c. 8. See epist ad Epictetum l. cit Apud Athanas Theodoret l. cit S. Grego Nazianz orat 2. de Theolog Councel did not inuent that word but set it downe testimonio patrum by testimony of their Fathers and Eusebius though an Arian confesseth the same And S. Gregory Nazian writing against the Arians saith that it should suffice vs that our Fathers thought not as they do and the same argumeÌ„t vseth also S. Athanasius writing against the Apollinarists And how vntruly he affirmeth that the Fathers did not say many vnwritten things are to be beleeued I refer my selfe to their testimonies alleadged aboue cap. 4. But saith Bel S. Athanasius proued homousion because though the word was not in Scripture the sense was A goodly reason He proued it out of Scripture therfore not out of Tradition as if one should say He proued it out of S. Ihon therfore not out of S. Paul 3. Origen saith Bel hom 25. in Math. Bel p. 118. and hom 1. in 1. Hierem counselleth vs to try al doctrins by Scripture This is vntrue vntruth 101. Origen For Origen speaketh not of al but only of our opinions and doctrins Our opinions and expositions saith he haue no credit without their testimonies Againe VVe must alleadge the sense of Scripture for testimony of al the words we vtter Terrullian calling that truth which is first and false which is after maketh nothing to his purpose Next he alleadgeth S. Austin saying That we must not consent euen S. Augustin lib. de vnit eccles c. 10. to 7. to Catholique Bishops error or priuat opinion against Scripture Error against Scripture is not to be followed Ergo nether Apostolical Traditions contested by the whole Church Surely Bel hath great facility in inferring quodlibet ex quolibet He bringeth also S. Chrisostom calling Gods lawes a S. Chrysost hom 13. in 2. Cor. to 4. most exact rule and bidding vs learn not what this or that man thinks and of these things enquire these points also out of Scripture Answer S. Chrysostoms meaning is that Gods word is most exact in the matter whereof he talked vz. whither pouerty be to be preferred before riches in which matter we ought saith he to leaue the opinions of this or that worldly man who prefer riches but seek what the Scripture saith of it And Bel to make him False translat 13. seeme to say That al truth is to be sought out of Scripture translated these words Deque his à Scripturis haec etiam inquirite thus Search the truth out of the Scriptures Englishing nether de his nor haec 4. After S. Chrysostom he citeth two pag. 120. Chap 5. parag 5. sentences out of Victoria cited by him and answered by vs before To whome he adioyneth Canus teaching That Priests are not Canus l. 3. de loc c. vlt. to be heard vnles they teach according to Gods law Certain And then inferreth That Papists teach plainly that no doctrine is to be receaued which is not tryed by Gods word True also if it be rightly vnderstood vz. of such doctrine as may be tryed not of deuine as Apostolical Traditions be which may not be tryed And of Gods whole word not of a part thereof as the Scripture is And that expounded not according to the humor of priuat spirits but according to the vniforme consent of Fathers Councels This most iust and reasonable rule of trying al matters in controuersy the Councel of Concil Trident sess 18. in saluo coductu dato Protestantibus Trent prescribed to the Protestants But they wil try deuine truth conteined not only in Traditions but also in Scripture that part by which they wil try the rest they wil expound according to their owne priuat spirits which is to make them selfs rule and iudges of al wherfore vainly doth Bel professe to agree with the Pope in al coÌ„trouersies pag. 120. if he wil be tryed by Gods word For vnles Bel be made iudge and tryer both of Gods word and of his meaning or as Protestants speake vnles he may iudge which is Scripture and which is the true sense there must nether tryal nor iudgement passe For vnles Protestants may haue al the law in their owne hands they wil accept no iudgement 5. But because Bellarmin graunteth that Bellarm. lib. 2. de Concil c. 52. singuli Episcopi al Bishops seuerally may erre and somtyme do erre and dissent one from an other so that we know not which of them is to be followed Bel thinketh pag. 121. that he hath a great catch yet remembring him self better that though Catholiques graunt that euery Bishop seuerally may erre yet deny that they can erre al when they are gathered in a Synode confirmed by the Pope he taketh occasion to make a long digression about Councels CHAP. XIII Of the authority of late general Councels GENERAL Councels in these our dayes are as certaine as before tymes This is against Bel pag. 123. saying that in our dayes they are like a nose of waxe and as vncertaine as the winde And because he denyeth not but that general Councels in some times haue bene certaine forsooth such as defyned nothing contrary to Protestantisme I wil only proue that they are now as certaine as euer First because Christ promyseth that he would be in the midst of them that are gathered in his name Math. 18. v. 20. S. Math. That the holy Ghost should teach vs al truth Iohn 16. That the gates of hel should not preuaile S. Iohn v. â—3 S. Math. against his Church Math. 16. v. 18. which promises are limited to no certaine tyme but are extended as he saith Math. vlt. euen to the end of the worlde Likewise Christs commaund of hearing his Church Math. S. Math. v. 17. S. Luc. 18. of hearing preachers sent by him Luc. 10. of obeying our Prelates and being subiect to them Hebr. 13. v. 17. bindeth as wel S. Paul in our dayes as before tymes wherfore either the Church Preachers and Prelates teaching in a general Councel in our dayes can not erre or Christ in our daies commaundeth vs to beleeue heresy and lyes 2. Secondly the present Church of our daies hath authority to decyde controuersies in faith Ergo we be bound to obey her decision Ergo it is no lye The Antecedent is an article of Protestants faith Article 39. Art 20. The first consequence I proue because who resisteth power in matters belonging to the power refisteth Gods ordinance and purchaseth damnation to him selfe Roman 13. vers 2. 3. which being true of temporal power and concerning wordly matters much more true it is of spiritual power and in matters of faith and saluation The second consequence is euident For God who is truth it selfe and can not lye can not binde vs especially See S. Gregory lib. 1. epist 24. vnder paine of damnation to beleeue and follow lyes Thirdly as Protestants except
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 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 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 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 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 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
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 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 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. Câ—lestis only saith that the Pope hath both swords vz in the sense before explicated But what he bringeth out of an obscure appendix of P. Boniface his making a constitution Appendix Fuldeâ—â—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 priuilegijâ— 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 â—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 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. 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.
bene a meere humane and mistaken tradition he saith Cometh it from our Lord or the Gospels authority Cometh it from the Apostles precepts or epistles For God witnesseth that the things are to be done which are written and proposeth to Iesus Name saying Let not the booke of this law depart from thy mouth but thou shalt meditate therin day and night that thou mayst obserue to doe al things that are written in it If therfore it be commanded in the Ghospel or contayned in epistles of Apostles or acts that who came from any heresy be not baptized but hands imposed vpon them for pennance let this diuine and holy Tradition be kept 6. These words at the first view seeme to make for Bel but if the cause and circumstances of S. Cyprians writing be considered S. Cyprian they make rather against him S. Cyprian neuer reiected al Traditions yea by it l. 2. epist 3. he proued water to be mingled with wyne in the sacrifice and in the epistle cited by Bel biddeth vs recurre to Apostolical Tradition but only the foresaid Tradition because he thought as he saith epist ad Iubaian that it was neuer before commanded or written but as he writeth epist ad Quint mistaken for an other Tradition of not rebaptizing such as fal into heresy Wherfore Bel pag. 118 most falsly affirmeth 79 vntruth S. Cyprian Epist ad Iubaian ad Pompeium ad Quintinum Euseb lib. 7. c. 3. that he sharply reproued P. Steeuen for leaning to Tradition For he reproued him only for leaning to a mistaken as he supposed Tradition And as it is euideÌ„t out of his epistles and the histories of that tyme the question betwixt him and S. Steeuen pope was not whether Tradition were to be obserued or no but whether this were a true Tradition or no. Wherin S. Cyprian erroniously thincking it to be a mistaken tradition argued against it as he did demanding Scripture for proofe therof which he would neuer haue done if he had not thought it to haue bene mistaken The most therfore that Bel hath out of S. Cyprian for him selfe is that what is not true tradition must be proued by Scripture which I willingly graunt but it maketh nothing for his purpose as is euident S. Augustin lib. de vnic bapt c. 13. l. 1. de bapt coÌ„t Donat. c. 18. 39. epist 48. Vincent Lyrin contr â—aeres 7. But many things I obserue in S. Cyprian which make against Bel. 1 He admitteth dyuers Traditions Bel reiecteth al. 2. He impugneth one only Tradition Bel impugneth al. 3. He erred in impugning one and much more Bel in impugning al. 4. He recanted his error before his death as S. S. Augustin l. 6. de bapt c. 2. S. Hieron dial contr Luciferian Austin thincketh and of his fellow bishops S. Hierom testifyeth Bel persisteth obstinatly 5. He erred in a new question and not determined in a ful Councel saith S. Austin Bel erreth in antient matters decyded S. August l. de vinc baptism c. 13. lib. 5. de bapt c. 17. S. Cyprian epist ad Iubaian S. Hieron contr Lucifer August sup S. Cyprian epistol ad Pompei Euseb lib. 7. c. 3. Vincen. coÌ„t haeres S. Cyprian l. 1. epist 3. by many general Councels 6. He although he thought the Pope did erre yet seperated not him selfe as Bel doth from his communion as him selfe and S. Hierom testifyeth 7. He condemned none that followed the Popes opinion against his as Bel doth 8. He thought the Pope to erre in a coÌ„mandment onely of a thing to be done Bel condemneth him of errors in his iudicial sentences of faith where as S. Cyprian professeth that false faith can haue no accesse to S. Peters chayre 9. He disobeyed for a tyme the Popes commandement concerning a new and difficult question Bel disobeyeth obstinatly his definatiue sentence 8. Hereby we see how litle S. Cyprian maketh See S. Austin lib. 2. contr Crescon c. 31. 32. to 7. S. Austin for Bel and though he had made more for him let him know from S. Austin lib. de vnic bapt c. 13. and lib. 1. de bapt cont Donatist c. 18. and epist 18. that this error was in S. Cyprian an humane and venial error and like a blemish in a most vvhite breast because it vvas not then perfectly defyned by the Church But in his followers saith he lib. 1. cit c. 19. it is smoake of hellish filthines and as Vincent Vincent Lyrin Lyrin writeth The author vvas Catholicque his follovvers are iudged heretiks he absolued they condemned he a child of heauen they of hel And let the Reader gather by this example the Example of the force of tradition and the Popes iudgement authority of Tradition and Pope For if one Tradition preuailed then against S. Cyprian and a whole Councel of Bishops alleadging dyuers places of Scripture much more it wil preuaile against Protestants And if the Popes iudgement euen then when it seemed to many holy and learned Bishops to be against Scripture was supported only by Tradition did preuaile and they at last condemned as Heretickes who resisted much more it wil praeuaile against Protestants being vpholden not only by Tradition but by manifest Scripture also And Bel in blaming S. SteeueÌ„ Pope for preteÌ„ding 80 vntruth as he saith false authority sheweth him selfe to bee a malepert minister seeing S. Cyprian neuer reprehended him for any S. Cyprian such matter yea lib. 1. epist 3. acknowledgeth in the Church one Priest and iudge who is Christs Vicar meaning the Pope as is euident because lib 2. epist 10. he saith that the NouatiaÌ„s in making a false Bishop of Rome made a false head of the Church and l. 1. epist 8. and epist ad Iubaian that Christ builded his Church vppon S. Peter And as for S. Steeuen Vincent Lirin highly Vincent Lyrin con haereses S. Augustin lib. de vnie bapt cont Petil. c. 14. Bel pag 97. S. Athanas commendeth him and the very Donatists as S. Austin writeth confessed that he incorruptly gouerned his Bishoprike 9. Next he cyteth S. Athanasius cont Idol saying That Scriptures suffice to shew the truth True But that truth wherof S. Athanasius there disputed against Gentils to wit that Christ was God as he him self explicateth in these words I speake of our beleefe in Christ But saith Bel. He had made a foolish argument and concluded nothing at al if any necessary truth had not bene fully contained in Scripture As though S Athanasius had in these words argued against Gentils in which he only gaue a cause why he wrote that treatise Because saith he Though Scriptures suffice to shevv the truth and dyuers haue written of the same matter which argueth that he spake of some determinate truth yet because their writings are not at hand I thought good to vvrite But suppose he had argued what folly is in this argument Al contained in Scripture is truth Christs godhead is there
against the Councels in their tymes al hereticks may except against the Councels of their tymes and so none shal See l. Marciani C. de sum Trinit be condemned as Hereticks no Councel certaine but al things remaine as vncertaine as if there had neuer been any Councel at al which is to take away the end of calling Councels For if they can not make things certaine to what purpose are they gathered Finally Bel can giue no sufficient reason whie general Councels be not as certaine now as euer as shal appeare by the answer to this his obiection 3. He obiecteth that Bellarmin lib. 2. de Concil cap. 11. writeth that is the true decree of the counsel which is made of the greater part But Canus saith lib. 5. de locis Canus cap. 4. q. 2. That voices preuaile not with vs as in humane assemblies Againe these matters of faith are iudged not by number but by waight And the grauity and authority of the Pope is it which giueth waight to Councels Ergo saith Bel there can be no certainty in Bel p. 121. 122. Councels A goodly reason sutely Two Catholique writers agree not whether should be accompted the decree of a councel if the greater number of Bishops should define against the Pope and the lesser number of Bishops Ergo no councel in our dayes is certaine As if nothing were certaine if two Catholiques disagree about it Wil Bel allowe mee to argue soe against Protestants I beleeue I should finde scarce any one pointe of faith certaine amongst them But he should rather hane inferred Bellarmin Canus and al Catholique writers agree that it is the decree of the Councel and certaine truth which the greater part of Bishops defineth and the Pope confirmeth Ergo general councels in our dayes are certaine Namely that of Trent in which the most yea al as appeareth by their subscriptions defyned the Pope confirmed 4. I might omit a friuolcus obiection which he maketh against Bellarmin of contradiction Because Bellarmin saith that Bellarm. lib. 2. de concil c. 18. the assemblie of Bishops in lawful councels is an assembly of Iudges and their decrees lâ—ws necessarily to be followed And yet affirmeth that it is al one for Councels to be reproued by the Pope and Cap. 11. to doe against his sentence For though Bellarmin affirme Bishops to be Iudges and their iudgement to be necessarily followed as law Yet as himselfe explicateth cap. 11. it is not necessarily to be followed antequam accedat sententia Summi Pontificis before it be confirmed by the Pope As the Peeres in parliament are Iudges and their acts necessary to be followed but not before they be confirmed by the Prince who in not confirming them disannulleth them 5. And because Bellarmin writeth that Bellarm. lib. 2. de concil c. 19. one cause whie the Pope was neuer personally in any Councel of the East was least he being then the Emperours temporal subiect should be placed vnder the Emperour Bel inferreth both that the Pope is prowd pag. 122. and that the East Church neuer acknowledged his supremacy But as for pride it is none to honour as S. Paule did his ministery Rom. 11. v. 14. to challendge the place due to his dignity and authority For as S. Gregory a S. Gregor lib. 4. epist 36. ad Eulagium most humble man said Let vs keep humility in mynde and yet conserue the dignity of our order in honour No maruaile then if Popes being head and presidents of Councels where matters of Church and faith are handled and Emperours as S. Gregory Nazianzâ— S. Gregor Nazianz. orat 14. ad sub speaketh but sheep of his flocke and subiect to his power and tribunal did looke to sit there aboue Emperours Yet the great Emperour Theodosius highly commended Theodoret. lib. 5. c. 18. S. Ambrose for putting him out of the Chauncel And in the Nicene Counsel Euseb lib. 3. de vit Constant Constantine that worthie Emperour entred last and after al the Bishops were sett nor did not sit in a great throne beseeming his estate but in a low chaire and that not before he had craued pardon and asked leaue of the Bishops as Theodoret whom Bel Theodoret. lib. 1. c 7. Nicephor l. 1. c. 19. calleth a Saint Nicephorus and others doe testify Albeit the Nouatian hereticke Sozomene who lyeth much as writeth S. Sozome lib. 1. c. 19. â—regor l. 6. epist 31. Nouel 9. C. de summ Trinit lib. vltImo Concil Calced act 1. Athanas apol 2. Socrates lib. 2. cap. 13. Sext. Sinod act 18. Theodoret. lib. 5. c. 9. Euap lib. 1. c. 4. Martian ep ad Leonem Gelas ep ad Episcopum Dordon Concil Nicen epist ad â—â—â—â—est Gregory doe seeme to say that he sate at the toppe of the Councel in a most great throane 6. As for the Easterne churches acknowledging the Popes primacy it is so manifest as Iustinian Emperour of the East writeth No man doubteth but that at Rome is Summi Pontificatus apex the toppe of the priesthood And if more witnesses need in so euident a matter certaine it is that the general councels in the East were called and their decrees confirmed by the Pope And the Councel of Calcedon professeth in plaine tearms that omnis primatus al primacy belonged to the Archbishoppe of Rome the same acknowledge the Grecians in the seauenth synode in the Councels of Lateran Lyons and Florence Likewise some Patriarches Leo epist 59. 60. 61. Conc. Constant ep ad Damas Concil Calced act 16. 7. Sinod act 2. Conc. Lateran 13. c. 15. Concil Florent in lit vnionis Concil Lugdun in 6. tit de election cap. vbi periculum Baron 536. Concil Calced act 3. Gelas ep ad Faustum Sozom. lib. 3. c. 7. Baron Ann. 372. Baron 342. Chrysost epist ad Innocent Ex lit Leon. Valent. ad Theodos Athanas ep ad Felicem Basil ep 52. ad Athan. Chrisost ep ad Innocen Theodoret. epist ad Renatum Gregor l. 7. epist 63. of the East to omit Bishops were by the Popes authority created as Anatholius of Constantinople by Pope Leo epist 53. ad Pulcheriam others deposed as Anthimus of Constant Dioscorus and Timothie of Alexandria and Peeter of Antioche Other being deposed or vexed appealed to Popes as S. Athanasius and Peter of Alexandria S. Paul S. Chrisostom and S. Flauian of Constantinople Paulin of Antioch which euidently proueth the Popes Primacy ouer them Finally to omit the testimony of S. Athanasius S Basil S. Chrisostom Theodoret and other Doctors and saints of the East church both the Emperour and Patriarche of Constantinople did in S. Gregories time as he witnesseth daily professe the church of Constantinople to be vnder the Romane Sea 7. Now to his reason Bellarmin saith The Emperour of the East would haue sate in Councel aboue the Pope Ergo the East church neuer acknowledged his primacy Who seeth not the manifolde weaknes
auoucheth That ordinarily he can not depose Princes euen for iust causes 7. But let vs heare Bel disproue him self Anatomy of Popish tyrany in the Caueat to the Reader and lib. 2. cap. 4. §. 10. c. 9. 1. Contradiction Secular Priests saith he write plainly and resolutly that the Pope hath no power to depriue Kings of their royal Scepters and regalities nor to giue away their Kingdomes to an other In which opiniō likewise the French Papists do concurre iump with them Item The Seculars although they acknowledge the Popes power supereminent in Spiritualibus yet do they disclaime from it in temporalibus when he taketh vpon him to depose Kinges from their empires and translate their Kingdomes And least we should thinke these few Priests who wrote so were no Papists Bel him self testifieth that they are the Popes deare Vassals and professe the selfe same religion with Epistle to the King other Catholiques 8. The third vntruth conteined in the proposition is that we teach the doctrine of his proposition as a pointe of our faith wherevpon he inferreth in his conclusion our religion and faith to be false Because we teach no such doctrine at al and much lesse as a point of our religion or faith And the grauest best learned amongst Catholiques attribute to rhe Pope onely spiritual superiority ouer Princes and power to depose them in that case wherin our Sauiour said Math. 18. that it were better for a man to be cast into the sea then to liue to wit when they so scandalize others as their deposition is necessary for the saluation of soules as I haue already shewed out af Bellarmin Bel. parag 29. whose testimony in this matter Bel can not refuse seing he calleth him the mouth of Papists and auoucheth his doctrin to be the Popes owne doctrin And this doctrin good Christiā Princes account no more preiudicial or iniurious to their estates then they do the like doctrin of S. Paul 2. Cor. 10. where he professeth him self to haue power to destroy al loftines extolling it self against the knowledge of God to be ready to punish al disobedience 9. Wherfore to requite Bel with a syllogisme like vnto his owne I argue thus you Bel tel vs that we Papists saie the Pope is aboue al powers and potentates on earth that he can depose Kings and Emperours and translate their empiers at his good wil and pleasure But this your tale is a very tale false absurd and nothing else but a mere fable and consequently your late chalenge consisteth of mere falsehoods fables flat leasings The proposition is your owne wordes the truth of the assumption appeereth by my answer to your argument And thus much touching Bels vntruthes vttered in his proposition and proofe therof now let vs come to his dissemblinge CHAP. II. The opinion of protestants touching Princes Supremacie set dovvne LVTHER an Euangelist as he termeth him selfe or as other accompte him Luther lib. cont stat eccles in prologo in glossa cont decreta Caesar Ex Sur. An. 1531. 1539. Pope of Recusamy p. 31. 32. Magdeburg praefat Centur 7. Caluin in c. 7. Amos. an Apostle a prophet a third Elias a beginner of protestantisme in his booke of secular power condemneth those Princes who prescribe laws to their subiects in matter belonging to faith and the Church Magdeburgians his first and cheefest childeren write thus Let not Magistrats be heads of the Church because this Supremacy agreeth not to them Caluin saith they were blasphemers who attributed the supremacy to King Henry 8. And lest we shold think that only forayne Protestāts are of this opinion Antony Gilby in his admonition to England and Scotland Gilby calleth King Henry a monstrous bore for taking the supremacy that he displaced Christ was no better then the Romish Antichrist made him selfe a God And lately VVillet cōtract 791. part 1. and 3. p. 269. 270. Willet auoucheth That Bishops and Pastors haue a spiritual charge ouer Kings that Kings ought to yeeld obedience to those that haue ouersight of their soules That Heathen Princes had the same power and authority in the Church which Christian Princes haue and yet soone after affirmeth That heathen Princes cold not be heads of the Church that is to haue the Souereingty of external gouernment Againe That the King is nether mistical nor ministerial head of the Church that the name of head is vnproperly giuen to the Prince and if any think it to great Kings not so much is ministerial heads of the Church by vvillet a name for any mortal man we wil not saith he greatly contend about it So we see he denyeth both name and authority of the head of the Church to Kings 2. And his Maiesty perceaued that Reanolds and his fellows aymed at a Scottish Presbitry which agreeth with a Monarch Conference p. 82 83. as wel as God and the diuel page 79. and acknowledged his supremacy only to make their partes good with Bishops as Knox his fellow ministers in Scotland made his grandmother head of the Church therby to pul downe the Catholique Bishops Yea that the whole English Clergy is in their harts of the same opiniō appeareth by their open profession to agree in religion with forayne Protestants who plainly deny the supremicy of Princes by their writing and Apologia pag. 28. teaching that Christ alone can behead of the Church by their condemning Catholiques for attributing such authority to man and finally by their Synodical explication of the article of supremacy which they expound thus That Princes should rule al estates Lib. 39. Artic. art 37. and degrees committed to their charge by God whether they be Ecclesiastical or temporal and restrayne with the ciuil sword the stubborne and euil doers wherein we see no power in Ecclesiastical causes granted to Princes but only ouer Ecclesiastical persons And we deny not that Princes haue any power ouer Ecclesiastical persons yea in the very canon of the Masse as priests pray for Papa nostro N. and Antistite nostro N. for our Pope and Byshop so they pray for Rege nostro N. acknowledging the one to be their King as the others to be their Prelates and consequently both to haue power ouer them For as S. Augustin said and it is euident Rex à Augustin in Psalm 44. 67. regendo dicitur a King is so called of power to gouerne And as ecclesiastical persons be ciuil or politique members of the common wealth wherein they liue so haue they See Stapelton relectione Controuersiae 2. q. 1. a. 1. ad 2. Victoria relectione de potesta ecclesiastica sect 7. the same politique or ciuil head which that commonwealth hath for otherwise either ciuil members should haue no ciuil head at al which were monstrous or not be vnder the head of that body whereof they be members but onely vnder a ciuil head of an other body which is
Iohannes Six emprisoned 9. Paschorlis 2. Boniface 8. Vrbanus 6. Clement 7. besyd Sergius 1. others whom they attempted to imprison They haue deposed as much as they could sixteene vz. Iohannes 12. al. 13. Benedict 5 Gregory 5. Benedict Sixteene deposed 8. and 9. Alexander 2. Gregory 6. and 7. Gelasius 2. Innocent 2. Alexander 3 Iohn 22. Vrban 6. Martin 5. by Alphons King of Arragon Platin. in Alexand. 3. Liberality of Popes tovvards England Stovve an 1171. Polidorus lib. 16. Comin ventura in relation de Napoli VVhen vvould Luther and Caluin haue giuen three Kingdomes to England Eugen. 4. by procurement of Philip Duke of Millen Iulius 2. whereas on the contrary side to omit spiritual benefits Popes haue bestowed the Empire vpon almost al them Emperours whom they deposed and haue refused to take the Empire from the Germans though they haue bene much sollicited thereto by the Grecians and to let passe their liberality to other Princes they haue bestowed the Kingdome of Ireland vpon Henry the second and of Naples and Sicily vpon Henry 3. and the most honourable title of defender of the faith vpon Henry 8. Kings of England hereby may the indifferent reader euen setting aside the iustice of the cause and considering only the fact clearly perceaue whether Christian Emperours and Princes haue more tiranized ouer Popes then Popes ouer them now let vs come to Bels proofe of his ould slaunder here againe renued of the Popes taking vpon them power proper to God alone 28. A Closse saith he affirmeth the Pope Bel pag. 14. Gloss lib. 1. tit 7. c. 3. to haue celestial arbitrement to be able to alter the nature of things applying the substance of one to an other and to make something of nothing and the Pope saith Bel is wel pleased there with Answer As for the Pope being pleased with the foresaid words it is more then Bel knoweth but sure I am he detesteth them if they be meant of power to create or proper to God alone But wel I see that which doth not displease Bel if it be giuen to Princes he condemneth as intolerable blasphemie if it be attributed to Popes For the foresaid words are al in the ciuil lawe and by the Emperours applied either to them selues or to the Pope as the Emperours Gratian Valentinian and Theodosius de sum Three Emperours say the P. hath celestial arbitrement Trin. lib. 1. affirme the Popes to haue celestial arbitrement and condemne them as infamous hereticks who follow not the religion of Pope Damasus and his arbitrement in spiritual matters may be called heauenlie because his authority therein came from heauen That of altering the nature of things and applying the substance of one to an other the Emperour Iustinian C. communia de leg lib. 2. applieth to him selfe Of vvhat things Popes or Princes can alter the nature and meaneth of ciuil contracts as legacis and feoffees in trust which by his imperial power he can alter and change and the like power saith the glosse hath the Pope in contracts pertayning to spiritual matters But of altering the nature of natural things neither the Emperour nor the glosse dreamed 29. But the words which Bel most vrgeth are that the Pope can make de nihilo aliquid something of nothing For saith he it is a thing proper to God to make something of nothing in al cases and at al tymes But besides that the glosse neither saith that the Pope can make de nihilo aliquid but de nullo aliquid neither yet in al cases and al times as Bel addeth the foresaid words are taken out of Iustinian C. de rei vxor act lib. 1. where the Emperour Of vvhat nothing Popes or Princes can make something saith that because he can make to be accompted a stipulation where none is much more he can an insufficient stipulatiō to be sufficient the like authority in humane contracts touching spiritual matters the glosse attributeth to the Pope this he meant when he said the Pope can de nullo fecere aliquid of no contract make one which Bel would applie to creatiō making creatures of nothing as God made the world 30. Secondlie he proueth his slaunder out of Gersons rep ort before answered and thirdlie out of Gregory 9. saying Ad firmamentum Gregor 9. lib. 1. de cre◠tit 33. c. 6. Caeli c. to the firmament of heauen that is of the vniuersal church God made two lights Pontifical authority and power Roial that we may knowe there is as much difference betweene Pope Kings as bet wixt sunne moone Is here any word of authority belonging to God or yet of deposing Kings but only a cōparison of Pontifical Royal power with the sunne moone allowed by the publique letters VVritten 1279. and one extāt in Baron tom 10. an 996. Matth. 16. vers 19. 18. Iob. 21. v. 15. 16. Act. 20. v. 18. Matth. 28. v. 19. of three Princes electors and a preferring of the Pontifical before the Royal which if Bel had any feeling of Christianity in him he would not deny Is not the loosing and binding of sinns in heauen earth of preaching the ghospel admnistring the sacraments of feeding Christs sheepe and the like which belongeth to Bishops as is euident out of scripture far more excellent then Royal power which as wel woemen and children as men infidels as Christians may haue 31. The sunne moone are of the same Royal povver far inferour to Pontifical nature and quality differing only in more or lesse light but Royal power is both of nature and quality far inferiour to Pontifical thas is more humane and begun by Constantin called Bishops Gods and professed him self vnder them Ruffin lib. 1. hist c. 2. men this supernatural and instituted by God that common to Infidels this proper to christians that passeth not earth this reacheth to heauen that concerneth only the body this the soule that helpeth men to worldhe and transitorie quietnes this to heauenlie and euerlasting rest Bel could not abide Pope Gregory saying Pontifical authority excelled Royal as far as the sunne excelleth the moone nor the glosse saying it excelled it 47. times how then wil he abide S. Chrisostom saying it excelleth the kingdome Chrisost l. 3. de sacerd Ambros lib. de dignit sacerd c. 2. as much as the soule douth the body or S. Ambrose saying that nothing can be equal to Pontifical dignity and that Royal glorie and Princes crownes are far more inferiour to it then lead is to glistering gould And againe nothing in this world is more Ibid. cap. 3. excellent then priests nothing higher then Bishops or S. Ignatius saying that nothing is more honourable Ignat. epist ad Smirnenscs in the church then Bishops and that we owe the first honour to God the second to Bishops the third to Kings he exclamed against the glosse for affirming the Pope
the body of Christ but improperly wherefore it is said after it manner but not 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 takeÌ„ 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 haÌ„ds 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 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. 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 SacrameÌ„t 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 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. â—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 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
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 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 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 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 exaggeratiōn 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 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 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
euident then the holy Fathers when they speake of beleeuing the Ghospel they meane of deuine and Christian faith And what faith should S. Austin meane of but of such faith as he exhorted the Maniches vnto which was deuine And in the place alleadged by Bel he calleth outward teaching helpe to faith and only meaneth that a man can not learne faith of man alone without al inward teaching of God And therfore addeth That if he be not within who teacheth the Tract 3. in 1. Ioan. 10. 9. hart in vayne is our sound and where Gods inspiration is not there in vaine words sound outwardly which is most true and nothing against vs. Lastly it is against reason For the authority of Gods Church is not meere humane but in some sort deuine as a witnes by God him selfe appointed to testify his truth And therfore he said vvho heareth Luc. 10. v. 16. you heareth me therfore the faith that proceedeth from such authority is not humane 22. Wherfore Bel not trusting much to this shift flyeth to an other vz. That S. Austin said not these vvords of him selfe as he vvas then a christian but as he had bene in tymes past a Maniche This he proueth Because in the same chapter he saith That the authority of vntruth 93 1. vntruth 94 2. vntruth 95 3. the Ghospel is aboue the authority of the Churche in the chapter before That the truth of Scriptures must be preferred before authority consent of nations and the name of Catholique and promiseth to yeeld to Maniches doctrine if he shal be able to proue it out of Scripture But both this answer and proofs are most falsly auouched vpon S Austin For if he had meant the foresaid words of him selfe only as when he was a Manichist he wold not haue said Non crederem nisi commoueret c. I wold not beleeue vnles the Church did commoue me But non credidissem nisi commouisset I had not or wold not haue beleeued vnlesse the Church had commoued me Which Bel wel marking made him say so in english though he had not said it in latine Besides False translat 12. in the same chapter he addeth Qua authoritate Catholicorum infirmata iam nec potero Euangelio credere which authority of Catholiques being discredited I shal not be able now marke Bel to beleeue the Ghospel Moreouer cap. 4. he said That besides other motiues the authority of Catholiques tenet doth holde me in the lap of the Church 23. Bels proofs are nothing but his owne vntruths For though it be true That the Scripture is of greater authority then the Church yet nether doth S. Austin say it in that place nether maketh it any thing against vs. For albeit the Scripturs be in it selfe of greater authority yet the authority of the Church is both infallible and more euident to me And what maruel if for an infallible authority more euident I beleeue an other though greater yet not so manifest As S. Ihon was sent to giue testimony of Christ Ioan. 1 v. 8. and yet far inferior to Christ Nether saith S. Austin That truth of Scripture is to be preferred before authority and consent of Catholiques But Bel added the worde Scripturs as though S. Austin meant that their truth could be knowne without the authority of Catholiques or be opposit vnto it which he manifestly denyeth Nether meaneth he of the truth of Scripturs which the Manichist against whom he wrote reiected almost wholy and he him selfe professeth he could S. Austin speaketh of most manifest and euident truth and such is not the Scriptures not take for truth if it were contrary to Catholiques but of any knowne truth in general which he saith and truly is to be preferred before al authority opposit vnto it because such authority is not infallible but false and deceitful And therfore he speaketh vppon supposition that if it were true which other where he auoucheth to be impossible that Manichists taught truth and Catholiques error then their truth vvere to be preferred before the name of Catholiques consent of nations and authority begun with miracles nourished vvith hope encreased vvith charity established vvith antiquity and succession of Priests euen from the seat of Peter to vvhom our Lord after his resurrection commanded his sheep to be fed vnto this present Bishop But saith the glorious Saint vnto maniches I after him to Protestants Amongst you only soundeth the promise of truth vvhich if it vvere so manifest as it could not be doubted of it vvere to be preferred before al things that hold me in the Catholique Church 24. His third vntruth of S. Austins promise is directly contrary to S. Austin in the S. Austin vvold not beleeue Maniche though he had manifest Scripture Sup. paragr 18. same place If saith he thou shalt read any manifest thing for Manichey out of the Ghospel I vvil beleeue nether them nor thee Not them because they lyed to me of thee Not thee because thou bringest me that Scripture vvhich I beleeued through them vvho haue lyed As for Bels reasons to proue that we beleeue nothing with deuine faith for authority of the Church they are easely answered For though the formal obiect of faith be the first verity yet not simply as it is in it selfe but as it is proposed vnto vs by the Church And therfore though we beleeue nothing but because it is spoken and reuealed by God yet because he speaketh not immediatly to vs by him selfe but by the mouth of his Church whome who so heareth heareth God and Luc. 10. v. 16. 1. Thess c. 2. v. 13. whose worde is not mans worde but truly Gods worde therfore faith is not without the testimony of the Church As for S. Austins authority it hath bene answered before as also his arguments which Bel bringeth against Traditions CHAP. X. Of the certainty of Apostolical Traditions THERE are certaine and vndoubted Apostolical traditions This is against Bel pag. 128 129. c. But I proue it because the traditions of the Byble to be Gods worde of the perpetual virginity of our B. Lady of the transferring of the Sabbath and such like are certaine and vndoubted Besids if in the law of nature and Moyses traditions were keapt certaine why not in the law of grace But more euident wil the conclusion be if we descend to perticuler traditions which Bel endeuoreth Bel p. 128. 129. to proue vncertaine First he setteth-downe this Proposition Vnwritten traditions are so vncertaine as the best learned papists are at great contētion about them This he proueth in the tradition of Easter about which contended S. Victor P. the Bishops of Asia aboue 1400 years agoe both earnestly alleadging Apostolical traditions Likewise S. Anicetus and S. Policarpe who liued al within 200. years after Christ when the Church was in good estate and stayned vvith fevv or no corruptions 2. Marke good Reader his conclusion and proofs therof and thou wilt