au­thor falsly. Preface of his challēg. Angles [...]. sent. p. 103. he confesseth to be Papists, though his Mai­ster Caluin accounted S. Bernard a holy man, and his brother Perkins citeth him as a Father of the auncient Church such rara est concordia fratrum Protestanticorum. Angles he tearmeth a famous, and one of our best Doctors, though he be a very late, and meane writer, and of purpose impugned the Protestants: But let his handling of An­gles be to the Reader an example and taste of his foule vsage of Fathers, and other writers.

6. Al other holy Doctors also (saith Angles [Page 246] according to Bels translation) considering after the same manner, the natural valew only of good works, and perceauing that it is exceeding far distant from the valew, and iust estimation of eternal life said wisely. That our works, are not meritorious of eternal life. Yet for the couenant and promise made vnto vs, the good works of man with the helpe of Gods grace are worthy of eternal life, and equal with it, which for al that, that promise of God (which is frequent in the Scripture) set aside, were altogether vnworthy of so great re­vvard. Hereupon Bel auoucheth Angles to pag. 70. graunt that al holy Fathers with one assent af­firme (a testimony (saith he) almost incredible to vntruth 62 proceed from the mouth of a Papist so deare to the Pope) That good works nether are meritorious, nor worthy of eternal life. And in the margent ad­deth this note: Loe this fryer graunteth that al holy Fathers are against Papists.

7. But better may I say this is a slaunder al­most A taste of Bels false changing Authors. incredible to proceed from the mouth of a Minister, if his ministery were not in lying. Angles said that al holy Fathers affirme our good works not to be meritorious of eternal life, according to their natural valew, & the same al Catholiques now affirme. Is [...], absolutly to say, that al holy Fathers affirme good works are not meritorious? So thē, because one may say, that Bel according to his natu­ral valew is no better then an infidel, an [Page 247] other may absolutly say, he is no better then an infidel, or rather worse, because qui fidem negauit est infideli deterior: This slaunder is so 1. Timoth. 5. v. 8. euident, as him selfe soone after is faine to cōfesse that Angles saith The Fathers speake of Contradict. 17. good works only in respect of their natural valevv. So il hath he learnt that first lesson of his oc­cupation mendacē oportet esse memorem. His se­cond pag. 70. note out of Angles is: that he graūteth good works cōsidered in their owne nature to be vnworthy of eternal life. This is true, & taught by vs before, & confirmed by S. Austin epist. 105. saying. Nothing but grace ma­keth S. Augustin. to. 2. al our good works. Thirdly he noteth in Angles that he graunteth good works euen as they proceed of grace are vtterly vnworthy of eter­nal life if Gods free promise, & acceptation be set a part. True it is, that Angles, as a follower of Scotus, seemeth to thinke that the con­dignity of good works to eternal life, riseth not of any equality which is in them vnto glory: but of Gods promise to reward them, which is a far different question from this, Haeretico­rum frons nō est frons si non mem­brum quod fecit Deus sed pudo­rem intelli­gas. Aug. 4. cont. Iul. c. 3. to. 7. vntruth 63. as is before explicated: yet withal in the very words cited he professeth them to be, (supposing the said promise, which is euery where founde in Scripture) vvorthy of eter­nal life and equal vnto it. Let now any indiffe­rent Reader iudge what face Bel had when vpon these words of Angles he wrote that [Page 248] Papists graunt as much as vve (Protestants) de­sire. vntruth 64 and that vve (Protestants) defend nothing herein, but euen that vvhich their ovvne best Do­ctors in their printed books do teach.

8. Out of S Bernard he alleadgeth these Bel pag. 71. & Bernard. words serm. 1. de annunt. The suffering of this time are not condigne to future glory, no, not if one suffer al; For the merits of men are not such as eter­nal life is due to them ex iure, (of iustice) that God should do any iniury if he gaue it not. Here­upon Bel inferreth diuers things, but al depend of his false vnderstanding the words iustice, and iniury. For S. Bernards mea­ning is only to deny, that al the sufferings of this life can be absolute, and perfect e­qual merit of glory, depending of no grace, or promise of God to reward them: but that God of his meere iustice, without al respect of mercy should be bound to repay them with eternal life, and otherwise should do absolute iniury. And meaneth not to deny that supposing Gods gratious promise of re­warding works, and assistance in doing them, heauen is due to them of some iu­stice, and that he should do some iniury if he did not giue heauē. For as S. Austin saith S. Augustin. to. 7. l. 4. con. Iulian. c. 3. God him selfe shal be vn­iust if the true iust be not admitted to his kingdome. And the same insinuateth S. Paul, when S. Paul. Heb. [...]. v. 10. writing to the Hebrews he saith God is not [Page 249] vniust to forget their worke, as if he should do some iniustice, if he should forget it.

9. Next he citeth his words serm. 67. in pag. 71. Canti: It wanteth to grace whatsoeuer thou as­cribest to merits. I wil no merit vvhich excludeth grace. I abhorre whatsoeuer is of myne, vnles per­haps that is more myne vvhich maketh me myne ovvne, Grace restoreth me to my selfe freely iusti­fyed, and so deliuered from slauery of sinne. Here Bel noteth diuers things against al merit & pag. 72. vntruth 65. auoucheth most falsly S. Bernard to renounce al merit of man whatsoeuer. Wheras the B. Saint speaketh only against meere humaine merit, done by our owne powre without assistan­ce of grace, such saith he excludeth grace, and is of our owne. And such indeed he and al Catholiques renounce, and leaue to the Pelagians, but willingly he accepteth such merit as proceedeth from grace, and (as he speaketh) maketh me myne owne.

10. Lastly he alleadgeth his words serm. pag. 71. 68. in Cant. So there is no cause, vvhy thou shoul­dest novv aske by vvhat merits vve hope for goods, especially seeing thou hearest the Prophet saying. Not for you, but for me I vvil do it saith our Lord. It sufficeth to merit, to know that merits suffice not. But as it sufficeth to merit not to presume of merits, so to vvant merits is enough to iudgement. Bel in­ferreth pag. 72. that the most sufficiēt merit in man is to vntruth 66. knovv and confesse, that our merits are no merits [Page 250] indeed. Did euer honest man deale thus. S. Bernard speaketh not of the most sufficient merit, but only telleth what sufficeth to a merit: vz. not to presume of merits which no doubt is an act of humility, and a meri­torious act. And lest of al dreamed that our merits are no merits (yea plainly affirmeth that to want merits sufficeth to be damned) but only telleth vs that our merits suffice not vz: without Gods mercy of pardoning our sinnes, and gratious promise of rewar­ding them, which is only to deny absolute, & perfect equal merit, which we also with him deny. But marke good Reader how Bel, who before admitted our merits in a pag. 61. godly sense, now plainly auoucheth them to be no merits, which plainly discryeth his godly sense of expounding merit by Impe­tration, to be an vngodly shift of his for to delude the authorities of Fathers, expresly auouching merit. And thus much of his proofs out of Fathers. Now let vs view his proofs out of Popish writers.

CHAP. VI. Bels arguments out of late Catholique vvriters against condigne merit ansvvered.

THE first Papist which Bel citeth is S. pag. 72. S. Thomas. Thomas 1. 2. 4. 114. at. 1. It is manifest [Page 251] that betvveene God, and man, there is most great inequality, for there is infinit distance betvveene them, al the good vvhich is mans is from God. VVherfore mans iustice receaued of God can not be according to absolute equality, but according to a certaine proportion, to wit, in as much as ether vvorketh according to his manner. But the manner, and measure of humaine povvre in man is from God, and therfore mans merit before God can not bee but according to the supposal of Gods ordi­nance, to vvit, so that man obtaine of God by his vvorke that as a revvard, to vvhich God hath de­signed him povvre to vvorke. Hence Bel infer­reth pag. 73. diuers things. 1. That S. Thomas telleth vs that vvhere there is not perfect equality, there is no vntruth 67 merit properly. This is an vntruth properly, for Aquinas denyeth only merit or iustice according to absolute equality, yea affir­meth that proportionate merit may be be­twixt them that infinitly differ. 2. That there is infinit inequality betvvixt God and man: This is a needles note made only to fil roome, and make number. 3. That mans iustice is not abso­lute, but imperfect. This is true, and we teach the same. But marke how he noteth this to be the doctrine of Aquinas, which a none he wil say is Protestantisme.

2. That Aquinas graunteth vvillingly that vntruth 68 man doth merit nothing in Gods sight saue only by vvay of his free acceptation. This is an vn­truth [Page 252] willingly tolde. For Aquinas only saith. That man can not merit any thing of God, but only according to the presupposal of his ordi­nance, that is, vnles God had promised, and ordeined to reward our merit, and graun­teth (as is said) that we haue proportionate merit, and therfore only denyeth absolute merit: 5. That Aquinas confesseth that eternal vntruth 69 life is not properly hyre. This is vntrue: For he only saith that it is quasi merces as a hyre, or reward, vnles Bel wil make S. Ihou to haue Ioan. 1. v. 14. denyed Christ to be properly the sonne of his Father, when he said, vve savv his glory as it vvere of the only begotten of his Father. And though S. Thomas had said it were not pro­perly hyre, his other words would enforce vs to vnderstād him not of al kinde of hyre, but only of such as is betweene equals, when one free man hyreth an other, for such doubtles can not be betwixt God, and man; nay it is not so perfect hyre, or iustice Note this [...]xample. as may be betwixt a man, & his bondslaue, if he should liberally giue his slaue his la­bours, and promise to reward them as wel as if he were a free man: For though such a maister of liberality, both giue his slaue his labours, and promise to reward them, in which he is like to Gods dealing with vs, 1 yet neither doth he giue his slaue powre to 2 labour, nor assists him in his labour, nor re­wardeth 3 [Page 253] him aboue desert of his labour, as God of his liberality doth with vs. And therfore our reward hath lesse the nature of hyre then the wages of such a slaue should haue. And yet notwithstanding it is not a free gift, as almes is to a beggar, or a benefit should be to a slaue, if his Lord had not bestowed his labours vpon him, & pro­mised to reward them as if he were not his slaue. And hereby is reproued an other vn­truth which Bel afterward auoucheth vpon Bel pag. 76. S. Thomas 1. 2. q. 114. art. 1. S. Thomas: vz. That he affirmeth that God is not said simply and truly to be debtor vnto vs. For the worde (truly) is by Bel vntruly ad­ded: vntruth 70 And S. Thomas meaneth that he is not simply and absolutly our debtor, but vpon presupposal of his promise, and ordi­nance.

3. Many lines he citeth out of Durand to Bel pag. 73. Durand. 2. d. 27. q. 2. proue that he denyed cōdigne merit, but o­mitted other immediatly before where Du­rand distinguisheth two kinds of merits de condigno, largely & strictly so called. Cōdigne merit largely called (saith he) is a certaine wor­thines, vvhich God requireth in the worke for to revvard it vvith eternal life, and this (saith he) vve haue. and in these words which Bel ci­teth denyeth only that condigne merits vvhich is (saith he twise) strictly (and this False tran­slat. [...]. word Bel left twise out in his translation) [Page 254] and properly so called, and is found betwene man, and man, & he defyneth it to be a voluntary action, vvherby revvard is so due to the vvorke, as he to vvhom it apperteineth to giue it, is simply, and properly vniust if he do not: which kinde of condigne merit I also deny to be in our works. For nether is it strictly condigne, nor such as is betwixt man and man, nether should God be simply coniust if he did not reward it, as appeareth by what hath bene said before. But suppose that Durand had absolutly denyed al condigne merit in our works. What hath Bel gotten more then that one schooleman who hath many other singuler opinions, did in this matter, which is no point of faith, dissent from the com­mon doctrine of Schools?

4. After this Bel auoucheth Gregory of Bel pag. 75. Arimino: Marsil: Thomas of VValden, Paul of Burges, and Eckins, to affirme very constantly, That mans works are not meritorious of eternal life. But this he affirmeth very vntruly, and vntruths 71. lest he should be tript would neither cite their words, nor quote the place. For no Catholique denyeth our supernatural works to be meritorious of eternal life, though Paul of Burges, in psalm. 35. deny them to be meritorious de condigno and Walden. tom. 3. de sacramentalibus c. 7. counselleth to absteine from the name de condigno, & con­gruo, [Page 255] yet he expresly auoucheth our works to be meritorious. Gregory also confesseth Gregor. [...]. d. 17. them to be so meritorious as in respect of merit de congruo they may be said to be me­ritorious de condigno: Marsilius, and Eckins books I had not at hand to peruse, yet doubtles they denyed not our supernatural works to be meritorious, but either only to be meritorious de condigno, which (as I said) is no point of faith, or els perhaps only to be absolutly and perfectly merito­rious de condigno, which I also do not deny. But I maruel why Bel would make men­tion of Eckins, whose very name bringeth to memory that he foyled Luther so in dis­putation, Sur. 1519. as being admonished by the Counsellors of George Duke of Saxony to behaue him selfe modestly he cryed out. This matter was nether begun for God, nor shal Luthers ab­hominable vvords. Sotus lib. 3. de nat. & Grat. c. 6. be ended for him.

5. Next he produceth Sotus writing that perfect satisfaction requireth that the whole valew proceed from the debter with­out any sauour at al of the Creditor, and that there be a restoring of an equiualent thinge otherwise vndue. Whereupon Bel Bel pag. 75. vntruth 72 auoucheth him to teach, that euery satisfa­ction requireth the like conditions. This is ma­nifestly false: for he speaketh only of per­fect satisfaction as was the satisfaction of [Page 256] Christ. But to Bels argument framed here­upon. None can satisfy for sinne, therfore none can condignely merit heauen: I answer by di­stinguishing the Antecedent. If it be meant of sinne it selfe I graunt it, but deny the Consequence. And the difference is, be­cause there can be no satisfaction at al, vn­les the satisfyer be in Gods fauour, which can not be, vnles the sinne be already par­doned, and therfore al satisfaction suppo­seth sinne to bee forgiuen freely, but merit doth not so suppose eternal life to be alrea­dy giuen. But if it be meant of temporal punishment, which is called sinne accor­ding to the Scriptures phrase Zachar. vlt. Zachar. and oftentymes remayneth after the sinne it selfe is pardoned, as appeareth in Dauid 2. Reg. 12. v. 14. Deuter. 32. v. 51. Daniel. v. 24. Prouerb. v. 6. Moyses, and others: I deny the Antece­dent. For as Daniel said c. 4. we may re­deeme our sinnes by almes, and by mercy prouerb. 16. And albeit this satisfaction be not so perfect, as it hath al the conditions which the perfection of satisfaction requi­reth, yet hath it al which the essence thereof exacteth. Nether doth Aristotle alleadged by Bel teach the contrary.

6. After this because Angles (as I said [...]el pag. 76. before) seemeth to say that the condignity of our merit riseth only vpon the promise of God made to reward it Bel here a new vntruth 73. [Page 257] auoucheth him to confesse plainly the selfe same doctrin which he intendeth to proue, which how true it is hath bene already shewed, and Cap. 5. pa­rag. 7. withal addeth that this is the maine point, and only foundation to which al Papists do, and must vntruth 74 appeale in this question. And he reproueth this by the example of the loane of a cloake in a shower of raine vpon promise of an hun­dred pownds, notwithstanding which pro­mise (saith he) that loane can not be condi­gne merit of that price. But most false it is that Angles his reason is the maine or only foundation, to which al Papists doe and must appeale in this question. For to it ap­peale only such as follow Scotus. And S. Thomas 1. 2. q. 114. ar 3. Bonauent: 2. dist: 17. Bellarm. l. 5. de iustif. c. 17. and Iohn: de Combis (as Bel him selfe testifyeth) Bel pag. 77. Bel dispro­ueth him self. with the best Deuines appeale to the ver­tual, and proportionate equality before ex­plicated, which is already proued to be in our merits: And account that foundation of Angles vnsure, and inpugne it better then Bel doth with his example of the loane of a cloake which maketh nothing against vs. For it hath not such vertual, and proportio­nate equality to an hundred pownds, as our merits haue to glory. I omit Bels fonde inferring, that we do not condignly deser­ue eternal life if (as Deuines say) God re­ward [Page 258] vs vltra condignum aboue our deserts. For it only proueth that we doe not condi­gnly Deuines in 4. sent. d. 46. deserue that excesse of glory, which God wil giue vs, when as Christ saith Luc. S. Luke. 6. v. 38. He wil giue good measure, and pressed downe, and shaken together. and running ouer. And rather proueth that we doe condignly deserue some degree of glory. For if God rewarde vs vltra condignum, beyond our de­serts he rewardeth vs according to our de­serts, and more two.

7. Likewise he citeth Lyra saying that pag. 77. Lyra in c. 3. Tit. Eternal saluation wholy exceedeth the power of mans nature: Therfore he can not attaine vnto it but by liberality of gods mercy. True: But what? because it exceedeth the power of mans na­ture, wil Bel haue it also to exceede the po­wer of Gods grace in which according to S. Paul we cā doe al thinges: Or because we Philip. 4. v. 13. need Gods liberality vz. for to haue his pro­mise of reward; his grace, and to haue the good works, therfore can we not haue his iustice to giue (as S. Paul speaketh) a cro­wne 2. Timoth. 4. v. 8. of iustice for our works, and consum­mation of our race? Are Gods liberality and iustice so opposite, as they can not concurre to one worke? Why then did the Psalmist sing psal: 100. Iudgment and mercy to God? Psalm. 100. v. 1. 9. False translat. This Bel would; & therfore when lyra said nisi ex largitate diuinae misericordiae Bel engli­shed [Page 259] him, But only by the liberality of Gods mercy. adding, only, of his owne store. And albeit Carthusianus professe that merits are Carthus. in c. 6. Rom. not excluded, yet Bel beggeth his fauour, because he writeth that Eternal life is said to be giuen as revvarde by grace, and principally at­tributed Bel left out this. For the Elect by Grace de­serue eter­nal life. to grace, because God revvardeth vs vl­tra condignum. Who pittieth not this poore beggar, who is faine to goe to his enemyes dores a begging that, which wil doe him no good, and now and then is faine to steale. I haue giuen him more before, let him take that, and be thankful, and try what thereof he can gather against such cō ­digne merit as Catholiques defend.

8. But wil you see this braue champion challenger, who hitherto hath sownded Bel recan­ting p. 79. Alarme, and fought furiously against con­digne merit, now at the end of this Article sounding a Retreit, and confessing that, that condigne merit which Catholiques defend is too good for him to deale withal. After he had cited out of Bellarmin, that Bellarm. lib. 5. de iustific. c. 16. our merits are not condigne of iustice ab­solutly, but posita liberali Dei promissione sup­posing Gods liberal promise, (which Bel 10. False translat. falsly translateth in respect of Gods liberal promise.) And that absolutly a man can not exact any thinge of God, seeing al are his, but only supposing his wil, and coue­nant, [Page 260] that he wil not exact our works of vs for nothing, but giue vs reward according to the proportion of our works. As a slaue (saith he) can not absolutly demaund any thing of his maister, seeing al the slaue get­teth he getteth to his maister, yet if it please his maister to bestow his works vpon him, and to promise reward for them, as if they were not due to him, the slaue may iustly demaūd reward for them, Bel I say, after he had cited these words out of Bellarmin, and affirmed that Bellarmin taught this after mature consultation with the best learned Iesuits, and the Pope him selfe telleth vs that Bellarmin maketh good his doctrine in them, and that if he, and his fellowes, and followers vvould stand constantly to their ovvne doctrine, vvhich they publish in printed books, vve (Pro­testants) and they should soone agree, and these controuersies vvould haue an end.

9. What is this but in plaine tearms to The Triden­tin Councel defyned only that vve truly deserue heauen, and Bel impug­neth it. confesse, that he can not impugne Bellar­mins printed doctrine of condigne merit, which is the very same which al Catholi­ques commonly print, preach, and beleeue. For Bellarmin in the very words cited saith. A man may ex iure iustly demaund revvard at Gods hands for his vvorks: that our merits are ex iustitia supposing Gods promise: and that God revvardeth them secundum proportionem accor­ding [Page 261] to their proportion. And affirmeth in the next chapter to these words that good Sup. cap. 17. vvorkes are condignely meritorious of eternal life by reason of the couenant, and vvorke together, not that a good vvorke should not haue propor­tion to eternal life vvithout the couenant, but be­cause God is not bound to recompence the vvorke vvith that revvard, albeit it be iust, and equal to the revvard, vnles he before had couenanted. Doe you holde Syr this printed doctrine of Bel­larmin, doth it like you? speake plainly and renounce your meere acceptation, and bare impetration, and be not ash [...]med to say deuterai phrontides sophotatai: for your se­cond faith was best.

10. But he meaneth nothing les, then to holde Bellarmins printed doctrine, vvhich (saith he other where) is approued by the pag. 26. 125. 87. And p 29. The Iesuits (Bellar­min) do­ctrin is the Popes ovvne do­ctrin. Pope, vvho hath said al that can be said for Po­pery, and vvhose testimony alone is most sufficient in al Popish affairs. But only by occasion of his owne foresaid false translation he ho­ped to make his Reader beleeue that Bel­larmin helde condignity of merit to arise meerly of Gods promise, which though he did (as some Catholiques doe) belonged not to this question as is before declared, and rather supposeth, then denyeth con­digne merit. Yet is it defended of the same Catholiques in a farre different sense as [Page 262] Bellarmin him selfe sheweth then of Pro­testants. Sup. c. 17. For they thinke our supernatural workes to be truly good, and condignely to deserue some reward, though not so great as eternal life is, vnles God had pro­mised it to them: But Protestants thinke them to be truly naught, and sinne, and to deserue no reward, but punishment, and that God in accepting, and rewarding them Prouerb. 6. v. 16. Psal. 5. v. 7. Sapient. 14. v. 9. Apocal. 2. v. 6. Iudith 5. v. 21. Psalm. 44. v. 8. Bel pag. 80. S. Augustin. lib. 9. Con­fess. c. 13. L. 2. de Gen. cōt. Manich. c. 14. L. 1. de nupt. & concupis. c. 29. Serm. 5. de verb. Apost. accepteth, and rewardeth sinne, which is a horrible blasphemy contrary to Scrip­ture, auouching that he hateth sinne, con­trary to his goodnes, that can not accept naughtines, and sinne, more then fyer can water, and contrary to his iustice, which can not reward it.

11. After al this Bel alleadgeth a saying of S. Austin VVoe euen to the laudable life of man, if thou discusse it setting thy mercy aside: which maketh litle to the purpose. For S. Austin denounceth not woe to good mens merits, which otherwhere he saith are great matters, and to be crowned, but to the men them selfs, because as they haue merits to be crowned, so they haue deme­rits to be punished, which if they were pu­nished without mercy, woe should be to them: Not because they should be sent to hel, but to purgatory, or (as he calleth it sermon. in psalm. 37.) Emendatory fyer, and S. Austin. [Page 263] there punished without mercy, which fyer (saith he) is more greeuous then any thinge, Confess. lib. 9. c. 13. cit. vvhich man can suffer in this life. And to pro­cure Gods mercy in this behalfe to his mo­thers soule he both prayed him selfe, and requested others to pray for her. Be mynd­ful therfore (Bel) from whence thou art fallen, and do penance. Apocal. 2.

CHAP. I. The true Distinction proued and Bels obiection ansvvered.

BEL perceauing that Catholi­ques do euidently proue that there is a difference betweene mortal, and venial sinnes durst not deny it, but proceedeth as he did in the former Article, allowing in Bel pag. 81. words the distinction of mortal, and venial sinnes in a godly sense, which though he be ashamed to expresse, yet doth he insinuate Bel admit­teth venial sinnes. in other tearms of regnant, & not regnant, and meaneth (as I suppose) that voluntary euil acts are mortal, & inuoluntary venial, which doctrine is already disproued in the fourth article. Wherfore here he vnderta­keth to proue that euery sinne is mortal of it owne nature, and some become venial only for free acceptation, & mercy of God.

2. Supposing therfore that some sinnes Mortal and venal sinnes are such of their ovvne nature. are mortal, and others venial, I intend to proue by Scripture, Fathers, and reason, that they are such of their owne nature. The Scripture compareth such sinnes as are mortal, and venial to things, which of their owne nature are different as Math. 23. to a Math. 23. v. 24. Luc. 6. v. 42. Camel, and a gnat. Luc. 6. to a strawe, and a beame: Ergo: these kinde of sinnes are different of their owne nature. Likewise our Sauiour Luc. 12. 58. compareth some Math. 5. v. 27. sinnes to mites or farthings, which of their nature are smal debts. Moreouer God hath no where reuealed that some kinde of sins become venial only by his mercy. Therfore we ought not to say so. The Consequence is euident. for none knoweth the pleasure of God but by his reuelation. The Antece­dent I proue: for Protestants can neither name the sinnes, which God hath made ve­nial, nor the place, where God hath reuea­led any such making of his. Bel citeth Math. 12. v. 3. where it is said, that VVe shal giue account of euery idle word. And 1. Iohn. 3. v. 4. where sinne is called iniquity. But in neither place it is said that Gods mercy maketh any sinne venial, and other like places cited by other Protestants rather proue that al sinnes notwithstāding Gods mercy are now mor­tal, then that any, which of them selfe were [Page 266] mortal, became venial by his mercy. Like­wise for venial sinne he nameth sinne not regnant, wherby he vnderstandeth inuolun­tary motions of concupiscence. But for such inuoluntary motiōs (which Bel rightly cal­leth Bels beleefe of venial sinnes be­fydes Gods booke. not regnant sinne, but wrongly venial) nether are they any true sinne as venial sinne is; nor is it any where reuealed, that they being of their nature mortal sins, are made venial only through Gods mercy. Therfore Bels beleefe of some sinnes made venial by Gods mercy is wholy besides Gods booke.

3. Holy Fathers also in calling some sinnes Fathers. litle sinnes light, short, least, & daily offen­ces: as S. Hierom in c. 5. Math. & l. 2. in Io­uinian: S. Hierom. prope fin. S. Austin. to. 10. & 3. S. Chrysost. tom. 2. & Conc. 3. in Lazar. to. 2. S. Austin serm. 41. de sanctis. and in Enchir. c. 71. and S. Chrisostom. hom. 24. in Math. insinnuate that venial sinnes are such of their owne nature. for they were neuer litle, nor light, if of their nature they were mortal, and damnable: as a wounde, which of it nature is mortal, and deadly, could neuer be called a litle or light woūde, though God of his mercy did cure it: Like­wise S. Hierom putteth a difference be­tweene S. Hieron. dial. 2. cont. Pelag. S. Gregor. 21. moral. c. 9. S. Austin. hom. 19. de [...]empore. cacia, and hamartia: and S. Gre­gory, and S. Austin betwixt crimen and pecca­tum yea S. Hierom epist. ad Celant. accoun­teth it a paradox of the Stoiks to put no difference betwixt scelus, and erratum.

4. By reason also this is euident. For who Reaſon. seeth not that to steale a pinne is of it nature a smal offence. And I would aske of Bel whither a sinne after it is by Gods mercy made venial, reteineth the selfe same nature of offending God, deseruing Hel, and the like, which it had before, or it changeth it nature? If it change it nature, then a [...]ter Gods mercy, of it nature it is venial, and Gods mercy is only the cause of changing the nature of it. If it retaine the selfe same nature, how is it possible, but God if he ac­count of it truly, according to truth (as al his iudgements are. Rom. 2. v. 2.) should not account of it as a mortal sinne, and de­seruing hel. Wherfore what Protestants talke of some sinnes becomming venial, or no sinnes at al, by Gods meere not impu­ting them for sinnes, without any altera­tion in the sinnes them selfs, is meere con­tradiction, and contrary to S. Austin, and reason as is shewed in the fourth Article. c. 3. parag. 4.

5. Againe: infidels haue venial sinnes. Ergo venial sins become not such only by Gods meere not imputing them for mortal. The consequence is cleare out of the Protestants doctrine, who put that not imputing only VVillet con­trac. 17. part. 3. p. 560. towards the faithful & regenerate. The An­tecedent I proue because they can doe al the [Page 268] sinnes which the faithful doe. If one say that sinnes which in the faithful, be but venial are in Infidels mortal. This is con­trary to reason, because knowledge of Gods precept in the faithful rather encreaseth his fault: for the seruant which knovveth the Luc. 12. v. 48. vvil of his maister, and doth it not, shal be beaten vvith many stripes, and ignorance in infidels diminisheth their fault: wherupon S. Paul said I haue gotten mercy because I did it ignorāt­ly 1. Timoth. 1. v. 13. in incredulity. And I aske of Bel why God maketh sinne not regnant, venial, rather then regnant, and either he must say that God doth it without any cause, or because they are inuoluntary and these voluntary, which is to say, that by their different na­ture they are made mortal, and venial.

6. Finally some sinnes of their nature breake frendship with God, and deserue his eternal hatred, and punishment. others do not. Ergo: some of their nature are mortal others venial. The consequence is euident: The Antecedent I proue: because he is no wise person, who wil fal out, and be offen­ded for euer with his friend for euery trifle, as the taking vp of a straw: nor he is a iust Prince, who should inflict death for stea­ling a pinne: & I beleeue Bel would thinke him selfe vniustly hādled if he were so dealt withal. Wherfore if God should do this we [Page 269] should neither account him a wise friend, nor a iust Prince. Now let vs heare what Bel obiecteth against this so manifest truth.

7. Al his proofs may be reduced to this Bel pag. 81. 82. syllogisme, what is against Gods law is mor­tal sinne: al sinne is against Gods law: Ergo al sinne is mortal. Behould Bel here absolutly cōcludeth al sinne to be mortal, & after cal­leth our venial sinnes cursed, & deformed, which argueth that he thinketh al sinne to be indeed mortal notwithstanding Gods mercy. The Proposition he supposeth. The Assumption he proueth out of Scripture: Fathers, and Schoolmen. Out of Scripture because Christ said Math. 12. v. [...] that we shal giue account for euery idle worde: and S. Ihon 1. c. 3. v. 4. telleth vs that Euery sinne is anomia that is, transgression of the lavv: S. Am­brose also defineth sinne in general to be transgression of Gods law: And S. Austin describeth it to be Euery worde, deed, or desire against Gods law. Bellarmin affirmeth euery Bellarm. lib. 4. de. Rom. Pont. c. 21. Rhemist. 1. Io. 3. v. 4. Angles 4. sent. p. 21 [...]. Durand. 2. d. 42. q. 6. sinne to be against Gods law. Rhemists also confesse, Euery sinne to be a swaruing from the Law: and doubtles (saith he) what swar­ueth from the law, is truly against the law. Likewise Angles, and Durand teach venial sinnes to be against the law.

8. To this argument Catholiques an­swer differently, some by denyal of the Pro­position, [Page 270] others by denial of the Assump­tion. Some say that euery sinne which is against the Law is not mortal, but only that which is perfectly against it, so that it dest­roleth the end of the law, which is Charity & this venial sinnes do not. And if I should answer thus, Bel were by and by at a Non plus. Others say that venial sinnes are not against the law, because they are not against the end of the law, but besides the law. But this difference is rather in words then in matter, al agreeing that venial sinne dest­roieth not Charity nor breaketh friendship 1. Timoth. 1. v. 5. with God, which is the end for which the law was made. Yet better it is to say, that venial sinnes are beside the law, then against VVhy ve­nial sinnes are not against the lavv. the law: because what is not contrary to the end, but may stand with out breach of it, is not contrary to the meanes, but may stand without breach of them, but venial sinnes are not contrary to Charity the end of the law: but may be without breach of it. Ergo neither are they contrary to the law, but may be without breach of it. And as a man trauailing, though he steppe out of his way is not said to goe contrary to his iourneys end: so a man walking to heauē, though by venial sin he steppe out, or besides the way, yet doth he not goe the cōtrary way to hel: The Proposition of myne argument is eui­dent: [Page 271] for what can stand with the end, can not be contrary to the meanes necessary to that end. The Assumption both Catholicks graunt, and Hereticks can not deny if they Bels argu­ments a [...] much against him self a [...] against Ca­tholiques. admit that there are indeed any venial sins. For venial sins (whence soeuer they come to be such) breake not friendship with God. And therfore if Bel graunt in deed (as he doth in words) that by Gods mercy some sins are made venial, he must also confesse that by Gods mercy, they are not against his Charity, and friendship: and so must answer his owne argument, which indiffe­rently proueth that there are no venial sins at al, whither they be said to be such by their owne nature, or by Gods mercy: for the ar­gument assumeth not that al which is sinne of it owne nature is against Gods law, but absolutly, al which is sinne is against Gods law. And therfore if Bel thinke venial sinne notwithstanding Gods mercy to be true sinne, he must as wel answer his owne ar­gument as I.

9. Admitting therfore his Proposition I deny his Assumption: and to his proofe out of S. Mathew. I answer that we must giue account for euery idle worde, not be­cause they be a against Gods law, but be­cause they be beside it: And Bel wil beate his horse not only when he turneth backe, [Page 272] but also when he starteth out of the way. As for the text of S. Ihon, he telleth vs not (as Bel auoucheth) that euery sinne is anomia but absolutly Sinne is anomia, and may wel be vnderstoode of only mortal sinne which antonomastice is so called. This answere might suffice to what he bringeth about this text in this Article, yet because art. 4. he brought out of their due place many things about the greeke words anomia and adicia vsed by S. Ihon, which we remitted to this place, we wil here answer them at large, and afterward the rest of his proofs concerning this Article.

CHAP. II. A text of S. Ihon epist. 1. ex­plicated.

S. Ihons words he citeth in Greeke pas ho poion ten hamartian, cai ten anomian Bel pag. 52. poiei, cai he hamartia estin h [...] anomia and trans­lateth them thus. Euery one that sinneth trans­gresseth 1. Ioan. 3. v. 4. the law, and sinne is the transgression of the law, And hereupon inferreth that Euery sinne is transgression of the law, and conse­quently mortal. Catholiques answer twoe waies. First that S, Ihon in this place by sinne vnderstandeth only such sinne as c. 5. v. 16. he calleth sinne to death vz. mortal [Page 273] sinne. And this I proue: First because in the next verse but one vz. v. 6. he speaketh only of mortal sinne, when he saith. Euery one that remaineth in him (Christ) sinneth not, and v. 8. who doth sinne is of the Diuel, and v. 9. Euery one that is borne of God committeth not sinne, because his seede remaineth in him. In these verses it is euident S. Ihon spake only of some certeine kinde of sinne which (as S. Austin S. Austin. tract: 5. in 1. Iohn tom. 9. saith) one borne of God can not commit, vz. of mortal sinne: wherfore of the same did he meane. v. 4. when he in some sorte described sinne by i­niquity. Both because els it should seeme a kinde of equiuocation, as also because if he had described sinne in general, it is likely he would haue afterward discoursed of the same, and not of one only kind of sinne. Secondly because when a worde principal­ly signifyeth one thing, it is not to be ex­tended to an other, which secondarily it signifieth, vnles such extention be gathered by some circumstances of the speech, seeing therfore the worde Sinne doth principally signify only mortal sinne, and secondarily venial sinne, according to S. Thomas. 1. 2. S. Thomas. 4. 88. ar. 1. & there is no circumstance here conuincing it to be extended to signify ve­nial sinne, but rather to the contrarie as hath bene shewed, it is not to be extended [Page 274] to venial sinne. And this is confirmed be­cause Scriptures Fathers, and Catholicke writers by Sinne vnderstād ordinarily only mortal sinne, as appeareth by their attribu­ting of death, losse of grace, and heauen, guilt of hel, seperation from God, and the like to Sinne, and by defyning it to be against Gods law, or trāsgression of the law: which agree only to mortal sinne.

2. Thirdly because S. Bede vnderstan­deth S. Beda 1. Io. 3. it of such sinne, as either is of contēpt of the written law, or corrupteth the in­nocency of the law of nature. And the glof­ord. followeth his very words: also glos. interlin. vnderstandeth it of sinne contrary to equity of Gods law: which he tooke of S. Bede loc. cit. Lyra expressly expowndeth Lyra 1. Io. 3. it of mortal sinne, and defyneth it to be transgression of the law. and the same doth Carthusia: and to this purpose serue al Bels proofs, that anomia signifyeth transgression of the law: for if that be so, then sinne is ta­ken for mortal sinne. Nether against this exposition see I any obiection, more then that the worde Sinne may signify venial sinne, and that also it is taken for it c. 1. v. 8. where he saith If we say we haue no sinne we deceaue our selfs. But we may answer that, though it may signify venial sinne yet ordi­narily it doth not, and therfore it is not wel [Page 275] inferred, that here it doth, especially seeing that there are diuers circumstances to the contrary. And though it signify sinne in ge­neral c. 1. v. 8 yet seeing it doth signify only mortal in this same chapter. v. 6. 8. and 9. better it is to gather the signification of a worde out of the next vse therof, then out of the further of. And if one wil thus ex­pownd the place of S. Ihon (as to me it see­meth S. Ihon mea­neth onely of mortal sinne. best) Bel were straight at a Non plus. For he supposeth that the worde sinne is taken for al kinde of sinne, and only pro­ueth that the worde anomia iniquity is taken for perfect sinne, and transgression. yet be­cause I wil giue him al the scoape he can aske, I admit that by Sinne S. Ihon vnder­stood al kinde of actual sinne, and deny (as many Catholicks do) that anomia Iniquity is taken for wickednes, and perfect transgres­sion of the law: but generally as it is com­mon to perfect transgression, and only swaruing frō the law. Now let vs see how Bel improueth this.

3. His first proofe is because Arias Mon­tanus pag. 52. Arias Mon­tan. 1. Io. [...]. saith, that anomia is transgression of the law. But this is not against vs, because we graunt that it may signify so, only we deny that to be the proper signification of the worde, as is euident by the etimology therof, which is as much as sine lege without [Page 276] the law, and not contra legem: against the law▪ yet because al acts against law are also without law, the worde may be vsed for acts against law, and so signify transgression of the law. It sufficeth vs that the propriety of the worde is for vs not for Bel, and ther­fore we better expownd it of swaruing from the law, then Bel or any other doth of transgression of the law.

4. His second proofe is that S. Ambros Bel pag. 53. S. Ambros. S. Austin. de Parad. c. 8. and S. Austin l. 2. de consen. euang. c. 4. and l. 22. cont. Faust. c. 27. de­fyne sinne to be preuarication, or transgres­sion of the law, or to be a thought, worde or deede against the eternal law, which (saith S. Austin) is deuine reason, or the wil of God commāding the order of nature to be kept, and forbidding it to be broken. But these, Fathers define only mortal sinne; because Catholicks ordinarily vnderstand only that sinne, when they absolutly speake of sinne, as men, when they speake of a thinge meane of substance. As also because S. Ambros had before spoken only of mor­tal sinne vz. of Adam, and Iudas his sinne. And S. Austin in the first place speaketh of sinne against the tenne commandements, which no doubt is of it nature mortal, and in the second place he plainly defineth such sinne, as breaketh the order of nature, which [Page 277] also is mortal sinne not venial; for who wil say that a litle superfluous laughter breaketh the order of nature. Besides it followeth not that if S. Ambros, and S. Austin defined sinne to be transgression of the law, ther­fore S. Ihon did so cal it in this place.

5. His third proofe is out of S. Bede. But S. Bed. 1. Io. 3. he is rather against him. For he saith that anomia signifieth quasi contra legem vel sine lege factum: as it were against law or without law. He saith not against, but as it were against, which more plainly he explicateth saying. Or without the law. Lyra, and Carthu­sia: whom he citeth seeme by anomia, and iniquity to vnderstand wickednes, but then by sinne they vnderstand only mortal sinne, and so fauour Bel nothing. But because the Bel pag. 56. Rhemist. 1. Io. 3. Rhemists as preuenting an obiection write, that The worde iniquity is otherwise taken 1. Io. 3. v. 4. where sinne is said to be iniquity then c. 5. ver. 17. where iniquity is said to be sinne, which they proue because though the latine worde be al one, yet the greeke is differēt vz. adicia which signifyeth iniustice: Bel replyeth ve­ry wisely forsooth out of S. Austins words S. Augustin. to. 9. trac. 4. in 1. Io. to. 9. Let none say sinne is one thing and iniquity an other; Euery one that sinneth com­mitteth iniquity. As if the question now be­twixt the Rhemists, and him had bene, whi­ther sinne and iniquity were al one, and [Page 278] not whether anomia, and adicia be al one. Better therfore he replieth afterward pag, 58. where he proueth anomia. and adicia to be al one, because the vulgar latine transla­teth them both Iniquitas. But the Rhemists answere, That the worde Iniquitas is vsed in a different signification, and proue it by the different greeke words, for which it is vsed; And against this Bel saith nothing, But be­ing at a non plus him selfe, and not able to reply against this answer, and reason, he cryeth out that his ansvverer is at a non plus, & impudently denyeth euery iniquity? to be sinne.

6. But as for the Rhemists, euident it is that herein they are neither impudent, nor at a Non plus, seeing they giue a reason of what they say, against which Bel can not reply; And as for iniquity and sinne, though Psalm. 50. 118. & alibi sup. they be oftentymes confounded both by Scriptures, & Fathers, yet if we wil speake exactly and properly, more is required to formal, and proper sinne, then to formal iniquity. For iniquity requireth only want Difference betvvixt formal sinne and iniquity. of equity, and conformity to Gods law. for­mal sinne besides this requireth voluntari­nes, & so al formal sinne is formal iniquity but not contrarywise. As adultery or mur­der committed by a foole or mad man is ini­quity, but no more sinne then it is in beasts. Hereupon S. Austin l. 2. contr. Iulian. c. 5. S. Austin. [Page 279] distinguished two iniquityes, one which is sinne and blotted out in baptisme, an other which is the law of sinne & infirmity, & re­maineth, & is yet iniquity: because (saith he) iniquum est that the flesh should rebel against the spirit & l. 6. c. 19. calleth lust against wil some iniquity, & yet oftentymes denyeth it to be true sinne. nether doth he say in the place which Bel citeth, that iniquity & sinne is al one, but that sinne is, not a different thing from iniquity, but that who cōmitteth sinne committeth iniquity, which how it is true is euident by that which is said. Albeit when he saith, that al iniquity is blotted out in baptisme, he confounde iniquity with sinne, as before is cited out of Scrip­ture, which argueth that wel may the worde iniquity be taken in a different sense Iohn. 5. and 3. as Iohn 5. for voluntary ini­quity, and proper sinne, as appeareth by the greeke worde adicia, and c. 3. for iniquity in general, as appeareth by the worde anomia, which is cōmon to volūtary, or inuolūtary.

7. The places of S. Ambros and S. Au­stin are already answered for they define only mortal sinne. And of the same vnder­standeth Bellarmin, when he saith al sinne is against the law: for venial sinnes he pro­ueth not to be against the law: tom. 3. lib. 1. de amiss. grat. & stat. pecc. cap. 11. Nether [Page 280] followeth it as Bel thincketh that some sinnes, are no sinnes, but only that Some sinnes are not perfectly sinnes, as Bellarmin proueth loc. cit. As for the Rhemists. dou­btles it is false which Bel addeth, that what Sup. c. 2. pa­rag. 8. swarueth from the law is against it, as I haue proued against his bare assertion of the contrary. Durand and Angles I confesse did thincke venial sinnes to be against the law, but neither is this a matter of faith, neither do they intend to fauour Bel any thing, but answer his argument an other­way as hath bene shewed before.

8. But pretty it is to see, how that be­cause Bel pag. 82 Angles 2. sent. p. 275. Angles writeth, that it seemeth now to be the commoner opinion in schooles, that venial sinnes are against the law. Bel noteth the Ro­mish religion of mutability, confessing that the olde Romane religion was Catholique, Olde Ro­man religiō Catholique sound and pure. sownde, and pure, with which he wil not contend. Beholde the ytch which this fel­low hath to calumniate the Romane reli­gion. Angles in sinuateth Schoole opinions to be mutable. Bel applieth it to Romane religion. as if it consisted of schoole opi­nions, which may be helde pro & contra, salua fidei compage with vnity in faith, as S. Austin speaketh. But seeing you haue graū ­ted S. Augustin. l. 1. cont. Iul. c. 6. to. 7. the olde Romane religion to haue bene Catholique and pure, & slaunder the late; [Page 281] I bring an action of slaunder against you, and charge you that you doe not like dolo­sus, versari in generalibus, but to bringe good witnesses, when, wherin, and by whome the late Romane religion corrupted the pu­rity of the olde, knowing that otherwise (to vse your phrase) al the world wil cry with open mouth Fye vpon you, and your slaunderous Ministery. But in the meane tyme let vs proceed with him here.

9. Their canonized Martyr Bishop Fisher Bel pag. 83. Ruffens. art. 32. cont. Lu­ther. Gerson de vit. spirit. lect. 1. part. 1. (saith he) and Popish Bishop Gerson wrote, that vental sinnes were such only by the mercy of God. Here Bel for one truth vttereth twoe vn­truths. True it is that B. Fisher and Gerson were in that errour, but that was both be­fore it was condemned in the Church, as it 75. vntruth was since by Pius 5. and Gregorius 13. nei­ther did they account inuoluntary motions of Concupiscence for venial sinnes, as Bel doth, but such as Catholiques account ve­nial. 76. vntruth But vntrue it is that either B. Fisher is canonized, or Gerson was a bishoppe who Trithem. in Gersone. was only Chauncellor of the vniuersity of Paris.

10. Finally he concludeth this Article pag. 85. with this goodly reason. one stealeth iust so many egges as are necessary to make a mortal sinne, A reason not vvorth a rotte [...] egge. an other stealeth one les, but there can be no reason. why God may iustly condemne the one to hel, and [Page 282] not the other. therfore both sinne mortally alike. To this I answer by demanding a reason. why the iudge may condemne him to death that stealeth thirteene pence halfe penny, and not him that stealeth one penny les. If he answer, because the law condemneth one, and not the other. I aske againe, what reason was there, that the lawe was made against the one, and not against the other? And if Bel can finde a reason in this, he wil finde one in his owne question. The reason of both is. because such a quantity is a no­table iniury to our neighbour. and conse­quently is against charity, & so breaketh the law, and a les quantity is not; Be myndful Apocalip. therfore (Bel) from whence thou art fallen and do penance. Apocal. 2.

CHAP. I. The Catholique doctrine touching suffici­ency of Scriptures propounded and proued, certayne vntruthes of Bel disproued.

ALBEIT euery one be forbidden to deny any point of the Christian faith, yet are not al cōmaunded to know actually [Page 284] euery point thereof, but to some it sufficeth, that they beleeue the fundamental pointes conteyned in the Apostles Creede, and such like: and to be so desposed in minde, as they woulde beleeue the rest, if they knewe them: which is to be beleeue them implici­tely or virtually. Moreouer one thinge may conteyne an other, either actually, as fyer doth conteyne heate, and the sunne light, or virtually, as a flynte conteyneth fyer and euery cause his effecte. These things sup­posed.

2. First Conclusion is. Al such pointes of Christian faith, as are necessarie to be a­ctually beleeued of euery one, that hath vse of reason, though he be neuer so simple, are actually conteyned in Scripture, either clearely, or obscurely. This is nothing a­gainst traditions, because wel may they be, and are, pointes of Christian faith, though they be not such, as the actual and explicite beleefe of them be so necessarie, as none whatsoeuer can be saued without it. For it sufficeth that they be such as the implecite and virtual beleefe of them is necessary to euery ones saluation, and may be denyed of none vnder payne of damnation. And the conclusion is taught of Bellarmin lib. 4. S. Augustin. lib. de doct. Christian. c. [...]. to. 3. de verbo non scripto, cap. 11. Where expoun­ding these wordes of S. Austine. In these [Page 285] which are plainely set dovvne in scripture, are al those thinges founde, vvhich conteyne faith and maner of life: he answereth that S. Austine speaketh of those pointes of doctrine which are ne­cessary simply to al, as they (saith he) are which are conteyned in the Apostles Creed and tenne cōmaundements. Likewise Stapleton Staplet. Re­lect. Con­tract. 5. q. 5. i [...] explic. Ar­tic. affirmeth, that the Apostles wrote al, or al­most al that parte of faith, which is neces­sary to be explicitely beleeued of al and euery one. And it seemeth euident, because such pointes of faith, as are precisely neces­sary to be actually knowen of euery one what so euer, be both fewe and are the fun­damental, and most notorious pointes of Christianity, as the mysterie of the Trinity, the incarnation and passion of Christ, and such like, which are al actually (at least obs­curely) conteined in scripture. For surely the prophets and Euangelists writinge their doctrine, for our better remembrance, would omitte no one point, which was ne­cessary to be actually knowen of euery one, especially seeinge they haue writen many things with are not so necessary. And this cōclusion teacheth S. Austin when he saith, S. Augustin. tract. 49. in Ioan. to. 9. that those thinges are written which seemed suffi­cient for the saluation of the faithful. Where I note that he sayd not, vvhich seemed sufficient to Christian faith, but which seemed sufficient to [Page 286] saluation, because fewer pointes suffice to saluation then the Christian faith contei­neth, againe In these (things) which are plainly L. 2. de doct. l. cit. sup. sett downe in scripture, al those thinges are founde which conteine faith and maner of life. Where I also obserue, that he saied not absolutely al things (as Bel translateth him) but al those Bel pag. 94. 110. 11. False translation. things, insinuatinge, that he speaketh not of al things belonging to Christian faith, but onely of those which are necessary to be beleeued and done of euery one, which he calleth precepts of life, and rules of faith. And yet more plainely, I beleeue also that here­in S. Augustin. lib. 2. de pec. mer. & re­mis. cap. vlt. to. 7. there would be most cleere authority diuino­rum eloquiorum of Gods word, if man could not be ignorant of it, without losse of his promised sal­uation. Where if by diuina eloquia we vn­derstand holy writte (as Bel translateth pag. 95. and S. Augustin seemeth to mea­ne, because immediatly before he spake of scriptures) me thinks he plainely auou­cheth, that God hath procured euery thinge to be clearely written, which to knowe is necessary to euery mans saluation. The same teacheth S. Cyril saying. Not al things S. Cyril. lib. 12. in Joan. cap. 68. vvhich our Lord did are written, but what the vvriters deemed sufficient, as wel for manners as for doctrin, that by right faith, and vvorks vve may attayne to the kingdome of heauen. And S. Chri­sostome 2. Thess. hom. 3. vvhat things soeuer S. Chrysost. [Page 287] are necessary are manifest out of Scripture.

3. Here by the way I must aduertise the Reader of Bels euil dealing with his maister Bellarmin and other Catholiques. For be­cause Bellarmin affirmeth. That the Apostles Bellarm. lib. 4. de verbo Dei c. 11. wrote al things vvhich are necessary for al men, and which they commonly vttered to al, but not al the rest, Bel inferreth: That al things written Bel p. 114. are necessary for al. As if it were al one to say; Al things necessary for al are written, and al things written are necessary. Perhaps he thinks to turne propositions, as easely as he did his coate. And if al things written be necessary for al, as Bel gathereth, surely (as S. Hierom sayd to the Pelagians teaching S. Hierom. dial. 1. cont. Pelagian. as Bel doth, that none can be without sinne, but they that are skilful in the law) a great part of Christendome must needs be dam­ned, yea Luther and Caluin who professe Luther. prae­fat. in psalm. Caluin. 3. in­stit. c. 2. pa­rag. 4. their ignorance in diuers points of Scrip­ture. I omit that the vttering of some things to some fewe, who were perfect, spiritual, and fit to teach others, and capable of strōg meate, as is manifest S. Paule did 1. cor. c. 2. v. 6. c. 3. v. 1. 2. Heb. 5. 14. 2. Timoth. 2. v. 2. Bel scorn fully calleth preaching in corners, Bel p. 114. and such hearers Iesuited Popelings.

4. And Catholicks he falsly chargeth Bel p. 139. 141. with denying, that baptisme of infants consubstantiality of God the Sonne with [Page 288] his Father, and the mistery of the B. Trinity are in Scripture, or can be proued thence. For Bellarmin proueth baptisme of Infants Bellarm. lib. 1. de baptis. c. 8. to. 2. by as many arguments out of Scripture, as Bel doth vz. by three, out of the figure of circumcision gen. 17. out of Christs words Ioan 3. and out of the practise of the Apo­stles act. 16. and 1. cor. 1. wherof Bel bor­rowed the first and last. The mistery of the Trinitie Bellarmin proueth by six argu­ments Bellarm. lib. 2. de Christo c. 6. to. 1. out of Scripture, and and the con­substantiality of Christ he proueth lib. 1. de christo. c. 4. out of eleuen places of the olde testament, to which he addeth c. 5. nyne more, and c. 6. fifteene places out of the new testament.

5. Better he might haue charged his good maisters Luther and Caluin with this mat­ter. Luther. lib. cont. Iacob. Iatomum. Caluin. in Ioan. 10. See Staplet. Antidat. E­uangel. in Io. 10. v. 30. For Luther said, his soule hated the vvorde omousion, or consubstantial, and Caluin ex­poundeth these places, which make most for the consubstantiality, as the olde Arri­ans did. Likewise Luther lib. cont. Coch­leum an. 1523. said Infants are not at al to be bap­tized, if they do not beleeue. And lib. de capt. Babil. c. de bapt. Sacraments profit no body but faith alone. And Caluin wil not haue the Caluin. Io. 3. words Ioan 3. v. 5. (which made the very Pelagians to graunt necessity of baptizing Ex August. l. 1. de pecc. mer. & re­miss. c. 30. Infants) to be meant of baptisme. Here­upon [Page 289] the Anabaptists who deny baptisme Balthasar Pacimon­tan. apud Cocl [...]um in ostis Luthe­ri. See Posse­ [...]in de ath [...] ­ismis Haer [...] ­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 groūde 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 [Page 290] 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 sacramē ­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 cōmandements, 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 consequēce 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 [Page 292] faith are not actually cōtained 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 con­clusiō 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 1 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. 2 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, [Page 293] 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 cōmanded by God to be kepte holy, is trans­ferred 3 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 [Page 294] 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 [Page 296] 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 [Page 297] 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 [Page 298] 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 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 [Page 299] 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 [Page 300] 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 vnderstāding 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 [...]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 [Page 301] by his Prophets, and Euangelists.

8. Moreouer Bel alleadgeth Esay. 8. Bel pag. 8 [...]. v. 20. Ad legem magis & ad testimonium. Quod si non dixerint iuxta verbum hoc non erit [...]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 writtē 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 [Page 302] 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 chron. 96. Euseb. chro­nic. 97. he maketh the 14. yeare of Domitian to be about 100. years after Christs ascension, which was but about the 97. yeare after Christs natiuity, as is euident by al Chroni­cles, or supputators of tymes, and so wan­ted almost 40. of an 100. after his ascension. Omitting also an other manifest error, in af­firming S. Ihon to haue written his Ghos­pel almost an 100. years after Christs ascen­sion, [Page 304] who dyed the 68. yeare after his pas­sion, See Baron. An. 101. Eusebius in chron. S. Hieron. in Scriptur. Ec­clesiast. in Ioanne & in chron. as Eusebius and S. Hierom testify, and therfore could not write almost an 110. years after Christs ascension, vnles he wrote many years after his owne death.

3. But omitting these errors, as testimo­nies of Bels ignorance in histories, which I regard not. To his argument I answer. That See S. Cyril. l. 12. in Ioan. c. 61. those words (These are written) are meant only of (signa) miracles done by Christ, and written by S. Ihon, to moue vs to be­leeue that Christ was God. Reinold. thes. 1. Reinolds. pag. 60. confesseth. That they are referred pro­perly to (signa) myracles, yet wil haue them also meant of precepts, & doctrine written by S. Ihon, because myracles are to confirme, and persvvade doctrine and precepts. But I proue that they are meant only of miracles. Be­cause S Ihon hauing recorded diuers mira­cles of Christ, afterward (immediatly be­fore those sayd words) saith, Many other mi­racles did Iesus in the sight of his disciples, vvhich v. 30. are not vvritten in this booke. And then addeth. but These are written that you may beeleue that Ie­sus v. 31. is Christ the sonne of God &c. Who seeth not here, that the demonstratiue pronowne (These) is referred only to miracles. For S. Ihon hauing said that many miracles were vnwritten, streight after with the aduer­satiue, or exceptiue particle (But) which [Page 305] Bel guilefully leaft out) excepteth these which he had written from the condition of others, which he had not written saying But these are written: &c? And Reinolds rea­son is so far from prouing his purpose, as it proueth the quite contrary. For because Reinolds proof a­gainst him self. Christs doctrine, and faith was the end of S. Ihons writing, and myracles the meanes, and motiues to bring men to Christs faith, as him selfe professeth in the forsaid words, euidēt it is that he meaneth both of Christs doctrine, and miracles, in the foresaid verse, but differently, and vnder different words. For of myracles he meaneth as motiues, and meanes, vnder the words. (These are written &c.) And of doctrine he meaneth as the end of his writing the myracles, vnder the other words (That you may beleeue; &c.)

4. But suppose that S. Ihon by (These) vnderstood both myracles, & doctrine, can Bel therfore infer that S. Ihon meant of th [...] whole canon of Scriptures? Surely no: be­cause he hauing before said. That many other myracles of Christ were not written in this booke, and immediatly adding. But these are written: &c. can not be vnderstood but of his owne writing, and in his owne. Ghospel. wheruppon if Bel inferre any thing, he must inferre that S. Ihons Ghos­pel alone is absolutly sufficient, and contei­neth [Page 306] al things necessary. Which I hope he wil not doe. Reinolds graunteth Io. Reinolds apol. p. 216. that S. Ihons Ghospel is sufficient, suppo­sing that we heare of no other. But this is nothing to the purpose. For they out of this place inferre the Scripture to be absolutly sufficiēt, so as we may reiect al other things though we heare of them: And therfore seeing S. Ihon in this place can not be vn­derstood, but of his owne Ghospel, if hence they proue absolute sufficiency of Scrip­ture against Traditions, they must inferre absolute sufficiency of S. Ihons Ghospel against al other what soeuer: I omit a place Bel alleadgeth out of S. Cyril, with an other S. Cyril. lib. 12 in Io. cap. vlt. S. Augustin. tract. 49. in Ioan. Sup. c. 1. pa­rag. 2. Bel pag. 91. out of S. Austin, which I cited in the first conclusion. For they proue no more then is there affirmed.

5. His second place out of the new te­stament is act. 20. v. 27. I haue not spared to shew vnto you the whole counsel of God. Ther­fore (saith he) the whole counsel of God touching our saluation, is conteined in holy Scripture. Omitting his needles proofs out of L [...]a, and Carthu: that S. Paul meaneth of al couns [...]l touching our saluation. I an­swer that this place ether maketh directly against Protestants, or not at al against Ca­tholiques. For seeing S. Paul speaketh of his owne shewing vnto the Ephesians, if he be [Page 307] vnderstood of shewing only by writing, it followeth, that his epistle to the Ephesians conteineth al Gods counsel, and is absolut­ly sufficient, which is against Protestants. But if he be vnderstood (as he should be) of shewing in general, ether by worde, or writing, nothing followeth to Bels purpose or against Catholiques.

6. But (saith Bel) it wil not suffice to an­svver pag. 91. That al Gods counsel was preached, but not written, because S. Paul was an Apostle of that Rom. 1. Act. 26. Ghospel, vvhich was promised by the Prophets, & taught no other thing, then that the Prophets had foretolde. But this proueth no more of S. Paul, then of al the Apostles. For they were al Apostles of the same Gospel, and taught the same doctrine, which he did, and yet some of them wrote neuer a worde. Some shew it hath to proue, that al which S. Paul preached was written by the Prophets Sup. c. 1. pa­rag. 7. & 8. which how it is to be vnderstood hath bene before explicated.

7. And because Bellarmin saith. That the Bellarm. lib. 1. de verbo Dei. cap. 1. & 2. Scripture is an infallible and most secure rule of faith. And That he is mad who reiecting Scrip­ture followeth inward inspirations. Bel char­geth Bel pag. 93. vntruth 77 him to contradict him selfe teaching els vvhere the contrary, but cyteth no place, be­cause none is to be found) and to confound vntruth 78 himselfe because he wil not rely vpon Gods vvrit­ten [Page 308] testimonies, but seeke after vnvvritten vanities, and ground his faith vpon them. Here Bel slan­dereth Bellarmin. For when did euer he or any Catholique refuse to rely vpon Gods written testimony? when did they not ac­count it a most infallible rule of faith? vp­on what vanities do they ground their faith? we confesse Scripture to be an infal­lible rule but not the total rule, but as Bel­larmin Bellarmin. saith lib. 4. de verb. dei c. 12. the par­tial rule. Let Bel improue this Hic Rhodus, hic Saltus.

8. Moreouer he alleadgeth S. Austin Bel pag. 93. S. Augustin. cont. Adi­mant. cap. 3. to. 6. writing. That there are no precepts, or promises in the doctrine of the Ghospel, and Apostles, which are not in the old Testament. True. But as S. Austin afterward in expresse words re­called, S. Augustin. lib. 1. Retrac. c. 22. 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 1 2 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, [Page 309] 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. [...]. 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 no [...] 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 [Page 310] 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. Cēt. 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 vnderstādeth 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 [Page 311] (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. [...]. 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. [Page 312] 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 [...]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 [Page 313] 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 bene a meere humane and mistaken tradition, he saith. Cometh it from our Lord, or the Gospels au­thority? Cometh it from the Apostles precepts, or epistles? For God witnesseth that the things are to be done, which are written, and proposeth to Iesus Name saying. Let not the booke of this law depart from thy mouth, but thou shalt meditate therin day, and night, that thou mayst obserue to doe al things that are written in it. If therfore it be commanded in the Ghospel, or contayned in epistles of Apostles, or acts, that who came from any heresy be not baptized, but hands imposed vp­on them for pennance, let this diuine, and holy Tradition be kept.

6. These words at the first view seeme to make for Bel, but if the cause and cir­cumstances of S. Cyprians writing be con­sidered, S. Cyprian. they make rather against him. S. Cyprian neuer reiected al Traditions (yea by it l. 2. epist. 3. he proued water to be min­gled with wyne in the sacrifice, and in the epistle cited by Bel, biddeth vs recurre to Apostolical Tradition) but only the fore­said [Page 314] Tradition, because he thought as he saith epist. ad Iubaian. that it was neuer be­fore commanded or written, but (as he writeth epist, ad Quint:) mistaken for an other Tradi­tion of not rebaptizing such as fal into heresy. Wherfore Bel pag. 118 most falsly affirmeth 79 vntruth S. Cyprian. Epist. ad Iu­baian. ad Pompeium ad Quinti­num. Euseb. lib. 7. c. 3. that he sharply reproued P. Steeuen for leaning to Tradition. For he reproued him only for lea­ning to a mistaken (as he supposed Tradi­tion) And as it is euidēt out of his epistles, and the histories of that tyme, the question betwixt him and S. Steeuen pope, was not whether Tradition were to be obserued, or no, but whether this were a true Tradition or no. Wherin, S. Cyprian erroniously thinc­king it to be a mistaken tradition, argued against it as he did, demanding Scripture for proofe therof, which he would neuer haue done, if he had not thought it to haue bene mistaken. The most therfore that Bel hath out of S. Cyprian for him selfe, is, that what is not true tradition, must be proued by Scripture, which I willingly graunt, but it maketh nothing for his purpose, as is euident. S. Augustin. lib. de vnic. bapt. c. 13. l. 1. de bapt. cōt. Donat. c. 18. 39. epist. 48. Vincent. Ly­rin. contr. [...]aeres.

7. But many things I obserue in S. Cy­prian which make against Bel. 1 He admit­teth dyuers Traditions: Bel reiecteth al. 2. He impugneth one only Tradition: Bel im­pugneth al. 3. He erred in impugning one, [Page 315] and much more Bel in impugning al. 4. He recanted his error before his death as S. S. Augustin. l. 6. de bapt. c. 2. S. Hieron. dial. contr. Luciferian. Austin thincketh, and of his fellow bi­shops S. Hierom testifyeth: Bel persisteth obstinatly. 5. He erred in a new question, and not determined in a ful Councel saith S. Austin: Bel erreth in antient matters de­cyded S. August. l. de vinc. ba­ptism. c. 13. & lib. 5. de bapt. c. 17. S. Cyprian. e­pist. ad Iu­baian. S. Hieron. contr. Luci­fer. August. sup. S. Cyprian. epistol. ad Pompei. Euseb. lib. 7. c. 3. Vincen. cōt. haeres. S. Cyprian. l. 1. epist. 3. by many general Councels. 6. He al­though he thought the Pope did erre, yet se­perated not him selfe (as Bel doth) from his communion as him selfe and S. Hierom testifyeth. 7. He condemned none that fol­lowed the Popes opinion against his, as Bel doth. 8. He thought the Pope to erre in a cōmandment onely of a thing to be done: Bel condemneth him of errors in his iudi­cial sentences of faith, where as S. Cyprian professeth, that false faith can haue no accesse to S. Peters chayre: 9. He disobeyed for a tyme the Popes commandement concerning a new, and difficult question: Bel disobeyeth obstinatly his definatiue sentence.

8. Hereby we see how litle S. Cyprian ma­keth See S. Austin lib. 2. contr. Crescon c. 31. 32. to. 7. S. Austin. for Bel, and though he had made more for him, let him know from S. Austin: lib. de vnic. bapt. c. 13. and lib. 1. de bapt. cont. Donatist. c. 18. and epist. 18. that this error was in S. Cyprian. an humane and venial error and like a blemish in a most vvhite breast, because it vvas not then perfectly defyned by the Church. [Page 314] [...] [Page 315] [...] [Page 316] But in his followers (saith he: lib. 1. cit. c. 19. it is smoake of hellish filthines, and as Vincent Vincent. Ly­rin. Lyrin writeth The author vvas Catholicque, his follovvers are iudged heretiks, he absolued, they condemned, he a child of heauen, they of hel. And let the Reader gather by this example, the Example of the force of tradition and the Po­pes iudge­ment. authority of Tradition and Pope. For if one Tradition preuailed then against S. Cy­prian, and a whole Councel of Bishops, al­leadging dyuers places of Scripture, much more it wil preuaile against Protestants. And if the Popes iudgement euen then, when it seemed to many holy, and learned Bishops, to be against Scripture, & was sup­ported only by Tradition, did preuaile, and they at last condemned as Heretickes, who resisted: much more it wil praeuaile against Protestants, being vpholden not only by Tradition, but by manifest Scripture also. And Bel in blaming S. Steeuē Pope, for pre­tēding 80 vntruth (as he saith) false authority sheweth him selfe to bee a malepert minister, seeing S. Cyprian neuer reprehended him for any S. Cyprian. such matter: yea lib. 1. epist. 3. acknowled­geth in the Church one Priest, and iudge, who is Christs Vicar, meaning the Pope as is euident: because lib, 2. epist. 10. he saith that the Nouatiās in making a false Bishop of Rome, made a false head of the Church and l. 1. epist. 8. and epist. ad Iubaian: that [Page 317] Christ builded his Church vppon S. Peter. And as for S. Steeuen, Vincent Lirin: highly Vincent. Ly­rin. con. hae­reses. S. Augustin. lib. de vnie. bapt. cont. Petil. c. 14. Bel pag 97. S. Athanas. commendeth him, and the very Donatists as S. Austin writeth, confessed, that he incor­ruptly gouerned his Bishoprike.

9. Next he cyteth S. Athanasius cont. Idol: saying That Scriptures suffice to shew the truth. True. But that truth wherof S. Atha­nasius there disputed against Gentils, to wit that Christ was God, as he him self explica­teth in these words: I speake of our beleefe in Christ. But (saith Bel.) He had made a foolish argument, and concluded nothing at al, if any ne­cessary truth had not bene fully contained in Scrip­ture, As though S Athanasius had in these words argued against Gentils, in which he only gaue a cause why he wrote that trea­tise. Because (saith he) Though Scriptures suf­fice to shevv the truth, and dyuers haue written of the same matter (which argueth that he spake of some determinate truth) yet because their writings are not at hand, I thought good to vvrite. But suppose he had argued, what folly is in this argument? Al contained in Scripture is truth: Christs godhead is there 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 cōteineth al truth. As for S. Athanasius his reuerence [Page 318] 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 as [...]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, [Page 319] 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 [Page 320] 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 [...]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 [Page 321] 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 opiniōs for true, which are agreable to Scri­pture, he insinuateth that to discerne the truth of opiniōs, it is not necessary to proue them out of Scripture, so they be consonāt 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 [Page 322] 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, 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 [Page 323] 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 [Page 324] 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 [Page 325] 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 [Page 326] 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; [Page 327] 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 against them.

4 Out of S. Thomas he citeth That we Bel p. 102. S. Thom. 1. part. q. 36. art. 2. must speak nothing of God which is not in Scrip­ture, by vvords, or sense, But this is nothing against Tradition of other things An other [Page 328] place he citeth out of [...]. p. q. 42. ar. 4. VVhat­soeuer Christ vvold haue vs read of his doing, and sayings, he commanded the Apostles to vvrite. as vvith his ovvne hands. This also maketh no­thing against vs. Both because S. Thomas saith not what Christ wold haue vs beleeue, but what he wold haue vs read, and Tradi­tions be such as Christ wold haue vs be­leeue, though we read them not, as appea­reth by his Apostle 2. Thess. 2. v. 15. Ho [...]d the T [...]aditions vvhich you haue learnt, ether by speech or by my epistle. As also because S. Tho­mas speaketh not of al points of beleefe, but only of Christs sayings, and doings, besids which the very sayings, and doings of the Apostles recorded in their acts, & epistles, or testifyed by Tradition, are to be belee­ued. I omit a pettie vntruth, which Bel vntruth 82 often repeareth. That vve nether vvil nor can deny S. Thomas doctrin. But S. Thomas his S. Thomas. mynd concerning Traditions appeareth by his words. 2. Thess. 2. It is euident that there are things vnvvritten in the Church, taught by the Apostles, and therfore to be kept: For as S. Dionis. saith. The Apostles thought it better to conceale many things.

5. He citeth also Victoria saying. I am Bel p. 103. Victoria de sacrament. not certaine of it, though al say it, vvhich is not conteined in Scripture. But Victoria meaneth of things spoken not by Tradition, but by [Page 329] probable opinion, as the conception of our lady without original sinne, and such like: or he meaneth of things nether actual­ly nor vertually conteined in Scripture, as Traditions be according to our 2. Conclu­sion cap 1. An other place he alleadgeth out of Victoria writing, That for opinions Victor. de augmento charitatis relect. 8. vve ought no vvay to depart from the rule of Scri­ptures. What is this to the purpose? Let Bel proue that we ether for opinions, or any thing els depart from Scripture, and let him not slander vs as he doth, That vve beleeue Bel p. 103. 83. vntruth. vvhatsoeuer the Pope telleth vs, though it be neuer so repugnant to Scripture. For who shal be innocent if it suffice to accuse.

6. Lastly he quoteth S. Anselme 2. Ti­moth. 3. and Lyra Math. 19. but omitteth their words, because they make litle for him S. Anselm saith that Scripture, (and meaneth the old Testament) can make one sufficiently learned to get saluatiō, to keape the commandements, and what is more is not of necessity but of supererogation. Which how litle it maketh against the be­leefe of Traditions were supererogation to declare. And thus much touching the suf­ficiency of Scriptures: now let vs entreat of their hardnes, or difficulty.

CHAP. VI. Of the Difficulty or easynes of Scriptures.

SCRIPTVRES are difficult, and hard Scriptures. to vnderstand. This is against Bel pag. 107. but expresly taught by S. Peter, 2. Pet. [...]. Peter. 3. v. 16. where speaking of S. Pauls epistles he saith. In vvhich are some things hard to be vnderstood. To this Bel frameth three an­swers. Bel p. 107. First that S. Peter saith not the vvhole Scripture is hard to vnderstand, but some things in S. Pauls epistles. This is not to the purpose; be­cause we say not that the whole Scripture, that is euery part thereof, is hard to vnder­stand: But graunt with S. Chrysostom. 2. S. Chrysost. & Concion. 3. de Lazaro. Thessal. hom. 3. VVhatsoeuer is necessary (to euery mans saluation) is manifest out of Scri­pture. And with S. Austin lib. 2 doct. Christ. S. Austin. c. 9. Al those things vvhich concerne faith and manners are plainly set dovvne in Scripture. And lib. 2. de pec. mer. & remiss. c. vlt. tom. 7. I beleeue euen in this point vve shold haue most cleare testimony of Gods word, if man could not be ignorant of it without losse of saluation. Yet Lex partim in aperto est partim etiā inuelatis tegitur Na­zianz. orat. [...]. de Theo­log. withal affirme with the same holy Doctor in psal. 140. If Scripture were no where obscure it vvold not exercise vs. And the like he saith serm. 13. de verb. Apost. Only we affirme [Page 331] that absolutly the Scripture is hard, and to The Scrip­ture abso­lutely hard though not euery place thereof. this it sufficeth that some places are hard. As for away to be dangerous, it sufficeth that some places be perilous, though others be secure.

2. His second answer is: That S. Peter only saith some places are hard to the vnlearned, vvhich are vnstable. And like is his third answer. That they are hard to the vvicked, vvhich depraue them. But to answer thus is in deed to de­praue Scriptures, and to shew him selfe to be one of the vnlearned, and vnstable, wherof S. Peter speaketh. For S. Peter ab­solutly saith some things in S. Pauls epistles are hard, not respectiuely to these or other kind of men. In vvhich (epistles) saith S. Pe­ter) S. Peter. some things are hard to be vnderstood, vvhich the vnlearned, and vnstable depraue to their owne perditiō. Behold he saith not some things are hard to the vnlearned, and vnstable, but ab­solutly some things are hard, which hard things the vnlearned, and vnstable depraue. And as S. Austin saith lib. de fid. & oper. c, S. Augustin, tom. 4. 14. one special hardnes meant by S. Peter in S. Pauls epistles is his difficult speech, and high commendation of iustifying faith, which now Protestants depraue to their owne perdition, in gathering therof that faith alone doth iustify, as some gathered in the Apostles tyme, against which opinion [Page 332] especially (as the same holy Doctor witnes­seth) S Peter, S Ihon S. Iames, and S. Iude S. Augustin. cit. writ their epistles: An other special diffi­culty meant by S. Peter (saith S. Austin 10. c. 16) are his words 1. corinth. 3. If any build vpon the foundation. &c.

3. Againe if Scripturs be not hard, what See S. Chry­sost. hom. 3. de Lazaro. tom. 2. S. Hierom. meant S. Philip to ask the Eunuch (who was as holy & studious a man as S. Hierom, ae he him selfe testifyeth epist. ad Paulin:) If he vnderstood them? What meant the Eu­nuch Act. 8. v. 30. v. 31. to answere. 6 How can I if some do not shew me? Could not an holy man so wise as he was, being Treasurer to the Q: of Ethio­pia vnderstand easy matters? If Scripturs be so easy what need had K. Dauid to pray for Psalm. 118. v. 34. Ib. v. 18. vnderstanding to search Gods law: for ope­ning his eyes to consider the wonders of it? what hapned to the Apostles that they could not vnderstād Christs parables? what Math. 13. v 36. c. 15. v. 16. needed the gift of interpretation giuen to some: 1. corinth. 12. v. 10. Nay al are inter­preters if the Scripture be cleare to al.

4. Origen saith that Scripture is reuera mul­tis Fathers. Origen. lib. 7. cont. Cel­sum. in locis obscura, in very deed obscure in many places. And that they take away the key of science, who say the Scripture is manifest: hom. 20. in Math. S Chrysostom noteth, S. Chrysost. hom. 40. in Ioannem. [...]om. 3. That Christ bid not read, but search Scriptures, be­cause summa indigent diligentia they need great [Page 333] study. S. Hierom writeth that al the epistle S. Hierom. epist. ad Al­gosiam. q. 8. Epistol. ad Paulin. S. Augustin. l. 2. de doct. Christ. c. 6. See 12. Conf. c. 14. serm. 4. 5. 13. de verb. Apost. Iren. lib. 2. cap. 47. Cyrill. prae­fat. lib. the­saur. S. Augustin. tom. 2. to the Romans is nimys obscuritatibus inuoluta wrapped in excessiue obscurities. That the Apo­calips hath as many misteries as words. S. Au­stin noteth, That to tame our pride some things are so obscurely said as densissimam caliginem obducunt they bring ouer a most thick darknes. And wil Bel account that cleare which the glistering beam of Gods Church (for so Bel tearmeth S. Austin) accounted so dark and obscure. And epist. 119. c. 21. professeth to be ignorant of many more things in Scripture then he knoweth: If Bel after our holy Fathers, please to heare his owne vnholy syers. Luther telleth him Luther. prae­fat. in psal. that he is most impudently rash who professeth to know one book of Scripture in al points. By daily reading (of Scripture saith Caluin. 3. instit. Caluin. Quotidie legendo in multos ob­scuros lo­cos incidi­mus, qui nos igno­rantiae coar­guunt. Bel p. 102. Reason. c. 2. parag. 4.) we fal vpon many obscure places which conuince vs of ignorance. Nay to what purpose doth Bel require the commenta­ries of Fathers for better vnderstanding of Scriptures, if there be no difficulty in them.

5. Finally if our cōmon lawes handling nothing but buying, selling, bargaining, and such common, and vsual matters, as are daily practized of men, be so hard and dif­ficult, as they require great study to be wel vnderstood, and Clients wil giue great fees [Page 334] for Lawyers counsel in them, what shal we thinke of Gods laws, which entreat of de­uine, and supernatural things, far aboue mans reach, and capacity. Or if as S. Austin S. Augustin. tom. 6. saith lib. de vtil. cred. c. 7. He that hath no skil in poetry, dare not medle with Terentian Maurus without a maister, Asper, Cornutus, Donatus and infinit others are requisit to vnderstand any Poet, and doest thou without a guide rush vpon holy books ful of deuine matters? O exceeding bold­nes or rather madnes. And againe: If euery I [...]. cap. vlt. art though base and easy require a teacher, or mai­ster to get it, vvhat is more foolish heady pride, then not to learne the booke of deuine sacraments of their interpreters? Now let vs heare Bels reasons to the contrary.

6. Salomon (saith he) Prouerb. 8. v. 8. 9. tea­cheth Bels Argu­ments. p. 108. That the words of wisdom are easy and open to euery one of vnderstanding. But let vs heare Salomon him self. Al my speeches are iust, there is not in them any thing wicked or peruerse. They are right to such as vnderstand, and euen to such Anſvver. as find knowledge. What word is here of easy­nes, or manifestnes of Gods words? but only of their vprightnes, and equity. And let Bel learne of S. Austin in psal. 146. to. 8. S. Austin. That in Scripture there is nothing peruers, but some thing obscure. But perhaps Bels english Byble deceaued him, which to deceaue the Reader vsed the ambiguity of the english Bible prin­ted 1584. [Page 335] word (plaine) which may signify ether ma­nifest or euen) for the latin word (aequi.)

7. After this Bel cyteth dyuers places of pag. 108. Psal. 25. v. 9. Ioan. 7. v. 17. Ioan. 8. v. 31. 32. Math. 11. v. 25. S Paul. Scripture to proue That God reuealeth his wil to al that fear him, to litle ones: That the doers of his wil know his doctrin and truth. But seeing it is no where said That God reuealeth his wil, or the good know it, by bare reading his word, but rather the contrary; because faith commeth of hearing, and how shal they heare without a preacher Rom. 10. v. 17. 15. These places make nothing for easines of Scrip­ture. Besids that they may be expownded, not of Gods wil in al points, but in such as are necessary to euery mans saluation, which we graunt to be plainly reuealed in Scrip­ture. I omit his other places. That the Scrip­ture Psalm. 119. al. 118. v. 105. 2. Pet. 1. v. 19. 1. Cor. 2. v. 15. Cap. 9. pa­rag. 17. Bel p. 108. is a lanthern, light or candle: and That the spiritual man iudgeth, or (as he expowndeth) vnderstandeth al things: for they be answered hereafter.

8. He alleageth S. Chrisostom saying. what need we a preacher? our negligence hath brought this necessity. For to what end is a sermon needful. Al things are clear and plaine out of Scripturs: what things soeuer are necessary are ma­nifest: But S. Chrisostom speaketh not of al S. Chrysost. hom 3. in 2. Thessalon. things in Scripture, but only of such as are necessary to euery ones saluation, as is eui­dent by his last words And such need no [Page 336] preacher for to be vnderstood, though they need to be beleeued as S. Paule testifyeth S. Paul. Roman. 10. 17. But besides these there are things obscure as the same holy Doctor witnesseth in the same place in these words. Thou knowest which are cleare, what askest thou the obscure? And hom. 10. in Ioan. he bid­deth S. Chrysost. item Con­cion. 3. de Lazaro. men note vvich is cleare which obscure in Scripture, and to harken the exposition of them in the Church. And for such points, preachers, and preaching is as necessary now to vs, as wel for vnderstanding as for beleeuing them, as they were to the Eunuch. act. 8. to the two disciples Luc. 24. Other places he Homil. 9. Coloss. and Concion. 3. de Lazaro. cyteth out of S. Chrysostome concerning reading of Scripture which shal be an­swered in his proper place.

9. What hath bene answered to the words of S. Chrysostom is to be applyed to the like in S. Austin lib. 2. de doct. Christ. S. Augustin. tom. c. 9. In these things vvhich are plainly set dovvn in Scripture are found, al those things vvhich con­cerne faith and manners. For he saith not ab­solutly. Al things: but al those things: ther­by insinuating that he meaneth only of things necessary to be beleeued, and done of euery one: which Bel perceauing in en­glishing False tran­slat. his words leaft out the word. Those. But I maruel what he meant to cite S. Aust. S. Augustin. l. 2. de doct. Christ. c. 6. writing: The holy Ghost hath so tempered Scri­ptures [Page 337] that locis apertioribus by manifester places (Bel translateth manifold places) he might prouide for hunger (desire of knowledge) and by obscurer wipe away loathsomnes. For here he plainly teacheth Scripture to be obscure in some places. But perhaps it is because S. Austin addeth. Almost nothing is in the obscure places, which is not most plainly vttered other­where. But this helpeth Bel nothing. For ne­ther saith he that al obscurities are plainly other where explicated. Nor that it is plaine in what places they are explicated. And so S. Austin admitting some obscure places of Scripture to be no where explicated in Scri­pture, and supposing it not to be plaine in what places such obscure places as are ex­plicated, be explicated, admitteth Scripture to be obscure. An other place he citeth Bel p. 111. 112. 113. out of S. Austin, as also S. Hierom and Theodoret concerning reading of Scrip­turs, which shal be answered in the next chapter.

CHAP. VII. Of the vulgar peoples reading Scripture.

FIRST conclusion, it is not necessary to al sorts of people, that desire to attaine to eternal life to read Scripturs. The con­trary [Page 338] auoucheth Bel pag. 103. & 109. wherin he exceedeth the heretike Pelagius who re­quired not reading, but only knowledge of Scripture for to be without sinne, & therby condemned a great part of Christians as S. Hierom writeth dialog. 1. cont. Pelag. But S. Hierom. it is so manifest as it needeth no proofe. For how should they doe that can not read? Doth Bel thinke Scripture to be like a neck verse, that who can not read it, shal be han­ged? where doth God command euery one vpon paine of death to read Scripturs? whence came this new law which Bel pro­claimeth? But marke Reader, Protestants taught at first that no works were necessary to saluation. And now Bel auoucheth one more (vz. reading of Scripturs) then euer Catholiques dreamed on.

2. Second conclusion, It is not expedient See S. Gre­gor. Nazian­zen. in Apo­loget. & o­rat. 1. de Theolog. for euery one of the vulgar sort to read Scri­pturs. This I proue because vnlearned, and vnstable persons depraue the Scripture to their owne perdition. Many of the vulgar sort are vnlearned, and vnstable. Therfore many of them ought not to read Scripture. The Minor is euident. The Maior is auer­red by S. Peter 2. c. 3. v. 16. and proued by Hacket. Mo­re. Ket Hammont. See Stovv Ann. 1561. 1579. daily experience of new Christs, new Iewes, new heresyes daily gathered out of Scrip­ture. And in truth the Protestants counsel­ling [Page 339] of common people to read Scripturs, is much like to the Diuels perswading of Eue to eat the Apple. He asked Eue why God forbad her to eat? they aske: why the Church forbiddeth vs to read? And both answering alike: He replyeth you shal not die but be­come like Gods. They say you shal not fal into errors, but become like Deuines. And the euent is like in both. Eue by eating fel out of Paradise, and incurred death: simple people by reading dye in soule, & fal out of the Church.

3. But saith Bel. A good should not be Bel p. 107. taken wholy from the godly for fault of the bad. Answere. The godly are not debarred from reading Scripture if they be desyrous, and iudged by their Pastors to be such as wil reape good therby. Neuertheles they ought not without lycence, lest as S. Austin S. Augustin. lib. de vtilit. credend. c. 10. tom. 6. writeth in the like case. Though they hurt not them selfs by reading, they may hurt others by ex­ample. As he that could fly be made to go lest his example prouoke others to so perilous attempt. This (saith he) is the prouidence of true religion, and deliuered from our Auncestors, and to alter this course were nothing els then to seeke a sacriledgious way to true religion. Moreouer though a thing be good in it selfe, yet it is not good but to such as know how to vse it; But euery one of the common people knoweth not how [Page 340] to vse Scripture. For as Gregory Nazianzen S. Nazianz. orat. Quod non liceat semper & publice de Deo contē ­dere. In Apologe­tico. S. Hierom. epistol. ad Paulin. writeth The vvord of holy vvritt is not so base, that it is open to the vnlearned common sort, and seely men creeping as yet vpon the ground. And againe To some it is better to be taught by others. And S. Hierom complaineth that euery one challengeth the knowledge of Scripture, and that the chatting old vvife, the doating old men, and the prating Sophister take it in hand. See Theo­doret. lib. 4. c. 17. What wold he say now if he saw Protestants children reading Scripture, and taught to read english by the Byble? Now let vs see Bels obiections.

4. Bel alleadgeth S. Chrisostom as affir­ming Bel p. 103. 104. S. Chrysost. proaem. ep. ad Rom. 1. That if we read Scripture seriously vve shal need no other thing. [...]. That it is a great shame for men charged with wife and chil­dren only to heare sermons, and not withal to study Scripturs. 3. That many euils come of ignorance of Scripture, as heresies, and dissolute life. Answer. The first point is not against vs, who graunt that in reading Scripture we may find al things necessary. But the question now is whither it be better for euery one to find such things him selfe out of Scripture or no. As for the second point S. Chrisostom only saith that it is a shame not to exact more diligence of men in hea­ring sermons, then in gathering mony. At lest (saith he) be ready to heare what others haue [Page 341] gathered, and bestovv so much diligence in hearing vvhat is said as in gathering mony. For though it be a shame to exact but so much of you, yet wil we be content if you performe so much. The third point is easely answered: because he saith Innumera mala nata sunt quod scripturae ig­norantur. Christ. sup. vntruth 84 not: That much mischeef commeth of not reading (as Bel falsly affirmeth pag. 105) but of not knowing the Scripture: vz if men wil nether read it them selfs, nor heare it readd and expounded by preachers. Ne­ther could he thinke that much mischeef can come of not reading Scripture, if so be it be heard, seeing he promiseth to be con­tent if men wil heare it.

5. An other place he citeth out of S. Bel p. 105. S. Chrysost. hom. 29. in 9. c. Genes. tom. 1. Chrisostom where he exhorteth men aus­cultare lectionem scripturae to harken to the reading of Scripture. And againe: At home to apply them selfes to read Scripturs. Answer. The first part maketh nothing for reading, Differences betvvixt S. Chrysost and Prote­stants. but only for hearing Scripture as is euident. The second exhorteth to reading but 1. not euery man woman, & child as Protestants do, but men, and namely such who (as he 1 saith proem. epist. ad Rom.) haue wiues, charge of children, and family. And hom. 9. Colos. Hear you (saith he) who liue in the vvorld, haue care of vviues and children: who (as he writeth conc. 3. de Lazaro) haue publicke offices, man­tein wiues, and children. And yet Bel wil haue Bel p. 110. [Page 342] him to speake to both sexes as if both sexes had wiues. As for woemen and children Hom. 9. ad Coloss. & hom. 37. 1. Cor. he affirmeth That they ought to be instructed of men.

6. Secondly he exhorteth not (as Pro­testants 2 do) al kind of secular men, to wit vnstable (as S. Peter calleth them) and in­constant S. Peter. 2. c. 8. v. 16. in their faith. For such are like ra­ther to depraue Scripturs to their perdition (as S. Peter testifyeth) then to reape good by reading them. Thirdly the secular men 2 whom he exhorteth, he exhorteth not (as Protestants do) to the reading equally of al parts of Scripture, but especially such as are plaine, and easy, namely histories, as appea­reth by these his words 2. Thess. hom. 3. S. Chrysost. But thou vvilt say they are obscure, what obscurity is this? I pray thee are there not Histories? Thou knowest which are cleare, what askest thou of the obscure places? There are a thousand Histories in Scripture tel me one of them.

7. Fourthly he exhorteth them not ab­solutly 4 (as Protestants do) in al tymes, without regard of any occasion or circum­stance: but seeing the people of Constan­tinople (to whom he preached) giuen (as he saith) to dissolute life, to idlenes, to haun­ting Proaem. ep. ad Rom. after dishonest shewes, and riot, for to withdraw them from such vice, and to imploy their tyme better, he exhorted them [Page 343] to buy Bybles, and to read the Scripture; and vpon this occasion he said. That the A­postle Homil. 9. Coloss. cit. commanded to read the Scriptures diligently. And in like sort seeing their children to haue learnt diuelish songs and dances (as Ibid. he tearmeth them) for to take such from them he biddeth men to teach them to sing psalmes. But how things ought absolutly to proceed, he vttereth in these words vnto men. vos oportebat duntaxat à nobis institui, Ibid. vxores vero à vobis, à vobis & liberos: you ought only to be instructed of vs, but your wiues, & children of you. And 1. Corinth. hom 37. he saith: That S. Paul appointed S Paul. men to reach their wiues, as indeed he did in these words. If they (woemen) list learne any thing let them aske their ovvne husbands at home. 1. Corinth. 14. v. 35. And the like he hath 1. Tit. 2. Behould S. Paul bids woe­men learne of their husbands. Bel bids them read, and learne of Scripture, let woemen chuse whether they wil follow.

8. Fiftly▪ he exhorteth not secular men 5 to read Scriptures with that mynd, and A mayne difference betvvixt. S. Chrysost. and Prote­stants. purpose, which Protestants doe, to wit vpon curiosity, and to become their owne interpreters following their owne priuate spirits, and thereby to iudge of the doctrine of the Church, and their Pastors, whome Christ hath giuen to expound Scripturs, lest [Page 344] they shold be carryed away with al wind of do­ctrine. Ephes. 4. v. 14. But S. Chrysostoms meaning was, that reading Scriptures for their confort (as he writeth hom. 9. cit.) in aduersity, for auoyding of vice, and such like holy pur­poses, they s [...]ould expound them accor­ding to their Pastors instruction: you (saith See S. Chry­sost. homil. 10. in Ioan. & 3. de La­zaro. Origen. 4. in Leuit. Autor im­perfecti. he) ought to be instructed of vs, and the Author imperfect. hom. 43. in Math. amongst other means, which he prescribeth to lay men to know the truth of Scripture, one is to aske the Priests whome he callet [...] clauicularios scripturarum, key keepers of Scripturs. which is the right order prescribed by God him selfe Deutr. 17. v. 9. Agg. 2. v. 12. and Ma­lach. Deuter. Aggae. Malach. 2. v. 7. And the contrary course obser­ued by Protestants, maketh Christ to haue giuen vs needles Pastors, and Doctors, bid­ding Ephes. 4. v. 11. 1. Cor. 12. v. 28. Luc. 10. v. 16. vs heare them as him selfe, maketh euery one his owne Pastor, and to haue the gift of interpretation contrary to S. Paul 1. Corinth. 12. v. 10. 30. And by this which hath bene said is answered, whatsoeuer Bel alleadgeth out of S. Chrysos. pag. 108. 109. 111. and he sound to be quite against Pro­testants, and nothing against Catholiques proceedings. And though S. Chrysostom had giuen far more lyberty to common Note this. people to read Scriptures, then now the Church doth, as not hauing then expe­rience [Page 345] of the harme redounding thereof, what maruel if the Church, finding by the experience of more then a thowsand years since S. Chrysostoms tyme, that more harme then good commeth therby, hath abridged that lycence? For as S. Austin saith S. Augustin. tom. 2. Epist. 50 Experience of many euils maketh many medicins to be found.

9. Now let vs heare what Bel replyeth Bel p. 116. against this kind of answering to S. Chry­sostoms authority. First he saith, That the 1 doctrine in the pulpit ought to be as true as in the Schoole. This is true, but not to the purpose, because we reproue not S. Chrysostom of vttering vntruths in the pulpit. Next he saith, That the doctrin in the pulpit ought to be as 2 exact, and absolute as in the schoole, and the only difference is, that in the pulpit it hath the pricke of exhortation, which is wanting in schools. What Syr? Are these speeches of S. Chrysostom S. Chrysost. hom. 3. in 2. Thessalon. Bel p. 108. cited by your selfe. VVhat need a sermon? what need a preacher? as exact, and absolute as can be deliuered in schools? Surely then your preaching is needles, and consequently the fifty pound pension giuen to you for it, may be wel spared. Yea if the doctrin of pulpit, and schools be of like exactnes, cer­tes the auditors in both places are of like capacity, and so Bels deuines be no better schollers then his common people.

10. But little knoweth he what belon­geth Bel knovv­eth not vvhat be­longeth to a sermon. to sermons, who thinketh them to differ from schoole doctrine in nothing but in exhortation. Are amplifications, hyper­boles, and like figures excluded as wel from pulpits, as from schools? Are the same parts prescribed to be in a lecture by school men, which are by Orators to be in a sermon or oration. Doth Bel exact as strong proofs, and like propriety of words of an orator, or preacher persuading probably, and accom­modating him selfe to the capacity of his hearers, as he doth of a Philosopher, or De­uine teaching dogmatically. Sure I am that both Aristotle, and common sense teach Aristotel. 1. Ethic. contrary. But Bel euery where sheweth him selfe to be one of them, who (as S. Paul saith) vnderstand not what they say, or of what 1. Timoth. 1. v. 7. they talke.

11. Againe suppose that S. Chrysostom had spoken of this point, as exactly in the pulpit as any Dyuine can in schools: what followeth thereof? Forsooth that Bels pro­position pag. 103. vz. That al persons of what sexe, state, calling, or condition soeuer, may, and ought to read Scriptures, and can not othervvise attaine to eternal life, passeth exact speech, and al­bounds of truth. Because S. Chrysostom hath no such exact words: yea the words which Bel wresteth to his purpose S. Chry­sostom [Page 347] him selfe otherwise expoundeth as hath bene shewed. And thus much of Bels second reply to the foresaid answer.

12. Thirdly (saith he) Dauid, and the Ber­heans, 3 had no regard of this popish distinction of pag. 116. more exact speech vttered in schools, then in pul­pit. Because Dauid Psalm. 119. v. 9. affirmeth. That a yong man shal cleanse his waies by study, meditation, and keeping of Gods lavv. The Ber­rheans Corrupt. of Script. searched the Scriptures, and examined the Apostles doctrine by them. Ansvver. Dauid Psalm. 118. al. 119. v. 9. saith: A yong man shal correct his waies by keeping Gods lawes. But study, and medita­tion are added by Bel, I wonder he added not also reading. But suppose Dauid had said. That a yong man amendeth his life by reading Scripture, shal we infer that he thought preachers speake as exactly as Schoolmen? The like reason is the other. The Berheans examined the Apostles do­ctrine by Scripture. Ergo they thought the doctrine of the pulpit as exact as the schoole: O wit whither wilt thou? But Chapt. 11. pa­rag. 4. of the Berheans fact we shal speake more hereafter.

13. After this Bel falleth to entreat in Of vvoe­mens tea­ching and reading Scripture. perticuler of woemens teaching, and rea­ding Scriptures, propounding vnto him selfe this obiection of Catholiques. S. Paul wil haue woemen to learne in silence, and per­mitteth [Page 348] them not to teach. 1. Timoth 2. v. 12. & Bel p. 116. answereth. That though S. Paul permit them not to teach publikly before men, yet he forbiddeth them not to read Scripture, nor to teach priuatly Prouerb. 31. v. 1. Act. 18. v. 26. 2. Timoth. 1. v. 5. &c. 3. v. 15. where due circumstances occurre, because Bethsabe taught Salomon, Priscilla expounded Scriptures to Apollo, Eunice, and Lois instructed Timothy in Scriptures. Here Bel is ashamed to lycence woemen to teach publikly before men, though he was not to make one of them head of the Church, which is a far greater matter, and necessarily includeth authority to teach the Church publikly: but whe­ther Heretical vvoemen hovv male­pert. vvho dare tea­che? Tertull. l. de praescript. Some prea­ched pu­blikly in Germany. Sur. An. 1522. they may teach publikly before woe­men, or priuatly before men, and what the due circumstances are, when they may teach priuatly, he setteth not downe. Ne­ther do I thinke his Protestant sisters wold regard them, who publikly before men at table, and in their assemblies in houses, take vpon them to expound Scriptures. Surely he should do wel to informe his sisters of his circumstances. But as for S. Paul he gi­ueth them no lycence at al to read, or to teach Scriptures, (excepting the case of perticuler inspiration, or of necessity, when they are permitted also to baptize.) For he in the foresaid words not only forbiddeth them absolutly to teach, but withal ap­pointeth them to learne, as if this alone [Page 349] were their duety, and belonged to them. And lest we should thinke they might learne of them selfs by reading Scriptures, he explicateth 1. Corinth. 14. v 35. both of S. Paul. whome, and where they must learne: vz. of their husbands, and priuatly at home. If they list to learne (saith he) any thing, let them (not read Scriptures) aske their husbands at home. Behold woemen appointed not to teach ether publikly, or priuatly, but to learne, and that priuatly at home, and of their husbands. And the same saith S. Chri­sostom. S. Chrysost. S. Hierom. hom. 9. in epist. ad Coloss. S. Hie­rom dialog. 1. contr. Pelag. where he re­prehendeth the Pelagians for licensing their woemen to sing with them, (as Pro­testants do now, and Bel passeth in silence) and saying they ought to be skilful in Scri­pture. But no maruel if Protestants being Luther. de vo coiug. Assert. artic. 16. vid. serm. de matri­mon. edit. VVitember­bergens. fol. 126. S. Paul. so womanish, as they professe they can no more liue without them, then without meat, or drinke, and heresies haue bene euer spred by fauour, and helpe of woemen (as S. Hietom saith epist. ad Cresiphontem) be more liberal to woemen, then the Apo­stle, who said tt was good not to touch them. 1. Cor. 7. v. 1.

14. The examples alleadged by Bel for woemens teaching are partly false, partly not to the purpose. For Bethsabees words [Page 350] came ether from Gods perticuler inspira­tion, and so her teaching maketh not to the purpose, or from her owne head, and so she taught not Gods word, though what she said being after recorded by Salomon, bec [...]me Gods worde. Priscilla is not said act 18. v. 16. (as Bel affirmeth) to haue ex­pounded Scriptures, but the way of the Lord, to Apollo: which she might do with­out expounding Scripture, as S. Ihon pre­pared Luc. 1. v. 76. Math. 3. v. 3. the way of the Lord, without prepa­ring Scripture. That of Eunice, and Lois is vncertaine. For albeit it be said. 2. Timoth. 1. v. 5. That they vvere faithful vvoemen, and c. 3. v. 15. that Timothy vvas instructed from his infancy in Scripture. Yet it is not said he was instructed of them, but might wel be in­structed of some other at their procuremēt (as it is vsual for to hyre maisters to teach children) wherfore fondly doth Bel auouch it to be cleare, and euident by their exam­ple, that mothers must teach, and yong babes learne Scripture.

15. But suppose that they taught their childe, or grandchild for want of sufficient men to teach, (as may be presumed, be­cause his father was a Gentil. Act. 16. v. 13.) what is this to woemen teaching without al necessity priuarly whome soeuer, euen their husbands, contrary to the prescript, [Page 351] and otder sette down by S. Paul: yea sup­pose that Bethsabe, Priscilla, Eunice, and Lois had without perticuler inspiration, or necessity (which Bel can not proue) taught men priuatly Scriptures, who seeth not, but that S. Paul knew better woemens duety then they, and that we ought rather to follow his prescript, and order, then the example of two or three woemen, not the learnedest, nor greatest Clerks.

16. After this Bel alleadgeth Origen for Bel p. 107. proofe of common peoples reading Scri­pture, and affirmeth him to exhort the peo­ple to read Scriptures, because he writeth. Origen. ho­mil. 4. in Le­uit. If we can not al things, let vs at lest remember that we are now taught, or is rehearsed in the Church. But Origen here exhorteth the peo­ple only to remembring, at lest (saith he) Bel p. 111. those things which are taught and rehearsed this day in the Church, to wit by ecclesiastical per­sons. He bringeth like wise S. Austin ex­horting S. Augustin. serm 55. de tempore. his people not only to heare diuine les­sons in the Church, but also at home to read them selfs, or to heare others. Wherupon Bel noteth. That we must read Scriptures at home in our hou­ses. Grosse ab­suraity of Bel. and not heare them read in the Churches, which note is more absurd then I need re­fel, yet let the Reader remember it. But S. Austins speech was not to al kind of men, nor at al tymes, but to his owne people, [Page 352] whome he knew were like to encrease their deuotion in the holy tyme of lent (whereof he spake) by reading Scripture. And the like exhortation may any Catho­lique Bishop make to his flocke, whome he knoweth not to haue, itching ears, and 2. Timoth. 4. v. 4. not to be soone conuerted to fables, & yet withal condemne the promiscual licence graun­ted by Bel to al sorts of people, of what sexe, state, calling, or condition soeuer. For so the vnlearned, and vnstable be licenced, yea necessarily ought (saith Bel) to read Scrip­ture, pag. 103. S. Pet. 2. c. 3. v. 16. though (as S Peter testifyeth) they wil depraue it to their owne perdition.

17. And such constant Catholiques were those men, and woemen, which (as S. Hie­rom S. Hierom. in psalm. 133. Epistol. ad Gaudent. & epist. ad Ce­lantiam. writeth) did striue, vvho should learne most Scriptures, and vvhome he exhorted to learne the Scripture vvithout booke, and to haue it al­vvaies in their hands, and to teach it their chil­dren. For as him selfe writeth epist. ad Gau­dent. cit. vvhat vve speake vve speake not in ge­neral, but in part, nor say of al, but of some. And epist. ad Paulin. reprehendeth greatly. That euery one should take Scripture in hand. Wherfore if Bel apply S. Hieroms words to al sorts of persons of what condition Bel like a foolish Phi­sition. soeuer, he doth not only against the holy Doctors meaning, but sheweth him selfe to be a foolish Phisition prescribing the [Page 353] like diet to al kinde of persons: not know­ing who can eat milk, but not solid meat (as the Apostle speaketh 1. Corinth 3. v. 2. Hebr. 5. v. 12. For some (as he saith Hebr. 5. v. 11.) are weake to heare some part of Gods word, and much weaker wold be to read it al. Wherfore the Catholique Church (like a prudent nurse) permitteth such children, as she seeth strong, and able, to read Scrip­turs, to feed them selfs, and cut their owne meat, but to such as she perceaueth to be weake, and not so able, she wil not graunt the like liberty, but cheweth their meat, or cutteth it her selfe by preaching, & expoū ­ding Scriptures to them, lest if they were their owne caruers, they should hurt them selfs. And Protestants like careles nurses, let al alike carue them selfs, and therby cut their owne fingers, yea throats, & kil them selfs by taking oftentymes poison insteed of meat.

18. And hereupon I must aduettise the Bel p. 112. Reader of two vntruths, which Bel fathe­reth vpon Catholiques vz. That they deeme, vntruth 85 vntruth 86 them most holy, who can by hart no Scripture at al, but absteine from reading therof, as from poison of their souls. For ignorance of Scripture in Ignorance of it self no holynes. it selfe we account no holynesse at al, and much lesse deeme them most holy who know lest of Scripture. But great holines [Page 354] we esteeme it, to chuse rather harmles ig­norance, then curious, and disobedient skil. As great holines it had bene in Eue, 10 Donum ip­sum vtiliter aliquando ignoratur. S. Augustin. l. 6. cont. Iul. c. 16. haue made choise rather of ignorance of good, and euil, then of knowledge therof. And the like ignorance of Scripture in Ca­tholiques we preferre before Protestants knowledge. For to be thus ignorant (saith Tertullian) is better, lest we know that we should Tertull. l. de praescript. not. Faith (saith he) shal saue vs, not exercise in Scripture Faith is commanded, exercise in Scri­pture consisting in curiosity hath glory only in study of knowledge. Let curiosity giue place to faith, let glory yeeld to saluation. Thus Tertullian a most antient writer, whose counsel I wold to God Protestants did follow. And as for Scripture we account it no poison, but the food of life, and the reading therof good and holsome, if it be done as it should, not vpon curiosity, and disobedience to the Churches precept, as the Aple was good in it selfe, and the eating therof had not bene hurtful, if it had not bene against Gods commandement.

19. Bel cireth also Theodoret writing. Bel p. 113. That the Hebrevv books are turned into al langua­ges. Theodoret. lib. 5. de Grae­can. affe­ction. Againe, That we may find ditchers, and neatheards, and planters reasoning of the Trinity, and creation of al things. Answer. That of the Scripturs translation shal be answered in [Page 355] the next chapter. The other proueth no more then that simple people knew the said misteries, whereof, he saith not, they read, but reasoned. And S. Gregory Nazianzen. S. Greg. Na­zianz. orat. 1. de Theol. greatly discommendeth such for it. And by the like reason, might Bel proue euery Ca­tholique to read Scripture. Because (as Bel­larmin Bellarm. lib. 2. de verbo Dei. c. 4. saith truly:) Catholique rusticks, and woemen, though they vnderstand not the sentences of Scripture, yet they vnderstand the misteries of our redemption, and can reason of them, yea bet­ter then many Protestants, who dayly read Scripture. But (saith Bel) why are not al per­mitted Bel p. 115. to read Scripture, if al can vnderstand therein the misteries of our redemption. And like to one that hath no thing to doe, proueth a needles matter, that the knowledge of the misteries of our redemption, is neces­sary, and sufficient to saluation, though in the next page before he noted that al things Contradict. 18. conteined in the written worde, (which no 18. doubt are more then the misteries of our redemption) [...]re necessary for al people. But o­mitting Bels contradiction: To his argu­ment out of Bellarmin: I answer that Bel­larmin affirmeth not (as Bel imposeth.) vntruth 87 That al can vnderstand the misteries in the Scripture, but rather the contrary, when he saith. That many vnderstand not the sentences of Scripture. And though al could vnderstand [Page 356] the misteries in Scriptures, yet al were not to be permitted to read them, because al haue not (as S. Paul writeth) their senses exer­cised Hebr. 5. v. 14. 1. Cor. 2. v. 5. 1. Cor. 3. v. 1. Rom. 12. v. 3. 1. Cor. 3. v. 2. Hebr. 5. v. 12. to the discerning of good and euil: al are not perfect to haue wisdome spoken amongst them: al are not to be instructed as spiri­tual, but some as carnal: Al wil not be wise to sobriety, but some more wise then behooueth them. Rom. 12. v. 3. Finally al are not capable of solid meat, but some of mikle only.

CHAP. VIII. Of the translation of Scripture into vulgar tongues.

IT is not expedient to haue or vse com­monly Scripture not to be v­sed com­monly in vulgar ton­gues. Scriptures in vulgar languages. This is against Bel p. 106. but it followeth of that which hath bene proued in the for­mer Chapter. For if it be not expedient ab­solutly for the vulgar sort to read Scripture, it is not expedient that it be common in vulgar tongues; lest some like foolish Eue be tempted by the sight thereof, curiously and against command to read it. Secondly because nether the Iewes, after their lan­guage was corrupted by their captiuity, translated the Scripture into their vulgar language. Nor the Church euer comman­ded the Scriptures to be translated into [Page 357] euery vulgar tongue, but generally vsed them in Hebrew, greeke, and latine, in which tongs they were written. As for the English Bybles translated by Protestants, See Confe­rence at Hampton Court. pag. 45. 46. 47. they al hitherto haue bene naught, as them selfs confesse, and are now about a new translation, which hereafter perhaps wil be found as faulty as the former. Whereby we see that the English faith hitherto hath bene false, as builded vpon the English Bible, which was false, and consequently The good vvhich Protestants haue gotten by English Bibles. who dyed in it, dyed in a false faith, and re­lyed vpon mans worde in steed of Gods. And this is the true death which common people haue incurred, and al the good they haue reaped by reading Scriptures in En­glish, according to the serpentine counsel of Ministers. For where before they knew so much of Gods worde, as was sufficient to saluation, by reading English Bibles they haue read a lying worde, as now after 46. years experience they both see, and con­fesse, and because they would not content them selfs with knowledge sufficient to so­briety, and saluation, but as the Apostle S. Paul. writeth Rom. 12. v. 3.) be more wise then be­hooued them, God hath sent them (as the same Apostle saith) 2. Thess. 2. v. 11. the operation of error to beleeue lying.

2. Against this Bel obiecteth: That the Bel p. 106. [Page 358] Apostle calleth them madde who read the Ghospel 1. Cor. 14. v. 24. to people in a language vnknovvne to them, and the people also that listen therto as Catholiques doe. Answer. The Apostle is so far from con­demning seruice of God in a tongue vn­knowne to the hearers, as he saith to such a one. Thou doest vvel. 1. Corinth. 14. v. 17. But indeed he saith, That if Ideots and infidels hard vs so doing they wold say we were madde. If al the Church meet together (saith he) Only Idiots and infidels condēne ser­uice in an vnknovvne tonge. and al speake vvith tongues, and Ideots or infidels enter, vvil they not say that you are madde? 1. Co­rinth. 14. v. 23. Wherfore not S. Paul, but onely Ideots or infidels cōdemne the Chur­ches seruice in an vnknowne tongue.

3. And if the sacrifice and prayer of Za­chary Luc. 1. v. 10. & 11. (which the people did not so much as heare or see) did greatly profit them, why may not the sacrifice, and prayers of Priests, which the people both see, and heare, greatly profit them, though they vn­derstand them not. And if Bel wil excuse Zachary, and the Iewes, (yea God who commanded it Leuit. 16.) from madnes though they stood without dores, and could nether heare, nor see, and much les vnderstand the sacrifice, and prayers. Much better (if he please) may he excuse Catholi­ques who both see, and heare, and parrly vnderstand the Catholique seruice. And [Page 359] though Bel scoffe at Catholiques, listening to the Ghospel tedde in latine. Yet Origen Origen. hom. 20. in Iosue writeth, That with only hearing Scripture, though we doe not vnderstand The Diuels vvords not vnderstood vvorke euil Ergo Gods vvords not vnderstood do good. it, the poison of naughty spirits, which besiege vs, is driuen away as it were with a prayer, and holy spirits are inuited to helpe vs. For (saith he) If words of coniuration pronounced, though not vn­derstood, worke inchantments, how much more vertue thinke we haue the words of holy Scrip­ture. And if S. Chrysostom hom. 3. de La­zar. S. Chrysost. might say, That though we vnderstand not Scripture, yet ex ipsa lectione multa nascitur san­ctimonia, much holines riseth by very reading. Why may we not say the like of very hea­ring? And because Bel vrgeth this obie­ction no father, I answer it no fuller, who list see more of it, let him read Rhemist. 1. Corinth. 14. D. Stapleton vpon the same place, and Bellar. l. 2. de verb. Dei c. 16.

4. Bel obiecteth out of Theodoret, That pag. 113. Theodoret. lib. 5. de Grae­can. affe­ction. the Hebrew books were translated into al langua­ges. This is nothing against vs, who deny not but Scripture hath bene, and may be, vpon iust and vrgent causes translated into vulgar languages, so it be not vulgarly vsed, and common to al kinde of vulgar people: Bel p. 106. vntruth 88 Vid. Indic. libror. pro­hibit. And here by the way, I must aduertise the Reader of dyuers vntruths vttered by Bel, concerning this matter. 1. That the Pope bur­neth [Page 360] Scriptures in vulgar tongue. This is not so: For he burneth only heretical translations, and al England knoweth, how currant the Rhemists testament is amongst Catholi­ques. 2. That the Pope excommunicateth al lay vntruth 89 vntruth 90 men, that reason of matter of faith, or dispute of his power. & citeth 6. decret. lib. 5. cap. Qui­cunque. Here be two vntruths. For nether is there any worde of reasoning of the Popes power, but only of disputing of the Ca­tholique faith; without touching whereof, we may reason of the Popes power in di­uers waies, as is shewed art. 1. cap. 1. Ne­ther forbiddeth he lay men to reason, or At vvhat tyme lay men are for bidden to dispute of faith. dispute of faith with whom-soeuer, or in what case soeuer, but only with Heretiks (as is euident out of the whole chapter, which instructeth Catholiques, how they ought to behaue them selfs towards Here­tiks) and when Cleargy men may dispute, as when that Canon was made they might in al Christendome. And in this case it is vnlawful for lay men to dispute of faith, both because generally they are not suffi­ciently S. Greg. Na­zianz. orat. 1. de Theol. in Apologet. & orat. Quod [...] non liceat semper & publice de Deo conté­dere. learned to defend the faith against Heretiks, as also because disputing of faith is proper them, to whome preaching be­longeth, who are not lay but Cleargy men. Whereupon said S. Gregory Nazianz. It is not euery ones part to dispute of God. This is not so [Page 361] base matter, or pertaining to them, vvho as yet creeping on the ground, are busyed with earthly study. Euery one may thinke of God, but not dis­pute of God. Thus S. Gregory for his great knowledge surnamed the Deuine, whose counsel I suppose euery wise man wil soo­ner follow then Babling Bel. And the ci­uil Cod. de Sum. Trin. law punisheth al lay men, that publikly dispute of faith. 3. That Priests oftentymes vn­derst and vntruth 91 not the latin vvords of absolution. This he might better obiect to his fellow mini­sters, See Bels lacke of la­tin art 5 c. 4. paragr. 10. & art. 2. c. 4. pa­rag. 13. and ar [...]. 7. c. 9. parag. 19. vntruth 92 made oftentymes of coblers, tinkers, and taylers, who may thanke the Lord (as one of them did) that they know nothing of the Romish tongue. 4. That in the Chur­ches vve read vnto the common people latin ser­mons. In deed we read such in our seruice, but read them to the common people no more, then we read the Masse to them. But read both in honour, and seruice to God, who vnderstandeth as wel latin as english. And thus much touching Scripture: now let vs come to Traditions.

CHAP. IX. Of Apostolical Traditions vvhether there be any or none.

OF the Traditions which the Church manteineth, some were instituted by [Page 362] Christ, some by his Apostles by the inspira­tion of the holy Ghost, and others by the Church it selfe. The question is whether there by any of the two former kinds of Traditions instituted, or deliuered by the Apostles, and therupon called Apostolical vvhat [...]ind of traditiōs Bel impug­n [...]th. without writing, which concerne things (as Bel saith in the beginning of this article pag. 86.) necessary to mans saluation. For though (as I said before) the Scripture conteine al Chapt. 1. things, which are necessary to be knowne actually of euery one, yet because euery one is bound to deny no point of christian faith, but at lest vertually, and implicitly to beleeue al, such traditions, as concerne mat­ters of faith, or manners, may (as Bel spea­keth) be said to concerne things necessary to mans saluation. This supposed, I affirme with the vniforme consent of al holy Fa­thers, that there are such traditions, and it followeth of that which we proued in the first chapter, that the Scripture conteineth not actually al points of christian faith, and otherwise I proue it: because S. Paul 2. S. Paul. S. Basil. de Spirit. c. 29. S. Chrysost. 2. Thessalon. hom. 4. S. Epiphan. haer. 61. S. Damasce­nus 4. de fid. c. 17. Thess. 2. v. 15. saith Hold the Traditions which you haue learned, whether it be by worde, or by our epistle, therfore he deliuered some Tra­ditions only by worde as S. Basil. S Chri­sostom. S. Epiphanius S. Damascen out of this place do gather.

2. Secondly S. Ihon the last writer of Scripture said. Hauing many things to vvrite to 3. Ioan. v. 13. you, I vvould not by paper, and inke. Ergo many things which were to be told to christians, S. Shon left vnwritten, yea thought it not expedient to write them. Bel answereth Bel p. 117. That the Apostles taught no needful doctrin, which they did not after commit to vvriting. This an­swer insinuateth, that the Apostles taught some needles matter, contrary to S. Paul 2. Timoth. 2, Tit. 3. and that, which S. Paul commanded the Thessalonicenses to hold, & S. Ihon said he had to write, were need­les things, which is but to blaspheme the Apostles. Thirdly in the law of nature there were traditions as is euident, and testi­fyed Gen. 18. v. 19. Likewise in tyme of the Conference at Hamp­ton Court. p. 68. Valer. Max. lib. 3. c. 319. de scauro & vario seue­ro, S. Dionis. l. 1. eccles. hier. c. 1. S. Ignat. ep. ad Heron. S. Iren. lib. 3. c. 3. S. Ciprian. l. 2. epist. 3. S. Basil. lib. de Spirit. 6. 27. 29. law written as English Protestants con­fesse: why not therefore in tyme of the Ghospel?

3. Fourthly I wil propose to the Reader a choise som what like to that which a Ro­man made to his Citizens, when being ac­cused of his aduersary in a long oration, he stept vp and said, my aduersary affirmeth & I deny it, whether beleeue you citizens. And so in few words reiected his aduersa­ries long accusation. For S. Dionisius A­reopag. S. Ignatius, both schollers of the Apostles, S. Ireney, S. Cyprian, S. Basil. S. [Page 364] Chrisostom S. Epiphanius S. Hierom. S. S. Chrysost. 2. Thessal. hom. 4. S. Epiphan. haer. 61. S. Hierom. dial. contr. Lucif. S. Augustin. epist 118. & l. 10. de Ge­nen. ad lit. c. 23. Austin and others affirme, that there are A­postolical Traditions: Bel & some few new start vp Heretiks deny it. Whether beleeue you Christians? This choise is far aboue that of the Roman. For there was but one a­gainst one, yea ones bare denyal against the others proofs. But here are many against few: Saints against (to say the lest) ordi­nary fellows: Doctors of Gods Church, against vnlearned Ministers: Catholiques against Heretiks: yea manifest proofs against bare denyals. And shal we not especially in a matter of fact (as is whether the Apostles left any vnwritten Traditions or no) be­leeue many, most holy, most learned, most incorrupt, most antient witnesses, yea wherof some were eye witnesses of the mat­ter, before a few, vnlearned, vnconstant, iangling, new fellowes? S. Hierom. epist 61. c. 9. S. Augustin. de Symbolo ad Catechu­men. Ruffin. in Symbol. S. Hierom. con. Heluid. S. Augustin. haer. 55. S. Epiphan. haer. 78. Locis supra cit. &c. 3.

4. Moreouer whence haue we the Apo­stles Creed, but by Tradition, as testify S. Hierom, S. Austin, and Ruffinus: whence the perpetual virginity of our B. Lady, as appeareth by S. Hierom, S. Austin, S. Epi­phanius: whence the lawful transferring the Sabbath day from Saterday to Sonday, but by Tradition. Whence many other things, as testify S. Hierom S. Dionis. S. Iren. S. Cyptian, Tertull. Origen, S. Basil S. [Page 365] Epiphan, S. Chrisost, S. Hierom, S. Austin, S. Ambrose, and others, but by Tradition. But especially, whence haue we the Bible it selfe? Whence haue we that euery booke chapter, and verse of it is Gods worde, and no one sentence therin corrupted in al these 1600. years? where haue we that the Gos­pel bearing the name of S. Thomas, who was an Apostle, and eye witnes of Christs actions, is not as wel, or better Christs Ghospel, then that which carrieth the name of S. Luke, and was written only by heare­say Luc. 1. v. 2. S. Hierom. de Scriptur. eccles. in Luca. Bel brin­geth six ansvvers. as is professed in the very beginning, but by Tradition? This reason so courseth Bel vp and downe, as like fox many tymes vn­earthed, euen for wearines he runneth into the hunters toyle, graunting what the ar­gument would.

5. His first answer is That there is great dif­ference Bel p. 134. betvvixt the primmatiue Church, and the Church of late daies. For the Apostles heard Christs doctrine, savv his myracles, and were re­plenished with the holy Ghost, and consequently must needs be fit vvitnesses of al that Christ did, and taught, vvhich adiuncts the Church of Rome hath not. Here Bel blasphemeth Christs Church of late daies, auouching her to be nether replenished with the holy Ghost, Symbol. A­postol. contrary to our Creed, professing her to be holy, and Christs promise, that the holy Ghost [Page 366] should remaine with her for euer. Nor to be a Ioan. 14. v. 16. fit witnes of his truth, contrary to S. Paul, affirming her to be the piller, and strength of 1. Timoth. 3. v. 15. truth; and to Gods, sending her 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 [Page 367] 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, [Page 368] 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 [Page 369] 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 [Page 370] 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. [Page 371] 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 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 [Page 372] 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. [Page 373] 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 [Page 374] 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 [Page 375] 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 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 [Page 377] 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 [Page 378] 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 [Page 379] 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 [Page 380] 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 [Page 381] 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 [Page 328] 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. [Page 383] 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 [Page 384] 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 neede no [Page 386] more to assure thy selfe of the truth of Ro­mane religion: His conclusion is: That traditions are so vncertaine as the learne­dest Papists contend about them. This he proueth: because S. Victor P. contended with the Bishops of Asia. S. Policarpe with S. Anicetus P. Surely he meaneth that these men were Papists, or els his conclusion is vnproued. And consequently Papists, and Popery were 1400. years agoe within 200. Popery con­fessed to be vvish in 200. years after Christ. Great Bri­tany con­uerted first to Popery. years after Christ, when the Church (as he saith) was in good estate. And if P. Victor were a Papist, then was also his immediat predecessor S. Eleutherius, who sent S. Fu­gatius and Damian to conuert Britany, and consequently this Iland was first conuerted from Paganisme to Popery. Moreouer both sides earnestly alleadged Apostolical tradi­tion, and stowtly defended the same saith Bel, Ergo: nether side was Protestant, and Bel against al Gods Church vvhich li­ued vvith­in 200. years after Christ both agreed against him, thar there are A­postolical traditiōs, & that they are of great weight, seeing such great Saints so long agoe did so stowtly defend them, on what side now is Bel, who stowtly oppugneth, what Saints with al Gods Church so long agoe defended? what need more proofe of traditions or of Papistry? Surely Bel quasi sorex suo iudicio periit. Here he hath bewraied him selfe to be against al Saints, that were [Page 387] within 200, years after Christ, and against the Church, when she was in good estate.

3. But now to Bels argument. The tra­dition of keeping Easter was vncertaine 200 years after Christ. Ergo it is now. Answer. Euseb. lib. 5. c. 23. 25. & l. 3. de vit. Con­stan. c. 18. 19. Nicephor. l. 4. c. 36. Theodoret. l. 2. hist. c. 9. Epiphan. haer. 70. Tripart. lib. 9. c. 38. Epist. 2. Petri 2. & 3. Ioan. Epist. Iudae & ad He­braeos. Apo­calipsis See S. Hierom. in Script. ec­clesiasticis. Et Euseb. l. 5. c. 3. This tradition was then vncertaine only in Asia, and certaine in the rest of Christen­dome, as is euident by the Councels then helde in Rome, Palestine, Pontus, France, Achaia, who al accepted this tradition, as did after the first general Councel in Nice. And though it had bene then vncertaine, Bel could no more infer it to be so now, then he can infer the same of many parts of the Bible, which both then, and long after were doubted of, and yet accepted now of Protestants. But wel may I infer, if S. Poli­carpe and his fellowes erred in not accep­ting one popish tradition, much more Bel in accepting none.

4. But (saith Bel) S. Policarpe Policrates, pag. 129. and other Bishops did in those daies make no more account of the Popes opinion, then of an other mans, did thinke them selfs his equals in gouernment, & that he defended an error, and withstood his pro­ceedings. Here is false conueiance to ioyne S. Policarp, who liued, and dyed in vnion, Euseb. lib. [...]. c. 24. & Iren. apud ipsum. and communion of the Pope, and before this controuersy was defyned, with Poli­crates, and his fellows, who were excom­municated, [Page 388] as declining (saith Eusebius) into Loc. cit. heresy for their obstinacy in error, after the whole Church had defyned the contrary. These indeed (as heretiks vse to do) made no account of the Popes opinion, or iudge­ment, but condemned him of error, and withstood his proceedings, though they neuer thought them selfs his equals, as Bel without al truth, or proofe affirmeth, yea Polecrates when he saith, I wil not feare S. Hierom. de script. ec­cles. in Pa­pia. Nicephor. l. 4. c. 37. them, who threaten me, and I must obey God more then men, sheweth him selfe to be vnder the Popes obedience, but supposing him selfe to defend truth, feared not his excommu­nication. But how much al Christendom at that tyme, and euer since made account of the Popes sentence, appeareth by that (as Eusebius, and others write) they al follo­wed Euseb. sup. it, and condemned them as Heretiks who withstood it. And S. Policarp so estee­med Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 24. & 5. Ireney apud ipsum. Nicephor. l. 3. c. 30. it, as that he came to Rome to confer with the Pope about that matter, & doubt­les wold haue subscribed to his sentence, if it had bene pronounced in his daies, as his scholler S. Ireney did, by whom we may gather his maisters account of the Church of Rome. He therfore lib. 3. cap. 3. S. Iren. calleth Rome the greatest and antientest Church founded by S. Peter, and Paul, and that by Tradi­tion which it hath from the Apostles, and al­waies [Page 389] keapeth, by succession of Bishops we confound (saith he) al them that gather otherwise then they should, and that al Churches must recur to Rome for her more potent principality.

5. The second Tradition is that of kee­ping Bel p. 130. lent which (saith Bel) is not Apostolical: because S. Chrisostom writeth. That Christ S. Chrysost. hom. 47. in Math. to. 2. Euseb. lib. 5. c. 24. bid vs not imitat his fast, but be humble: Nor certain because Eusebius out of Ireney writeth That in his tyme some thought we ought to fast one day, others two, others more and non nulli forty, which variety of fasting began not now first, or in our daies, but long before, I thinke by them, who keeping not simply what was (tradi­tum) deliuered from the beginning, did afterward fal into an other custome ether of negligence, or of ignorance. Here Bel sheweth his lacke of iudgement in citing a place clearly against him selfe. For here S Ireney, and Eusebius after him clearly affirme. That at the be­ginning there was one manner of fasting lent appointed, though some afterward ether of ignorance or negligence did breake it, which proueth not the said Tradition to be vncertain in the whole Church, vnles Bel wil impute the fault of some few to the whole. And of the Roman Church, she (saith Ireney lib 3. cap. 3.) alwaies keapt the S. Ireney. Ex histor. tripart. lib. 9. c. 38. Apostles Tradition. And by this is answered what he bringeth out of Socrates touching [Page 390] the diuersity of tyme, and meat vsed in fa­sting lent. Albeit what Socrates saith of the Roman Church fasting but three weeks before Easter, and not on Saterday is an vn­truth. For they fasted 40. daies, as witnes S. Leo. serm. 12. de Quadrag. and S. Gre­gory S. Leo. S. Gregory. S. Innocent. S. Augustin. hom. 16. in Euang. And likewise Sa­terdaies as testify S. Innocent. epist. ad De­cent. and S. Austin epist. 86. and 118. where also he alleadgeth S. Ambrose.

6. And that lent is an Apostolical Tra­dition, not only S. Hierom epist. ad Mar­cel. S. Hierom. S. Ambros. witnesseth, and S. Ambrose serm. 25. 34. and 36. saith it was cōmanded by Christ: and S Austin haer. 53. accounted the Aërians S. Augustin. S. Epiphan. haer. 75. heretiks for denying the set fast (of lent, and others) to be solemnely kept. But it is euident also because euermore it hath bene obser­ued, as appeareth by S. Ignatius epistol. ad S. Ignatius. S. Iteney. Origen. S. Basil. S. Chryso­stom. S. Augustin. S. Leo. S. Gregory. S. Grego. Na­zianzen. in sanct. laua­erum. [...]oncil. Lao­ [...]i [...]cen. Can. 10. Philip. S. Ireney loc. cit. Origen. hom. 10. Leuit. Basil. orat. 2. de ieiunio: Chrysostom hom. 1. in Gen. and 11. hom. 16. and 73. ad populum. S. Austin epist. 118. and 119. and serm. de quadrag. Leo and Gregor. loc. cit. And what S. Chrysostom meant in the words cited by Bel, he him self explicateth in these words. Because I am sorry (saith he) if neglecting the rest you thinke fasting sufficient to saue you, which is the meanest of the vertues. So that he meant that Christ bid vs not [Page 391] only fast lent, but more especially be hum­ble, See S. Hie­rom. ep. ad Celantiam. Math. 9. v. 13. Ose c. 6. v. 6. vntruth 96 Bel p. 130. and milde. The like speech vsed Christ when he said: I wil haue mercy, and not sacri­fice vz. only, and rather then mercy. And so we may say with S. Chrysostom he com­manded not fasting, but humility. And Bel vseth his old trade in auouching vs to think it greater sinne to eat flesh in lent, then to commit adultery, murder, or periury. Whereas euery Catholique knoweth these sinnes to be a­gainst the law of nature, and lawful in no case whatsoeuer, and the other against a po­sitiue precept, which according to the ge­neral custome of the Church, bindeth none vnder 21. or aboue 60. years old, no sicke body, no laboring man, no woeman bea­ring, or nursing children, besides many other perticuler cases wherein fasting in lent is dispensed withal.

7. Eight Traditions more Bel reckoneth Bel p. 131. 132. 133. as of celebrating in vnleauened bread, of Christs age, when he dyed, of his raigne on earth after iudgement, of Zacharias that was slayne betwixt the Temple, and the al­tar, of the Popes teaching successiuely the self some doctrin with S. Peter, of our la­dies conception without original sinne, of Constantins baptisme at Rome, and lastly of honoring Saints: But these are ether falsly alleadged for traditions. or litle, or [Page 392] nothing to the purpose. For that of cele­brating Leo 9. ep. ad Michaelem Pattiarchā. c. 29. Eugen. 4. in decreto v­nionis. These tvvoe vvere no traditions but errone­ous opiniōs. See S. Hie­rom. de scri­ptur. in Pa­dia. Bel impug­neth histo­ries in steed of Tradi­tions. Origen. in 25. Math. Basil. homil. de human. Christ [...] Ge­neral. Nissen. orat. de Christ. natiu. Cyrill. cont. Anthropo. This is no Tradition but if it be ment of the Popes tea­ching as he is Pope it is in Scripture if as a pri­nat mā, it is an opinion. brating in vnleauened bread, concernes no thing necessary to mans saluation, as testify P Leo 9. and P. Eugenius 4. and therfore is none of these which Bel vndertooke in the beginning of this article to impugne. And though S. Ireney were deceaued about Christs age when he suffered, and Papias about his reigne after iudgement, that ma­keth not much to the purpose For wel may the Church be certain of Traditions, though one Father were mistaken about one Tradition, and an other about an o­ther. That of Zachary that he was S. Ihon Baptists father who was so slain S. Basil re­porteth not as an Apostolical, but an histo­rical Tradition, and though S Hierom de­ny it, yet Origen, S. Greg. Nissen, S. Cyril and Valentinian affirme it.

8. As for the Popes successiuely teaching the self same doctrin with S. Peter, the truth thereof vnto S Victor P. tyme about the year 187. is testifyed by S. Ireney lib. 3. r. 3. vntil S Cornelius P. about the yeare 251. by S. Cyprian lib. 1. epist. 3 vnto S. Lu­cius 1 P. about 257. by him self epist. ad E­pisc. Hispan. & Gall. vntil S. Dammasus P. about the year 380 by S. Hierom epist. ad Damas. vntil S. Leo 1 Pope about 450 by Theodoret epistol. ad Renatum: vntil S. [Page 393] Gelasius 1. P. about 496. by him self epist. ad S. Ireney. S. Cyprian. S Lucius. S. Hierom. S. Theodo­ret. S. Gelasius 2. S. Ihon. 2. S. Gregory. Agatho. Nicolas 1. Anast. vntil S. Ihon 2. Pope about the year 533. by him self epist. ad Iustin. vntil S. Gre­gory the great about the year 600. by him self lib. 6. epist. 37 vntil Pope Agatho about the yeare 681. by him self in his epistle ap­proued 6. Synod. act 8. and 18. vntil P. Ni­colas about the year 860. by him self epist. ad Michael. Imperat. vntil P. Leo 9 about Leo 9. the yeare 1050. by him self epistol. ad Petr. Antioch. vntil Pope Innocent. 2. about the year 1140. is insinuated by S Bernard epist. S. Bernard. 190. And the same may be proued of the rest of the Popes since. Now let vs see whome Bel opposeth to these so many, so holy, so antient witnesses.

9 Forsooth Nicolas de Lyra a late fryer. Bel p. 132. Lyra in cap. 16. Math. Tit. 3. v. 11. O truly said of S. Paule, that Heretiks are condemned by their owne iudgements. For who condemneth not him self if he wil beleeue one late writer, before so many, so holy, so antient. And much more, if that Author be found to affirme nothing to the con­trary For he only saith, That Summi Ponti­fices inueniuntur apostatasse à side. Popes haue apostated from the faith. which is a far dif­ferent thing. For wel may one be an Apo­stata, Math. 26. v 70. Concil. Si­nuessan. Damasus i [...] Marcelli [...]. and yet teach the doctrin of his Pre­decessor. As S Peter denyed his maister, & yet taught no contrary doctrin. S. Mar­cellin [Page 394] offered sacrifice to Idols, and yet taught no Idolatry. Caïphas murdered Ioan. 11. v. 51. S. Augustin. l. 4. de doctr. Christian. c. 27. to. 3. Christ, and yet prophecyed. For as S. Au­stin said of some Bishops that they durst not teach heresy, lest they should leese their Bishopriks. So we might say of Popes, that though some of them had apostated from Christ, yet they durst not teach heresy, or apostasy, lest they shold be deposed, but might with a wicked, and deceitful hart (to vse S. Austins words) preach things, which are right, and true, or (as S. Paul speaketh) preach Philip. 1. v. 18. Christ vpon occasion not vpon truth. But indeed neuer did any Pope in his hart apostatat from Christ.

10. That point of our ladies conception Bel impug­neth an opi­nion for tradition. without sinne is no Tradition, but a pious, and probable opinion of many, and denyed of diuers Catholiques, as of S. Thomas, & S Bernard whome Bel him self citeth and others. And as for Constantins baptisme at Bel impug­neth a Hi­story in steed of tra­dition. pag. 133. Rome it concerneth no matter of salua­tion, but is a meere historical Tradition, suf­ficiently proued by Card. Baronius Annal. Ann. 314. and vnawares contested by Bel him self when he saith, that he hath seen at Rome the font, and that Constantin is worthely See Nice­phor. lib. 7. c. 35. called great. For why shold that font be con­serued so long, but as a monument of so memorable a christning. How can Con­stantin [Page 395] be worthely surnamed great of Christians. if at his death he communica­ted with Arians, and was baptized of them at Nicomedia, as their fellow heretik Euse­bius first reported to purchase credit to his heresy. If this had bene so, he shold rather haue bene syrnamed of Catholiques the A­postata, or Heretike.

11. The last tradition of honoring Saints Bel p. 133. (Bel saith) made some to honor Heretiks for Saints as Platina (saith he) writeth of the Platina in Bonif. 8. corps of Herman an heretike honored as Saints re­liques at Ferrara for 20. years together: Answer vntruth 97 How Apostolical a thing the honoring of Saints is, Bellarmin sheweth lib. de Sanct. beatit. c. 19. Where besids Scripturs, and Councels he proueth it by the testimony of 30. Fathers, wherof 25 liued aboue a thow­sand years ago. But is not this a strange me­tamorphosis, to make the error of common people a popish Tradition. Beside Platina affirmeth no such thing him selfe, but only, that some others write so. But nether he nor any other write, that it rose of popish Tradition. That is Bels accustomed vse of addition. And therfore where he noteth danger in beleeuing Tradition, he might haue noted danger in crediting his owne re­lation. Yea what danger is in not beleeuing Roman Tradition, appeareth both by the [Page 396] testimony of Fathers before cited, and by the example of Policrates and his fellows the Quartadecimans, and by S. Cyprian, Quartade­cimans are Heretiks ex Epiphan. haer. 50. & 70. Nicephor. l. 4. c. 39. August. haer. 29. Socrates lib. 5. c. 22. Tripartita hist. Vincent. Ly­tin. and his followers the Donatists reproued only by Roman Tradition. As testifyeth Tripartit lib. 9. c. 38. and Vincent Lyrinen: But suppose that they of Ferrara had vpon Tradition taken occasion to commit Ido­latry. Shal we reiect al things wherof men take occasion to offend? So we might re­iect Christ who was set vnto the ruine of many Luc. 2. v. 34. and by whom the Iewes took occasion of scandal: So we might re­iect Scripturs, by which heretiks haue ta­ken occasion he heresy: Sunne and Moone because Gentils haue by them fallen into Idolatry. Cannot Bel distinguish between vse, & abuse of Traditions, betwixt scandal giuen & taken. Thus much of the certainty of Tradtions: Now let vs come to the ex­amination of them.

CHAP. XI. Of the examination of Traditions.

APostolical Traditions are not to be ex­amined by Scripture. This is against Bel pag. 117. but euident. Because Aposto­lical [...]el p. 117 Tradition is the Apostles word, their S. Paul. [...]. Luke. word, is Gods word 1. Thess. 2. v. 16. But [Page 397] Gods word is not to be examined at al: Ergo: nether is Apostolical Tradition. Wel might the Church at first examine a Tradi­tion, whether it were Apostolical or no (as she did examine diuers parts of the Bible whither they were Scripture or no) but finding it to be Apostolical, she could no more examine it by the Bible, then she can examin one part of the Bible by an other. And Bel in saying That the new testament may Bel p. 135. al. 117. be examined by the old sheweth him selfe ra­ther to be a Iew then a Christian. For how dare he examin that which is certaine to be deuine truth? Or how can he examin the new testament by the old, if he be not more certain of the old then of the new. But how Traditions ought to be proued heare Ter­tullian. Tertullian. lib. de Co­rona. It can not seeme none, or a doubtful fault against Custome, which is to be defended for it name sake, and is sufficiently authorized by pro­tection of consent. Plainly reason is to be enquired, but so as the Custome be reteined, not to destroy it but to vphold it That thou maist obserue it more, when thou art sure of the reason of it. But what a thing is it that one shal cal Custome in question, when he hath fallen from it.

2. But (saith Bel) Scriptures are called cano­nical Bel p. 117. because they be the rule of faith. Therfore al things are to be examined by them. And for this cause (saith he) Esay sent vs to the Law and testi­mony Esaiae 8. [Page 398] to try the truth. Malachias bid vs be myndful Malach. 4. Psalm. 119. 2. Pet. 1. Ioan. 5. Math. 22. Act. 17. 1. Ioan. 4. Gal. 1. of Moises lavv: Dauid said Gods word is a lathern: S. Peter a shyning light. For this cause Christ ex­horted the Iewes to read Scripturs, and said the Pharises erred, because they knew not the Scripturs. The Berheans examined S. Paules doctrin, S. Ihon bid try the spirits: S. Paul pronounced him accursed That preached any doctrin not conteined in Scrip­ture as S. Austin and S. Basil expound him. S. August. l. 3. cont. Petil. c. 6. S. Basil. sum. 72 c. 1. Bible onely Canonical Scripture, but not it alone Ca­nonical. Sup. c. 2. pa­rag. 1. & 7. &c. 9. paragr. 17.

3. Answer. The Bible alone is called Ca­nonical Scripture, because it alone of al Scripturs the Church followeth as an in­fallible rule in beleeuing, or defyning any thing. But it nether is, nor is called the only Canon of faith. In the rest Bel affirmeth, but proueth not that that was the cause why the Scripture said so. As for the places of Esay. Malachy, Dauid and S. Peter they haue bene answered before. As for exhor­tation of Christ, I might deny that he there exhorted the Iewes to read Scripture, but Scrutamini Scripturas. See S. Gyrill. l. 3. in Ioan. c. 4. affirmed that they did read them, because they thought they conteined life. But sup­pose he did exhort them to read Scripturs for to finde whether he were the Messias or no, whero [...] as he saith there, they giue testi­mony, what is this for trying of al matters by them. Can Bel inferre an vniuersal pro­positiō of one singuler? That of the Pharises Corrupt. of Script. conteineth two corruptions of Scripturs. [Page 399] For neither did Christ say, The Pharases, 1 but the Saduces erred about the resurrect­ion, nether doth he say the cause of their 2 error therin was only ignorance of Scrip­ture (as Bel insinuateth leauing out the words, povvre of God,) but ignorance both Math. 22. v. 29. of Scripture, and of Gods powre: you erre (saith he) knovving nether Scripturs, nor the powre of God. So if they had known Gods powre, though it had not bene by Scripture but by Tradition, or reuelation (as Iob and Iob 19. v. 25. the faithful vncircumcised did) they had not erred about the resurrection. Beside, the resurrection is a perticuler matter, and euidently testifyed in Scripture, what pro­ueth this concerning al points of faith?

4. As for the Berhaeans whom Bel wil haue to haue examined the truth of S. Pauls Act. 17. doctrin: I ask of him whither they were faithful whilst they examined it, or faithles? If faithles, why proposeth he them to vs as an example to imitat? If he wil follow them let him confesse him selfe to want faith, & none wil discommend him for examining ether Traditions, or Scripture; For in infi­dels such examination is some disposition to faith, but in the faithful an argument of doubt, and distrust. If faithful? how could they examin, whither that were true or no, which they assuredly beleeued to be deuine [Page 400] truth? Wherfore they examined not the truth of S. Pauls doctrin. For they receaued it Hovv the Berhaeans e­xamined S. Pauls do­ctrin. (saith S. Luke) with al greedines, and beleeued: but did for confirmation and encrease of their faith, search the Scripturs whether these things were so or no, vz in Scripturs, that is fortold in Scripturs; And this kind of exa­mining Traditions we disalow not.

5. As for S. Ihon: He bid vs try doubt­ful VVhat S. Ihon bid vs trye. 1. Ioan. 4. spirits, but not Apostolical spirits, or Traditions. Besids he bid vs not try them only by Scripture, and therfore he maketh nothing for Bels purpose. Finally as for S. Paul he accursed not (as S Austin noteth S. Augustin. [...]o. 9. tract 98. in Ioan) him that should preach more then he had done. For so he should preiudice him selfe, who coueted to returne to the Thessalonians to preach more then 1. Thess. 3. v. 10. he had done, and to supply (as he writeth the points which wanted to their faith. But only such as preach things beside (vz quite) Hovv S. Paul vnder stood the vvord be­syde Gal. 1. v. 2. that Ghospel which he had preached, which things v. 6 and 7. he calleth an other Ghos­pel inuerting Christs Ghospel. Such were the cirrumcision, & obseruation of Iewish ceremonies, against which he disputeth in the whole epistle. But what is this against Apostolical Traditions, are they a second Ghospel? do they inuert Christs Ghospel? are they Iewish ceremonies.

6. Beside S. Paul nether speaketh of Scri­pture, S. Paul speaketh not of Scri­pture but of his ovvne preaching. nor can be vnderstood of it alone. For when he saith (besids that vvhich vve haue euangelized to you) he nether had written any thing before to the Galathians; Nor then, nor after writ to them al points of Christ­ian faith. And therfore when he speaketh The like saieth S. Ig­nat epist. ad Heron. of those that teach praeter eae quae traditl sunt. of his owne euangelizing both in tyme be­fore the writing of that epistle, and vnto the Galathians, euident it is he meant not of euangelizing by only writing, but rather of euangelizing by word of mouth, because before the writing of that epistle, he had e­uangelized to the Galathians only by word of mouth, and of that euangelizing he spea­keth, which before tymes he had vsed to them. And so this place maketh more for vs then for Bel.

7. As for S. Austin, and S. Basil they say not That S. Paul meant of euangelizing by only Scripture, but out of this place infer, that nothing is to be preached which is be­side Scripture, in that sense wherin S. Paul vsed the word (Beside) vz: so beside as it is an other Ghospel, inuerting Christs Ghos­pel, which they rightly inferred. For what is so beside Scripture, as it is a new Ghospel, and inuerteth Christs Ghospel, is in like sort beside that which S. Paul had euange­lized to the Galathians, and no Apostolical [Page 402] Tradition, but a cursed doctrin. And thus much of Bels proofs out of Scripture tou­ching examination of Traditions; Now let vs see his proofs out of Fathers.

CHAP. XII. Bels arguments out of holy Fathers about the examination of Traditions an­svvered.

FIRST he saith, That in S. Cyprians daies Bel p. 117. vntruth 98 vntruth 99 nether Tradition was a sufficient proofe of do­ctrin, nor the Popes definitiue sentence a rule of faith. These be both vntruths. For that Tra­ditiō was a sufficient proofe of doctrin in S. Cyprians daies is euident by the testimony of his maister Tertullian, S. Ireney, and S. Dionis. before his tyme, and S. Basil, S. Sup. cap. 4. S. Augustin. l 2. de bapt. c. 9. Tripartit. l. 9. c. 38. Vincent. Ly­rin. Socrates lib. 5. c. 22. Te pacatum reddat tra­ditio. Basil. hom. contr. Sabellian. Chrysost. hom. 42. 2. ad Thessa [...]. Cap. cit. pa­rag. 6. Chrisostom & others after his tyme before cited. And by his owne words before alle­adged, and the decyding of two controuer­sies only by Tradition, the one in his owne tyme about the baptisme of heretiks, the other before his tyme about the tyme of Easter. Nether did he euer doubt that true Tradition was sufficient proofe of doctrin of which S. Chrisostom said. It is Tradition, seeke no more: but thought (and truly) that humane, and mistaken Tradition was no sufficient rule, as hath bene shewed before. [Page 403] And that the Popes definitiue sentence in his tyme was a sufficient rule of faith is eui­dent by his owne saying. That false faith can Cyprian. lib. 4. epistol. 8. calleth Ro­me the Ma­trice and roote of the Catholique Church. S. Cyprian. l. 1. epist. 3. S. Augustin. l. 6. de bapt. contr. Do­nat c. 2. S. Cyprian. ep. ad Pom­pei [...]m. Euseb. lib. 7. hist. c. 3. Vincent. Ly­rin. S. Augustin. lib. de vnic. bapt. cap. 13. See c. 4. pa­rag 7. & 8. S. Hieroms account of the Popes decree. haue no accesse to S. Peters chair, and that Here­syes, and Schismes rise not, but because it is not thought that there is for the tyme one Priest in the Church, and one iudge in Christs roome, and by his owne subscribing at the last to the Po­pes commandement, though he thought it had bene contrary to Scripture. Nether did he euer withstand the Popes definitiue sen­tence. For P. Steeuen did not defyne as a matter of faith, but only commanded that such should not be rebaptized, but the Tra­dition obserued, as both S. Cyprian: Eu­sebius. Vincent Lyrinen: and others testify. And this command S. Cyprian did not at first obey, wherin he offended as S. Austin writeth though after he did▪ as the same S. Austin doth likewise testify. And no doubt but he thought as wel of the Popes decrees as S Hierom did, when he wrote to P. Da­masus: Decree I pray if it please you I wil not fear to say three Hypostases if you bid. And re­quested him for Christs sake to giue autho­rity, ether to affirme or deny three hyposta­ses. And darest thou Bel make no account of the Popes sentence, when so great and holy a Doctor, so highly esteemed it, as without it he durst nether affirme, nor deny [Page 404] three hypostases, and with it doubted not to do ether.

2. After this Bel alleadgeth the practise Bel p. 118. of Fathers, who when the Arians (saith he) wold not admit the word homousion because it vntruth 100. was not in Scripture (mark how he confesseth him selfe to imitate Arians) the Fathers did not proue it by Tradition, nor say that many vnwritten things are to be beleeued. This is not so. For S. Athanasius saith that the Bishops of the Ni­cen S. Athan. a­pud Theo­doret. l. 1. c. 8. See epist. ad Epicte­tum. l. cit. Apud Atha­nas. & Theodoret. l. cit. S. Grego. Na­zianz. orat. 2. de Theo­log. Councel did not inuent that word, but set it downe testimonio patrum by testimony of their Fathers, and Eusebius though an Arian confesseth the same. And S. Gregory Nazian. writing against the Arians saith, that it should suffice vs that our Fathers thought not as they do; and the same argu­mēt vseth also S. Athanasius writing against the Apollinarists. And how vntruly he af­firmeth, that the Fathers did not say many vnwritten things are to be beleeued, I refer my selfe to their testimonies alleadged a­boue cap. 4. But saith Bel S. Athanasius pro­ued homousion, because though the word was not in Scripture the sense was. A good­ly reason: He proued it out of Scripture, therfore not out of Tradition; as if one should say. He proued it out of S. Ihon ther­fore not out of S. Paul.

3. Origen (saith Bel) hom. 25. in Math. Bel p. 118. [Page 405] and hom. 1. in 1. Hierem counselleth vs to try al doctrins by Scripture. This is vntrue. vntruth 101. Origen. For Origen speaketh not of al, but only of our opinions, and doctrins. Our opinions and expositions (saith he) haue no credit without their testimonies. Againe: VVe must alleadge the sense of Scripture, for testimony of al the words we vtter: Terrullian calling that truth which is first, and false which is after, maketh no­thing to his purpose. Next he alleadgeth S. Austin saying, That we must not consent euen S. Augustin. lib. de vnit. eccles. c. 10. to. 7. to Catholique Bishops error, or priuat opinion against Scripture. Error against Scripture is not to be followed. Ergo: nether Aposto­lical Traditions contested by the whole Church. Surely Bel hath great facility in inferring quodlibet ex quolibet: He brin­geth also S. Chrisostom calling Gods lawes a S. Chrysost. hom. 13. in 2. Cor. to. 4. most exact rule, and bidding vs learn not what this, or that man thinks, and of these things en­quire these points also out of Scripture. Answer. S. Chrysostoms meaning is, that Gods word is most exact in the matter whereof he tal­ked: vz. whither pouerty be to be prefer­red before riches, in which matter we ought (saith he) to leaue the opinions of this, or that worldly man, who prefer riches, but seek what the Scripture saith of it. And Bel to make him False tran­slat. 13. seeme to say, That al truth is to be sought out of Scripture, translated these words, [Page 406] Deque his à Scripturis haec etiam inquirite, thus: Search the truth out of the Scriptures En­glishing nether de his, nor haec.

4. After S. Chrysostom he citeth two pag. 120. Chap 5. pa­rag. 5. sentences out of Victoria cited by him, and answered by vs before. To whome he ad­ioyneth Canus teaching. That Priests are not Canus l. 3. de loc. c. vlt. to be heard vnles they teach according to Gods law. Certain: And then inferreth, That Papists teach plainly that no doctrine is to be receaued, which is not tryed by Gods word. True also, if 1 it be rightly vnderstood, vz. of such do­ctrine as may be tryed, not of deuine, (as Apostolical Traditions be,) which may not be tryed. And of Gods whole word, not of 2 a part thereof (as the Scripture is. And that expounded not according to the humor of 3 priuat spirits, but according to the vni­forme consent of Fathers & Councels. This most iust and reasonable rule of trying al matters in controuersy the Councel of Concil. Tri­dent. sess. 18. in saluo co­ductu dato Protestanti­bus. Trent prescribed to the Protestants. But they wil try deuine truth conteined not only in Traditions, but also in Scripture, & that part by which they wil try the rest, they wil expound according to their owne priuat spirits, which is to make them selfs rule and iudges of al: wherfore vainly doth Bel professe to agree with the Pope in al cō ­trouersies pag. 120. if he wil be tryed by Gods word. [Page 407] For vnles Bel be made iudge, and tryer both of Gods word, and of his meaning, or (as Protestants speake) vnles he may iudge which is Scripture, and which is the true sense, there must nether tryal, nor iudge­ment passe. For vnles Protestants may haue al the law in their owne hands they wil ac­cept no iudgement.

5. But because Bellarmin graunteth, that Bellarm. lib. 2. de Concil. c. 52. singuli Episcopi: al Bishops seuerally may erre, and somtyme do erre, and dissent one from an other, so that we know not which of them is to be followed: Bel thinketh pag. 121. that he hath a great catch. yet remembring him self better, that though Catholiques graunt that euery Bishop seuerally may erre, yet deny that they can erre al, when they are gathered in a Synode confirmed by the Pope, he taketh occasion to make a long digression about Councels.

CHAP. XIII. Of the authority of late general Councels.

GENERAL Councels in these our dayes are as certaine as before tymes. This is against Bel pag. 123. saying, that in our dayes they are like a nose of waxe, and as vn­certaine as the winde. And because he denyeth [Page 408] not, but that general Councels in some times haue bene certaine (forsooth such as defyned nothing contrary to Protestan­tisme) I wil only proue, that they are now as certaine as euer. First because Christ pro­myseth, that he would be in the midst of them that are gathered in his name Math. 18. v. 20. S. Math. That the holy Ghost should teach vs al truth. Iohn. 16. That the gates of hel should not pre­uaile S. Iohn. v. [...]3. S. Math. against his Church. Math. 16. v. 18. which promises are limited to no certaine tyme, but are extended (as he saith Math. vlt.) euen to the end of the worlde. Likewise Christs commaund of hearing his Church. Math. S. Math. v. 17. S. Luc. 18. of hearing preachers sent by him. Luc. 10. of obeying our Prelates and being sub­iect to them. Hebr. 13. v. 17. bindeth as wel S. Paul. in our dayes as before tymes. wherfore ei­ther the Church, Preachers, and Prelates teaching in a general Councel in our dayes, can not erre, or Christ in our daies com­maundeth vs to beleeue heresy and lyes.

2. Secondly the present Church of our daies hath authority to decyde controuer­sies in faith: Ergo, we be bound to obey her decision: Ergo, it is no lye. The Ante­cedent is an article of Protestants faith. Article 39. Art. 20. The first consequence I proue, because who resisteth power in matters belonging to the power refisteth Gods ordinance, and purchaseth [Page 409] damnation to him selfe. Roman. 13. vers. 2. 3. which being true of temporal power, and concerning wordly matters, much more true it is of spiritual power, and in matters of faith, and saluation: The second conse­quence is euident. For God who is truth it selfe, and can not lye, can not binde vs (es­pecially See S. Gre­gory lib. 1. e­pist. 24. vnder paine of damnation) to be­leeue and follow lyes. Thirdly as Prote­stants except against the Councels in their tymes, al hereticks may except against the Councels of their tymes, and so none shal See l. Mar­ciani. C. de sum. Trinit. be condemned as Hereticks, no Councel certaine, but al things remaine as vncer­taine, as if there had neuer been any Coun­cel at al, which is to take away the end of calling Councels. For if they can not make things certaine, to what purpose are they gathered. Finally Bel can giue no sufficient reason, whie general Councels be not as certaine now as euer, as shal appeare by the answer to this his obiection.

3. He obiecteth that Bellarmin lib. 2. de Concil. cap. 11. writeth: that is the true de­cree of the counsel, which is made of the greater part. But Canus saith lib. 5. de locis Canus. cap. 4. q. 2. That voices preuaile not with vs, as in humane assemblies. Againe, these matters of faith are iudged not by number, but by waight. And the grauity and authority of the Pope [Page 410] is it, which giueth waight to Councels. Er­go, (saith Bel) there can be no certainty in Bel p. 121. 122. Councels. A goodly reason sutely: Two Catholique writers agree not whether should be accompted the decree of a coun­cel, if the greater number of Bishops should define against the Pope, and the les­ser number of Bishops. Ergo no councel in our dayes is certaine. As if nothing were certaine, if two Catholiques disagree about it. Wil Bel allowe mee to argue soe against Protestants? I beleeue I should finde scarce any one pointe of faith certaine amongst them. But he should rather hane inferred: Bellarmin, Canus, and al Catholique wri­ters agree, that it is the decree of the Coun­cel, and certaine truth, which the greater part of Bishops defineth, and the Pope confirmeth. Ergo general councels in our dayes are certaine; Namely that of Trent, in which the most, yea al (as appeareth by their subscriptions) defyned, the Pope confirmed.

4. I might omit a friuolcus obiection, which he maketh against Bellarmin of con­tradiction. Because Bellarmin saith, that Bellarm. lib. 2. de concil. c. 18. the assemblie of Bishops in lawful councels is an assembly of Iudges, and their decrees l [...]ws necessa­rily to be followed. And yet affirmeth that it is al one for Councels to be reproued by the Pope, and Cap. 11. [Page 411] to doe against his sentence: For though Bellar­min affirme Bishops to be Iudges, and their iudgement to be necessarily followed as law. Yet as himselfe explicateth cap. 11. it is not necessarily to be followed antequam ac­cedat sententia Summi Pontificis. before it be confirmed by the Pope. As the Peeres in parliament are Iudges, and their acts neces­sary to be followed, but not before they be confirmed by the Prince, who in not confirming them, disannulleth them.

5. And because Bellarmin writeth, that Bellarm. lib. 2. de concil. c. 19. one cause whie the Pope was neuer perso­nally in any Councel of the East was, least he being then the Emperours temporal sub­iect should be placed vnder the Emperour. Bel inferreth both that the Pope is prowd, pag. 122. and that the East Church neuer acknow­ledged his supremacy. But as for pride it is none, to honour (as S. Paule did) his mini­stery, Rom. 11. v. 14. to challendge the place due to his dig­nity, and authority. For (as S. Gregory a S. Gregor. lib. 4. epist. 36. ad Eula­gium. most humble man said) Let vs keep humility in mynde, and yet conserue the dignity of our order in honour. No maruaile then if Popes being head and presidents of Councels, where matters of Church and faith are handled, and Emperours (as S. Gregory Nazianz [...] S. Gregor. Nazianz. o­rat. 14. ad sub. speaketh) but sheep of his flocke, and sub­iect to his power, and tribunal, did looke [Page 412] to sit there aboue Emperours. Yet the great Emperour Theodosius highly commended Theodoret. lib. 5. c. 18. S. Ambrose for putting him out of the Chauncel: And in the Nicene Counsel Euseb. lib. 3. de vit. Con­stant. Constantine that worthie Emperour entred last, and after al the Bishops were sett; nor did not sit in a great throne beseeming his estate, but in a low chaire, and that not be­fore he had craued pardon, and asked leaue of the Bishops, as Theodoret whom Bel Theodoret. lib. 1. c 7. Nicephor. l. 1. c. 19. calleth a Saint, Nicephorus, and others doe testify. Albeit the Nouatian hereticke So­zomene, who lyeth much (as writeth S. Sozome. lib. 1. c. 19. [...]regor. l. 6. epist. 31. Nouel. 9. &C. de summ. Trinit. lib. vltImo. Concil. Cal­ced. act. 1. Athanas. a­pol. 2. Socrates lib. 2. cap. 13. Sext. Sinod. act. 18. Theodoret. lib. 5. c. 9. Euap. lib. 1. c. 4. Martian. ep. ad Leonem. Gelas. ep. ad Episcopum Dordon. Concil. Ni­cen. epist. ad [...]est. Gregory) doe seeme to say, that he sate at the toppe of the Councel, in a most great throane.

6. As for the Easterne churches ac­knowledging the Popes primacy, it is so manifest, as Iustinian Emperour of the East writeth. No man doubteth but that at Rome is Summi Pontificatus apex: the toppe of the priest­hood. And if more witnesses need in so eui­dent a matter, certaine it is, that the general councels in the East were called, and their decrees confirmed by the Pope. And the Councel of Calcedon professeth in plaine tearms, that omnis primatus, al primacy be­longed to the Archbishoppe of Rome, & the same acknowledge the Grecians in the seauenth synode in the Councels of Lateran, Lyons, [Page 413] and Florence. Likewise some Patriarches Leo epist. 59. 60. 61. Conc. Con­stant. ep. ad Damas. Concil. Cal­ced. act. 16. 7. Sinod. act. 2. Conc. Late­ran. 13. c. 15. Concil. Flo­rent. in lit. vnionis. Concil. Lug­dun. in 6. tit. de election. cap. vbi pe­riculum. Baron. 536. Concil. Cal­ced. act. 3. Gelas. ep. ad Faustum. Sozom. lib. 3. c. 7. Baron. Ann. 372. Baron. 342. Chrysost. e­pist. ad In­nocent. Ex lit. Leon. & Valent. ad Theodos. Athanas. ep. ad Felicem. Basil. ep. 52. ad Athan. Chrisost. ep. ad Innocen. Theodoret. epist. ad Re­natum. Gregor. l. 7. epist. 63. of the East (to omit Bishops) were by the Popes authority created, as Anatholius of Constantinople by Pope Leo epist. 53. ad Pulcheriam, others deposed as Anthimus of Constant: Dioscorus, and Timothie of A­lexandria, and Peeter of Antioche. Other being deposed or vexed appealed to Popes, as S. Athanasius and Peter of Alexandria, S. Paul, S. Chrisostom: and S. Flauian of Constantinople, Paulin of Antioch: which euidently proueth the Popes Primacy ouer them. Finally to omit the testimony of S. Athanasius, S, Basil, S. Chrisostom, Theo­doret, and other Doctors and saints of the East church, both the Emperour and Patri­arche of Constantinople did in S. Gregories time (as he witnesseth) daily professe the church of Constantinople to be vnder the Romane Sea.

7. Now to his reason. Bellarmin saith. The Emperour of the East would haue sate in Councel aboue the Pope. Ergo, the East church neuer acknowledged his primacy. Who seeth not the manifolde weaknes 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, [Page 414] 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 Coūcel 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 [Page 415] 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 [Page 416] 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 [Page 417] S. Gregory the great. And S. Boniface the S. Gregor. [...] 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 cōman­ded 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 cōtrary 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 [Page 418] 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 of al the learned men, and Bishops of al Nations, or els re­maine [Page 419] desperate, & condemned before God and man. As the Apostles (say they) though assisted by God, yet thought it necessary to cal a Councel, for decyding a controuersy rysen in their daies. I omit three other points touched here by Bel. That the general pag. 128. Councels is aboue the Pope, can, and hath deposed him, because he neither proueth them, nor they concerne any matter of Catholique faith. And are lardgely and learnedly hand­led of Bellarmin lib. 2. de concil. And thus much of Bels seauenth article. Be myndful therefore Bel from whence thou art fallen and doe Apocalip. penance. Apoc. 2.

CHAP. I. The possibility of keeping Gods comman­dements explicated and proued out of Scripture.

GODS children can by his grace keepe his cōmandements. This Bel absolutly denyeth pag. 143. 148. 149. and 152. though in the very beginning of this article he were a shamed to deny it plainly, but ad­mitteth it (saith he) in a godly sence, and in some sort, and only denyeth it in a Po­pish sence. But this godly sence is so vn­godly, and the sort so sory, as he is ashamed to vtter it. For as S. Hierom writeth of the S. Hieron. e­pist. ad Cre­siphontem. Iren. lib. 1. cap. 35. Pelagians, to haue discouered the opinions of Protestants, is to haue ouercome them, the blasphemy is manifest at the first: yet may we gather his meaning by that he saith pag. 149. That God hath giuen vs those [Page 421] commandements, which we can not pos­sibly keep, and pag. 144. that euery breach of them is of it nature deadly. The mistery therefore of his counsel is, that Gods chil­dren can not possiblie, euen with his grace keepe his commandements, but that they must needs oftentymes breake them deadly. This kinde of keeping Gods commande­ments he tearmeth imperfect, and vnexact keeping. But indeed it is no keeping at al, nor a point of Gods children but of the di­uels, and a true breaking of them. For how are they Gods children, if they loue him not, how loue they him, if they damnably offend? If you loue me saith Christ Ioh. 14. S. Ioh. v. 15. keepe my commaundements; & how can they keepe them, if they damnably, and deadly breake them? can true keeping, and true breaking stand together.

2. God commaunded his precepts to be kept, not so sillily as Bel would, so as they be oftentimes deadly broken; but as Dauid saith Nimis Sphodra Psal. 118. v. 8. God (saith Psalm. S. Austin vpon that place conc. 4.) hath very S. Austin. much commaunded his precepts to be very much kept. And according to S. Iames, who offen­deth S. Iames 2. v. 10. in one is guilty of al. Wherfore deadly breaking of one of Gods lawes, can no more stand with keeping them, then thefte or murder can stande with keeping the [Page 422] Princes lawes. Nor they, who oftentimes deadly breake Gods lawes, be his children whilest they doe so, more then theeues and murderers be good subiects. And as for the Luther. ser­mon. de na­tiu. B. Mariae maketh al Christians as holy as the mother of God. Popish sence, it is not as Bel falslie impo­seth, that we can keepe Gods commaunde­ments so perfectly, as we be free from sinne: For so (as S. Iohn saith) we should deceaue our selues, and as Bel confesseth we doe daily acknowledge our sinnes, but so Bel p. 150. as we be free from deadly sinne, which de­stroieth The Apo­stles vvere cleane, and yet had need to ha­ue their fee­te vvashed. Ioh. 13. ver. 10. 11. S. Hierom. dialog. 2. cont. Pelag. S. Gregor. 21. moral. c. 9. S. Augustin. hom. 19. de temp. to. 10. lib. 1. contr. duas epist Pelag. c. 14. to. 7. enchi­rid. c. 69. charity the end of the law, and keepe the commaundements in al great, though not in smal matters. For as S. Hie­rom saith we may be without cacia, though not sina amartia, or as S. Austin, and S. Gregory gather out of S. Paul sine crimine, though not sine peccato, that is without great sinne, though not without smal sinne, with­out mortal, though not without venial. And to keepe Gods commaundements in this sort, is substantially to keepe them, because we breake not the end of them, which is charity; and yet not perfectly, & exactly. as who stealeth but trifles keepeth the Princes lawes, though not perfectly; but if he steale great matters, he is said no more to keepe 1. Timoth. 1. 7. 5. but to breake them. And in this sence, doe Catholiques defend the foresaid cōclusion, which though I might proue many waies, [Page 423] yet wil I content my selfe with such proo­fes, as Bel vndertaketh to answer, and in that order as he propoundeth them.

3. First therfore I proue it. because a young man tolde Christ he had kept al the Math. 19. v. 20. commaundements from his youth. Bel answereth that S. Hierom saith he lyed, and S. Austin Bel p. 150. thinketh he spake more prowdly then tru­ly, S. Augustin. epist. 89. neuertheles more probable it is that he spake truly, because not only our Sauiour did not rebuke him (as likely it is he would haue done, if he had tolde him a lye) but, as S. Marcke testifieth, beheld him, & loued him, Marc. 10. v. 21. and said, one thing is wanting to thee, goe sel whatsoeuer thou hast, and giue it to the poore, and come, and follow mee. If the mans speeche had bene a lye, it would not haue prouo­ked Christs loue, but his offence; and if he had broken Gods commaundements, Christ would haue aduertised him whome he lo­ued, rather of keeping the things which he commaunded, then which he counselled, as is the giuing al we haue to the poore. Wherfore S. Chrisostome hom. 64. in Math. S. Chrysost. saith, this man was no dissembler. And S. Hierom. dialog. 2. contra Pelag. affirmeth, S. Hierom. that Christ loued him, because he said he had done al, omnia fecisse se dicit, quamobrem & amatur à Domino: he said that he had done al things, wherfore he was also loued [Page 424] of our lorde; which euidently conuinceth that his speeche was true: for Christ could not loue him for a lye. Neither wil Bel I hope maruel, that we expound S. Mathew rather by S. Marcke, then by S. Hierome, and S. Austin, especially seeing S. Hierome alrered his opinion, ad S. Austin spake but doubtfully, saying I thinke. Neuertheles be­cause some fathers haue thought that the mans speeche was not true, Catholiques rely not vpon this argument.

4. Secondly S. Paule saith. For not the Rom. 2. v. 13. hearers of the law are iust with God, but the Doers of the law shal be iustified. Ergo there are some Doers of the law, and it is possible to be done. Bel answereth that the pag. 151. Apostle spake not absolutly, but vpon sup­posal of a thinge, which (saith he) is im­possible, that there were doers of the law, for such saith Bel, should be iustified by their worke, though they could not glory in them. But that S. Paule spake absolutly, and not vpon any impossible supposal is euident. First be­cause in the first part of the sentence he spake absolutly of hearers, and not vpon any impossible supposal, when he said they are not iust. Ergo: in the second parte he spake so of Doers, when he said they shal be iustified. Wherfore as wel may Bel say there are no hearers, as no doers of the law. Se­condly [Page 425] because in the next verse before, he vers. 12. had said absolutly. VVhosoeuer haue sinned in the lavv, shal be iudged by the lavv. Which he proueth saying. For not the hearers &c. Wher­fore as the proposition which he proued is absolute, and vpon no impossible supposal; so is that by which he proueth it. And in vers. 14. the verse next after he bringeth a proofe, that the Doers of the law shal be iustified, though they heard it not, because Gentils who haue no lavv, naturally (that is without See S. Austin. lib. 4 contra Iulian. cap. 3. tom. 7. instruction of the law) Doe those things which are of the lavv: Behould the Apostle auou­ching that Gentils doe the law, & by their example prouing the Doers thereof to be iustified.

5. And soe frequent it is in scripture to Psalm. affirme, that there are Doers, and keepers of Gods lawes, as it is auouched more then twenty times in one Psalme 118. I wil keepe 1 thy iustifications v. 8. I haue sought thee in my 2 whole hart. v. 10. I haue cleaued to thie testimo­nies 3 Lorde. v. 31. I haue runne the way of thie 4 commaundements. v. 32. I wil keepe thy law in 5 my whole hart. v. 34. I wil keepe thy law al­waies. 6 v. 44. I haue not declined from thy law. 7 v. 51. I haue kept thy law. v. 55. I haue not for­gotten 8 thy law. v. 61. I am partaker of al that 9 keepe thy commaundements. v. 63. I haue not for­saken 10 thy commaundements. v. 87. I wil keepe 11 [Page 426] the testimonies of thy mouth. v. 88. I haue for­bidden 12 my feete from euel way, that I may keepe thy words. v. 101. I haue not declined from thy 13 iudgements. v. 102. I haue sworne and determi­ned 14 to keepe the iudgements of thy iustice. v. 106. I haue not erred from thy commaundements. v. 15 110. Deliuer mee because I haue not forgotten thy 16 lavv. v. 153. I haue not declined from thy testi­monies. 17 v. 157. My soule hath kept thy testimonies. 18 v. 167. I haue kept thy commaundements and te­stimonies. 19 v. 168. Seeke thy seruant, for I haue 20 not forgotten thy commaundements. v. 176. What 21 now is it to say that there are no doers of Gods law, and it is impossible to keepe his commaundements, but to sett his mouth against heauen. Psalm. 72. and to giue God the lye. Psalm. 98. 3. Reg. 14. Act. 13. Iosue 11. v. 15. I omit Moyses, Aaron, Samuel, Dauid, Io­sue, Zacharie, Elizabeth; and the Apostles, who are said to haue kept Gods law, and some of them in al their hart. Only S. Paule Luc. 1. Ioh 17. v. 6. Contradict. 19. I can not omit, because Bel artic. 4. pag. 48. graunteth that he was most free, and innocent from actual sinne, therefore su­rely he kept Gods law perfectly: for if he brake it he sinned actually.

6. Thirdly Christ said, if thou wilt enter Math. 19. v. 17. into life, keepe the commaundements. but entring into life is possible. Ergo: keeping the commaundements. Bel answereth, that Christ shewed not here, how one may at­taine [Page 427] to eternal life, but how perfectly they who looke to be iustified by good works must keepe the commaundements: For Christ (saith he) being asked what good a man Gods vvor­de shame­fully vvr [...] ­sted. should doe to attaine eternal life, ansvvered. If thou wilt haue eternal life by doing good works, then must thou keepe the commaundemēts, but this is impossible (saith Bel.) Here is most shame­ful abuse of Gods worde, and this shew­eth Bel to haue a seared conscience. For nei­ther 1. Timoth. 4. v. 3. in the mans question, nor in Christs answer, is there any worde about what perfection of keeping Gods commaunde­ments is requisit to come to heauen by this way, or that way: vz. by beleeuing, or by working, or by both. But only about the meane in general to come to heauen, what that was, which the man supposing to bee good, asked what good he should doe to come thither (which question of his is common either to faith, or works, or both; for al include doing good) And our Saui­our answered him, If thou wilt enter (not this way, nor that way, but absolutly) into life, keepe the commaundements. As Dauid de­maunding Psalm. 14. v. 1. 2. absolutly, who shal dwel in Gods tabernacle? answereth him selfe. He that walketh vvithout spot, and vvorketh iustice. And as him selfe otherwere absolutly saith. Math. 7. v. 21. Not euery one that said Lord, Lorde shal enter into [Page 428] the Kingdome of heauen, but be that doth the vvil of my father. And surely if this man asking simply, and of a desier to learne, as Caluin Caluin. graunteth, had asked the way to heauen by an impossible meane (as Bel imagineth) Christ the author of truth, and who loued him, as S. Marke saith, would rather haue Marc. 10. bidden him giue ouer that impossible way, and taught him the true, then how he should proceede in his erronious, and im­possible way.

7. And though the man had asked Christ particularly, how he should come to hea­uen by good works, whence hath Bel, that his meanes to come to heauen is impossi­ble? wil not Christ say in his last sentence. Come you blessed of my father, possesse the Kingdome prouided for you, from the con­stitution of the world: because I was Hun­grie and you gaue mee to eat &c. Math. S. Math. 25. v. 34. 35. as wel as he wil say, Goe you from mee you cursed into euerlasting fyer &c. because I was Hungry and you gaue mee not to eate. v. 41. Are not good wor­kes accounted the meanes, and cause of comming to heauen, as the want of them the meane, and cause of going to hel. Yea doth not Bel say artic. 5. pag. 73. that good vvorkes are so necessary to attaine eternal life, as Contradict. 20. the vsual, ordinary, and vndoubted meanes [Page 429] (marke the worde) by vvhich God decreed from eternity, freely for his ovvne name sake, to bring his elect to saluation. And that vvithout them none haue bene, are, or shal be saued. How are they now become an impossible meane to come to heauen? how did the man en­quire of an impossible way to heauen, by good workes? what neede this challen­ger any aduersary, who thus ouerthroweth him selfe.

8. Fourthlie I proue the conclusion: be­cause Math. 11. v. 30. 1. Ioh. 5. v. 3. Christ saith, my yoake is svveete, and my burthen light. And S. Ihon saith, his commaun­dements are not heauy. Ergo they are possible. Bel answereth that these wordes are meant Bel p. 152. not in respect of vs, but of Christ, whose keeping the commaundements is imputed to vs: which S. Austin (saith he) meant S. Augustin. lib. 1. retract. c. 19. tom. 1. when he wrote. Then are al the commaunde­ments reputed as done, vvhen vvhatsoeuer is not done is forgiuen.

9. But this is easily refuted. For S. Iohn spake in respect of vs assisted by Gods grace, when he said. This is the law of God, that we keepe his commaundements, and his commaunde­ments are not heauie. He saith not (Christ) but (we) must keepe Gods commaunde­ments, & to animate vs thereto, he addeth, that they are not heauy vz. to vs. And cap, 2. v. 2. he giueth vs a signe to try if wee [Page 430] know God: vz. if we keepe his commaun­dements, Bel either keepeth Gods com­maunde­ments, or knovveth not God. and v. 3. affirmeth, that who keepeth not his cōmaundements knoweth not God: wher­fore either Bel keepeth the cōmandements, or he knoweth not God. Likewise Christ meant his yoake was sweete, and his bur­then light to vs. For immediatly before he Cap. 11. v. 29. said Take vp my yoake vpon you, & learne &c. and you shal finde rest to your soules. For my yoake is sweet, and burthen light. To whom meaneth he it is light, but to vs, whom he biddeth take it vp? and whom he promiseth shal finde rest by it? or what rea­son had it bene for Christ, to exhorte vs to take vp his yoake, and tel vs we should finde rest by it, because it is sweet to himselfe? As for S. Austin he said our defectuous kee­ping S. Augustin. sup. to. 1. is counted a ful keeping, when the de­fect is pardoned; which is a farre different thing from saying. That Christs keeping is counted our keeping. And he meaneth that our keeping is defectuous, because we keepe not the commaundements ad vnum apicem (as he saith) to the last ioat or title: But through venial sinnes haue need to say. Forgiue vs our trespasses, which venial trespasses being pardoned, we are accoun­ted to doe al Gods commaundements.

10. An other answer Bel putteth in the pag. 152. margent, and in latine. That Christ mea­neth [Page 431] not of the yoake, and burthen of the law, when he calleth it sweet, and easy, but of the Ghospel. That Christ meant of the law of the Ghospel, I graunt with S. Hie­rom S. Hierom. dialog. 2. contr. Pelag, and is proued out of these wordes: my yoake, my burthen. But what is this to the purpose? Is Bel be­come a libertine, thincking as his father Luther did, that the tenne commaunde­ments Luther. belong not to Christians, or that the Ghospel commaundeth only faith? Did Math. 5. v. 19. Christ come to dissolue the law of nature, and to exempt vs from al law, but of be­lieuing in him? If Bel be of this minde, let him vtter it plainly, and say Christ came not to fulfil the law, but to dissolue it, that his Rom. 3. v. 31. faith establisheth not the law, but destroi­eth it. Or if he thinke that the law of the ghospel. Besides the precepts of faith, in­cludeth at least the law of nature, let him confesse that the tenne commaundements, and al that God bindeth vs vnto, is not only possible, but easy, and sweet, vz. to such as Psalm. 118. v. 32. Omnia faci­lia sunt cha­ritati cui vni Christi sar­cina leuis est. Aug. donat. & grat. c. 69. to. 7. see the place. S. Iohn. loue God, as was Dauid when he said, I haue runne the way of thy cōmaundements, when thou didst dilate my hart. And hovv sweet are thy spee­ches to my iawes, aboue hony to my mouth. The law of thie mouth is good to mee, aboue thowsands of golde and siluer. For as S Iohn saith 1. c. 5. v. 3. this is the loue of God that wee keepe his com­maundements. [Page 432] If Bel say that it is impossible to loue God as we ought to doe. This is re­proued, because he loueth God as he should doe, who loueth him withal his hart, al his Deuter. 6. v. 5. soule and power. But Iosue so loued God, of whome it is written. 4. Reg. 23. That he 4. Reg. 23. returned in al his harte, in al his soule, and al his strength. Likewise Dauid sought God Dauid. in al his hart. Psalm. 118. and followed him in al his harte. 3. Reg. 14. And God hath vers. 8. some seruants, that walke before him in al their hart, with whome he keepeth his co­uenant, and mercy, 2. Paralip. 6. v. 14. And Deuter. 30. v. 6. God promiseth to circum­cise the Iewes harts, that they might loue him in al their harts, and al their soule. And thus much for proofe out of scripture, now let vs goe to the Fathers.

CHAP. II. The possibility of keeping Gods commaun­dements proued out of Fathers and reason.

MANY holy Fathers I might alleadge for this verity, but I wil content my selfe with two only, whome Bel obiecteth against him selfe, and vndertaketh to an­swer. S. Hierom. See S. Hie­rom in cap. 5. Mathei. S. Hierom dialog. 1. contr. Pelag. we confesse (saith he) God hath giuen possible [Page 433] commaundements, lest he should be author of iniustce. Beholde our conclusion both affirmed, and proued. And Dialog 2. I say a man may be without vice, which in greeke is called cacia, but not anamartyton, that is without sinne, which is as much as if he had said. He can be without mortal, but not without venial sinne. Againe: God hath not commaunded impossible things, but hath ascended vp to such height of pati­ence, as for their great difficulty he may seeme to haue commaunded almost impos­sible things. Againe: we curse their blas­phemie, who saie. That God hath com­maunded to man any impossible thing. This Bel alleadgeth out of his 3. & fourth booke pag. 153. against Pelagians, whereas he wrote but one epistle, and three bookes or Dialogues against Pelagians. But it is in his epistle to Damasus de exposit. fidei. And therein S. pag. 149. S. Austin. See S. Au­stin in Psal. 56. tom. 8. vvhere he saith the Apostles did that charity, then the vvhich, none can be greater. Hierom curseth this blasphemy of Bel: God hath giuen vs those commaundements, which we can not possibly keepe. Likewise S. Austin ser. 61. de temp. God could not commaund any impossible thinge, because he is iust. The same he repeateth lib. de natur. & grat. cap. 69. and lib. 2 de pen. mer. & remiss. and in psal. 56. I can not doubt (saith he) that God hath neither commaunded any impossible thinge to man, nor that any thinge is im­possible [Page 434] to God to helpe, wherby it may be [...]one which he commaundeth.

2. For auoiding these authorities Bel de­uiseth three shiftes. First, that Gods com­maundements were possible to vs before Adams fal. Secondly, that they were pos­sible to Christ, whose keeping them is ac­counted ours Thirdly, that euen to vs they are now possible to be kept imperfectly, though not perfectly, which is (saith he) the doctrine of Aquinas: yet seeing that S. Thom. 2. 2. quaest. 44. art. 6. vntruth. none of these shiftes would serue, he falleth to proue, that we may be iustly damned for not doing impossible matters; because In­fants vnbaptized, are damned for original sinne, which saith he they could not pos­sibly auoid. And in the margent calleth this a dilemma, which no Papist can auoid: But none of these shiftes wil suffice. For S. Hie­rome S. Hierom. epist. ad Ctesiph. writeth, that the cōmaundements are possible to vs by Gods grace. And dialog. 2. cit. That they are so possible, as that Dauid we know (saith he) hath done them. If they be possible to vs, then not to Christ alone; and if Dauid did them, man after Adams sinne may doe them. And the reason which he, and S. Austin af­ter him giueth of Gods iustice, conuinceth the same. For it is against his iustice, to com­maund vs impossible things, as wel after [Page 435] Adams sinne as before. Likewise S. Augu­stin after the Apostle saith, that the iustice S. Augustin. sermon. 6. de verb. A­postol. cap. 9. Rom. 8. v. 4. of the law is fulfilled in vs. Ergo not in Christ alone.

3. As for the thirde shifte. S. Thomas saith indeed, that the precept of louing God withal our hart &c. can not be perfectly kept, but imperfectly, yet in a sense quite contrary to Bel. Perfectly saith he is the pre­cept kept, when the very end intended by the commaunder is atchieued. Imperfectly, when albeit the end be not attained, yet the way vnto it is not left. As a souldier figh­ting, and ouercomming, perfectly fulfilleth the commaund of his captaine, bidding him fight. And an other fighting, and doing no­thing against the duety of a souldier, but not ouercomming, fulfilleth it, but imper­fectlie. Whereby we see plainly, that though S. Thomas deny, that the end, (vz. to bee wholy vnited to God) for which he gaue that precept of loue, be not possible in this life, yet he graunteth that we may so fight, or labour for the attaining it, as wee doe no­thing against the order commaunded by God, or the duety of a spiritual souldier. Which is indeed substantially to keepe the precepts, though S. Thomas in respect of keeping them, and also attayning the end, for which they were made, cal it imperfect [Page 436] keeping. For seeing God commaundeth not the end, but only intendeth it (as S. Tho­mas saith) if the order and meanes com­maunded be fulfilled, then surely the com­maundement is fulfilled, though the end of the commaunder, which is only intended, not commaunded be not attayned.

4. And as for Bels dilemma it is easily answered, and therefore might haue bene better lefte out (as himselfe writeth in the margent) For though Infants after they haue sinned, and eaten the aple in Adam, cannot auoide the guilt thereof, but must needs contract it by origin from Adam. As a man after he hath committed adultery can not but contract the guilt of adultery: Yet because as Infants sinned in Adam, so they might haue not sinned in him, and so haue auoided the guilt of sinne, falsly doth Bel Bel pag. 51. art. 4. say they could not possibly auoide it. And I wonder why hauing taught before, that concupiscence (which is the effect of ori­ginal Contradict. 21. sinne) is voluntary, he wil now say that Infants could not possibly auoide ori­ginal sinne. But it is his custome to gainsay himselfe.

5. By reason also it may be proued, that Reaſon. Gods precepts are possible. For besides, that if the law were impossible, sinne might be inuoluntary. I aske to whom Gods com­maundements [Page 437] are impossible? To man alone? and that is not the question nor de­nyed of any Catholique: or to man with Gods grace? and that is contrary to S. Paule saying I can doe al things in him that strengthneth S. Paul Phi­lip. 14 vers. 13 S. Iohn. mee: and iniurious to Gods grace, making it impotent, which S. Ihon maketh so po­tent, as he auoucheth, that he can not sinne, in whom it remayneth 1. Ioh. 3. v. 9. why did God say sufficit tibi gratia mea: my grace sufficeth thee 2. Corinth 12. if his grace suffice S. Paul. v. 9. not. Likewise if God commaunded impos­sible things, he should be the Author of iniustice, or vniust; as affirme S. Hierom dialog. 1. contr. Pelag. and S. Austin de nat. & grat. cap. 69. and serm. 61. de temp. For it is an vniust law which is impossible, and to punish breakers were against right, and equity. As Bel himselfe would graunt if vpon paine of death he were bid to flie to heauen, and executed if he did not. Wher­fore S. Hierom epist. ad Ctesiphont: wri­thus. S. Hieron. we pronounce the commaunder vn­iust, whiles we complaine, that the very Author of equity, hath commaunded im­possible things. And Simon Magus (saith Vincent. Lirinen.) made God Author of Vincent. Li­rin. sinne, in affirming vs to sinne of necessity. Now let vs see Bels proofes to the con­trary.

CHAP. III. Bels arguments out of Scripture against the possibility of keeping Gods commaun­dements ansvvered.

BEL proueth Gods commaundements to be impossible First, out of S. Iames saying. we al offend in many things. Answer. Iacob. 3. v. 2. Si quis in verbo non offendit, hic perfectus est vitae. v. 2. S. Iames meaneth of venial sinnes, as idle words are, whereof he speaketh in the same verse. And though Bel replie, that he hath already proued, that euery sinne is mortal in it owne nature, yet neither is that true, Art. 6. cap. 6. as before is shewed, nether though it were, could it disproue my answer. For it suffi­ceth (which Bel denyeth not) that there in­deed Bel art. 6. pag. 81. are venial sinnes (whether they be such by their owne nature, or by Gods mer­cy) in the which iust men may offend, and not breake Gods law deadly.

2. Next he alleadgeth S. Paules wordes pag. 144. Galath. 3. vers. 10. Cursed be euery one that shal not abide in al things that are written in the hooke of the law to doe them. what can hence be inferred to Bels purpose I see not, ex­cept that al men are cursed, or els freed from al lawes of God, and true libertines. But in truth it maketh more against him, then for him. For S. Paules intention was [Page 439] to proue, that faith in Christ was to iustifi­cation, and that the works of the bare law without faith were not sufficient. And therefore hauing proued by Abrahams ex­ample, that faith doth concurre to iustifica­tiō, in the tenth verse proueth, that workes of the bare law suffice not. For whosoeuer (saith he) are of the workes of the law (vz. without faith) are vnder curse. For it is written accursed be &c. Because such as want faith, can not abide in al things of the law, and consequently are vnder curse. But what maketh this against those who haue faith and grace. Such can doe al Gods wil with Dauid: act. 13. Such erre not from Act. vers. 22. Psalm. Gods commaundements: Psal. 118. Such can fulfil al things, and let not passe one worde of al Gods commaundements with Iosue. Iosue. cap. 11. Such are doers of the law and iusti­fyed. Rom. 2. v. 12. 14. finally such because S. Paul. the seed of God is in them neither sinne, nor can sinne. 1. Ioh. 3. vers. 9. and conse­quently S. Iohn. auoyd the foresaid curse. Neither doe their venial sinns incurre the curse: for it is pronounced only against heynous cri­mes, namely Idolatry, incest, murder, and the like, as is euident by the 27. of Deuter. Deu [...]. from whence the Apostle reciteth the curse But Bel who confesseth him selfe to incurre the crime accursed by the law, must needs [Page 440] confesse him selfe to be vnder that curse, or say, that he is not bound to Gods lawes made against Idolatrie, Incest, murder, and the like.

3. The like text he bringeth out of S. pag. 144. Iames. 2 v. 10. whosoeuer shal keepe the whole law, and offended in one is made guilty of al. This place also maketh rather against Bel. For it supposeth that al the law may be kept, as wel one point as the whole; and only teacheth, that the keeping of the whole law wil not saue, if one point the­reof be deadly broken. But this is nothing against Gods children, who as long as his seed abideth in them sinne not. Ioh. 3. v. 9. S. Ioh. nor offend deadly in one point, but abide both in the whole law, and euery pointe thereof.

4. Diuers other places Bel alleadgeth to proue that al men are sinners, and that the iust doe sinne, which no Catholique de­nyeth, as Bel might learne out of the Tri­dentine Councel. But how followeth it Concil. Tri­dent. sess. 6. cap. 11. thereof, that the Iust whiles they are Iust sinne deadly, or cannot auoyd al deadly sinne. This is the marque which Bel should pag. 143. shoot at, and hoped in the beginning of this article to hit the naile on the head; but as S. Hierom said to a Luciferian: whiles he S. Hierom. dialog. con­tra Lucifer. followeth his vaine of gainsaying, he hath [Page 441] mist the question, as some rather praiers then speakers vse to doe; who not know­ing to dispute yet cease not to quarrel.

CHAP. IIII. Bels arguments out of Fathers against the possibility of keeping Gods com­maundements ansvvered.

FIRST, out of S. Austin he alleadgeth, pag. 145. S. Augustin. lib. 1. de do­ctrin. Christ. c. 22. to. 3. that God commaunded vs to loue him with al our hart, soule, and mynde, and thereby left no part of our life vacant to take fruition of any other thinge. But S. Austin in these words meant nothing els, but that wee must loue nothing as our end, and for it selfe but Gods for so he vseth the worde fruition, and therfore addeth which Bel left forth. But what other thing commeth to our mynde to be loued, let it be carried thither, whither the whole current of loue runneth.

2. Other words he citeth our of lib. de pag. 146. perfect. iusti. ratiocin. 16. but they are in 17. cap. 8. where S. Austin writeth. That as long as there is any thing of carnal con­cupiscence, which may be bridled by re­frayning, God is not loued (omnimodo) alto­gether with al the soule. And yet though none in this life haue that perfection it is commaunded, because it is not wel runne, [Page 442] if it be not knowne whither to runne. Ans­wer. What S. Austins meaning is herein himselfe explicateth, saying, that the pre­cept of louing God withal our soule is not omnimodo altogether fulfilled whilst we haue inordinate motions. He denyeth not substantial fulfilling which auoideth sinne (yea lib. de spir. & liter. cap. vlt. affirmeth, S. Augustin. tom. 3. that though wee did not loue God withal our harts, and soule, so as we had no mo­tions of lust: yet if wee did not obey them, we need not to aske God forgiuenes) but only denyeth omnimodam impletionem, which in the place cited he called most superemi­nent perfection of louing God, and saith not it belongeth to this, but to the next life, vz. to bee perfectly perfourmed. Wher­fore when he saith such perfection is com­maunded in this life, he meaneth not that it is commaunded as a thing which we are bound to perfourme, but only as an end to which we should runne. For though (saith De perfect. instit. loc. cit. he) no man perfourme it, yet we runne not wel, if we knovv not vvhither to runne, and hovv should we knovv if it vvere shevved by no precept.

3. Next he citeth S. Thomas only be­cause pag. 147. S. Thomas [...]. 2 q. 44. art he vseth the words perfectly, and im­fectly. But how coutrary to Bels meaning hath bene before explicated, which repro­ueth his vntruth in affirming himselfe to [Page 443] teach the selfe same doctrine with Aquinas. What hath bene said to S. Austin, and S. Thomas is to be applied to S. Bernarde, S. Bernard. hom. 50. i [...] Cant. when he saith in the like sort, that the pre­cept of louing God can not be fulfilled in this life. And that God in commaunding impossible things made not men preuarica­tors▪ but humble. For beside that S. Ber­nard, as himselfe, speaketh this only, if the precept of loue be vnderstood of affectual charity, or charity in worke, and graunteth that so it is fulfilled, if it be perfectly ob­serued, as (said he a litle before) it may be in this life by Gods grace. Besides this I say, immediatly before the words which Bel cyteth, he graunteth, that initium perfectum­que the beginning and perfection of charity may be experienced by Gods grace in this life. If perfection be had, surely the precept is fulfilled. For (as himselfe saith sone after) doest thou not thincke is sufficient to the fulfilling the precept of louing thie neigh­bour, if thou obserue it perfectly. And Bel pag. 151. graunteth, that who perfectly ob­serueth the law shal be iustifyed.

4. And though he differ, or (as he spea­keth) defend the consummation of charity to the next life, and therefore accoumpt the precept of charity impossible, as far forth as it imbraceth the consummation, yet he [Page 444] meaneth not, that it imbraceth consumma­tion as a thinge needful to be perfourmed, which (he saith) shal be our reward in heauen, but as the end to which men ought to ende­uour, vt scirent (saith he) ad quem iustitiae fi­nem pro viribus niti oporteret, that they might know to what end of iustice they ought to endeuour withal their power. Behoulde he saith not, that we ought to attaine to the said end, but to endeuour al that we can; and therefore God in commaunding that end in such sort as he doth, maketh men no finners, though they attaine not to it.

5. After these fathers he bringeth two pag. 150. reasons. The one out of our Lords prayer, where we are taught to aske forgiuenes. But where pardon is demaunded, ths law is not exactly obserued. The other is out of our daily confessions, where we acknow­ledge our fault, and most great fault. An­swer; As the petition of forgiuing our sinns, doth euidently conuince, that we doe not so exactly keep the law, as we neuer swarue from it: So the other petition of doing Gods wil in earth as it is in heauen, eui­dently conuinceth, that we can doe it with­out deadly breaking it. As for our confes­sion, we doe not confesse that our daylie offences are most great faults, but daily con­fesse our most great fault, whether it were [Page 445] done then or before. Besides that humble and penitent mindes accompt themselues greatest sinners, and their offences greatest faults. So S. Paul 1. Timoth 1. v. 15. accoun­ted S. Paul. himselfe the chiefest sinner. Yea good souls (as S. Gregory saith) acknowledge sinne where S. Gregor. e­pist. ad Au­gust. Cant. cap. 10. Iob cap. 9. S. Gregor. in Psalm. 4. Pae­nitent. none is, and with Iob, feare al their works. And as the same holy Doctour noteth, the reprobate accompt great sinns litle, and the elect litle sinns grear, and which before they thought were light, straight they ab­hor as heauy and deadly. And S. Hierom S. Hieron. epist. ad [...] ­lant. obserueth, that it increaseth warines to take heed of litle (sinnes) as if they were great. For with so much the more facility we abstaine from any sinne, by how much more we feare it.

6. And hence Bel may see, why we in day­ly confessions confesse our most great fault, which I would God he would imitate, and both confesse, and amend his heynous fault▪ of sinning against the holy Ghost, and im­pugning the Catholique Church, which he knoweth to be Gods Church. Otherwise let him assure himselfe, that shame wil be his end in this life, and endles punishment his reward in the next. Wel he may beat a­gainst this rocke, but like the waues, he shal without hurting it, beat himselfe in pieces, and be resolued into froth and foame. Let him write books, let him spend himselfe, [Page 446] and make nets with the Spider of his owne guts, they wil proue only spider webbes, apt to cath or holde none, but such as like inconstant and fleshly flyes are carrayed a­bout with euery mynde of new doctrine, and following their carnal appetites, and licentiousnes, seaze vpon fleshly baite And so Bel though he could become an other God Bel, he should but be Beel zebub the God of flies. Be myndful therfore (Bel) from whence thou art fallen, and do penance. Apo­calip. 2.