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
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. â— 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 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 SolomoÌ„ 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 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 â—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 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 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 CoÌ„tract 4. q. 10. p. 178. title and image of Emperors But let them answer this dilemma These Emperors whom 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
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
about the Pope to whom or time when this regality was first graunted Marke good reader him selfe before affirmed that King Pipin gaue vp the gouernement pag. 12. 13. of Italie into Pope Steeuens hands and that this truth is apparant by the testemony of many renowmed Bel denieth vvhat him selfe saieth cannot be denied Onuphr in chron Nauclerus general 25. An. 750. Claudius Parad. des alliances Genealogiques Ado Regino Sigebert in chron Blond Dec. 1 l. 10. Mag deburgens cent 8. c. 10. Leo Ostien lib. 1. chron c. 9. Onuph sup Cronographes and can not be denied and now in the next page denieth both the fact and contestation of historiographers What wil he not deny who denieth that which him selfe saith can not be denied 15. The truth is that Pipin gaue not the exarchate to Greg. 3 who died in the yeare 741 or as other write 740 fourteene yeares before Pipins entrance into Italie neither was Pipin then a King but made afterward by Zachary successor to Gregory as Bel testifieth page 19. but to Pope Steeuen 2. as is apparant to vse Bels words by the testimony of many renowmed Cronographers though some cal him Steeuen 3. because they reckon his predecessour whom others omit because he liued but foure daies likewise al writers agree that Lewes pius confirmed the donation of his grandfather Pipin Apud Gratian dist 63. can ego Ludouicus Leo Ostien lib. 3. chron c. 48. vnto Paschal 1. and his name is in the donation as also that Countesse Maud gaue Liguria and Tuscia vnto Gregory the seauenth 16. And Bels prouing the historiographers Bel pag. 13. to disagree because Blondus and Platina saith he write that Pipin gaue the exarchate to Gregory the third Regino referreth it to Steeuen and Sigebert saith Pipin had Italy in his owne possession in the yeare 801. is like the rest of his proceedings For that of Platina is a manifest vntruth for he saith Platina in Stephan 2. Naucler general 26. Palmerius in chronic Claud. Paradi in Pepin paragr 6. 7. 8. 9. Pipin gaue the exarchate in Pope Steeuen the second his time and Sigebert meaneth not of King Pipin the giuer of the exarchate who died 768 but of his grandchild sonne to Carolus Magnus and how his possession of Italy doth not preiudicate the Pope is before explicated Regino saith that which is truth for best authors agree that Pipin gaue the exarchate in the yeare 755. at What time Steeuen 2. al. 3. was Pope 17. But suppose writers did not agree about the Pope to whome and time when Pipin made his guift of the exarchate must we therefore needs deny the guift in which they al agree So wee might deny that Christ Was borne because writers agree not about the time is it not vsual for historiographers to agree in the substance of the narration and yet differ in some circumstance of the person or time 18. Last of al least we should thinke the Grecian Emperors acknowledged Charles made by the Pope to be true Emperour Bel pag. 14. Sigebert An. 805. he telleth vs out of Sigebert that they had indignation against Charles and therefore he with often Embassages procured their friendshipes yea Blandus and Platina saith he affirme constantlie that Charles agreed with Irene and afterward with Niccphoras that with their fauors the might rule ouer the west Behould the drift of Bel to make vs thinke that Charles became Emperour not by creation of the Pope but by graunt of Grecian Emperors so loath he is to confesse the Pope had so great authority aboue 800. years agoe Wherein the silly foole ouerthroweth what he before said For if the Pope did not translate the Empire then was it no steppe to his tiranny as he imagineth 19. But let vs heare how he proueth that the Grecian Emperours did not achnowledge Charles the great for true Emperour first forsooth because Sigebert saith they had indignation against Charles what then are neuer Emperours offended for any thing lawfullie done especiallie if they thinke it preiudice their estate dignity and albeit Sigebert affirme that some Grecian Emperours who them selues came vnlawfullie and by tiranny to the Empire and that after Charles was crowned Emperour had indignation against Charles yet none write that Irene who was the only lawful Empresse at that time when Charles was created was offended with his creation but rather content as may be gathered by hir purpose which as Zonoras and Cedrenus write she had to marry him Yea Nauclerus saith she was deposed for Naucler general 28. the fauor she bore to Charles besides the indignation of those Emperours vz. Nicephorus Michael and Leo was not so much for the Imperial dignity taken by Charles as because as writeth Eginhart Charles Eginhart in vita Caroli his secretary they greatlie suspected least he should take the Empire from them which they might iustlie feare because by tirany and deposition of their predecessors they had gotten it and yet notwithstanding their indignation of their owne accord they sent Embassadours to Charles and made league and friendshippe with him as the same Eginhart Ado and others testifie Yea the Magdeburgians adde that the Grecians in a manner consented to Charles his Empire 20. His other proofe out of Platina containeth an vntruth for Platina writeth that Platina in Ieone 3. Charles being made Emperour Irene sent Embassadours to make peace and league with him to deuide Italie betwixt them which league Nicephorus renued but he hath no word of Charles his ruling the west with their fouours more then of their ruling the East with his And the like saith Blondus Blond Dec. 2. l. 1. Bel pag. 14. 21. The seauenth steppe saith Bel was the constitution of the seauen Princes electors of the future Emperour by Pope Gregory 5. by the fauour and free graunt af Otho then Emperour But this was rather an act of superiority in the Pope ouer Emperours then a steppe vntil it And seing this constitution hath euer since bene inuiolablie obserued and the Emperours so elected accompted as true Emperours throughout al Christendome a signe it is that Christians thinke the Pope hath authority to appoint Electors who may choose what Emperour they please by the authority giuen them from the Pope Wherfore I would Bel answered me this dilemma The seauen Electors haue authority to choose an Emperour or not If they haue then the Pope who gaue them that authority had the same because none can giue what he hath not him selfe if not Bel deposeth at once more Emperours and Princes then al Popes haue done 22. The eight and highest steppe of this ladder Bel pag. 15. saith Bel dâ—d reach vp euen to the highest heauen and to the verie throne of our lord Iesus here is a great cry now let vs see quid dignum tanto fert hic promissor hiatâ— because saiâ—h he Extrauag Bonif. 8. vtiam sanctam de maioritate obedientia vntruth
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.
of this reason First I deny that any religious Emperour of the East would haue sate aboue the Pope in Councel as appeareth by the fact of the two great Emperours Constantin and Theodosius before rehearsed and by Iustinus humbling himselfe vnto the Pope prostrate on the ground Iustinians See Art 1. c. 6. parag 6. lowly adoring and Iustinian the second his kissing of his feeet Is it likely that these who so honoured the Pope out of Councel would haue sate aboue him in Councel And albeit one grecian Emperour after both religion and reuerence thereto was decayed in Greece and the whole nation fallen into Schisme and heresy did in the CouÌ„cel of Florence attempt Concil Florent in initio to sit aboue the Pope yet the like is not to be thought of other religious Christian Emperours whereof diuers as Bel testifyeth art 1. pag. 17. humbled themselues and yeelded euen their soueraigne rights to Popes Yea the selfe same Emperour who by some euil suggestion would haue sate aboue the Pope would at his first meeting with him haue kneeled vnto him But suppose Concil Florent sup that the grecian Emperours by reason of their temporal superiority would haue sitten aboue the Pope Doe they therefore deny his spiritual primacy No more surely then a gentleman doth deny his pastours spiritual authority ouer him because he wil sit aboue him Did not the grecians euen in the Florentin Councel where they attempted In lit vnionis to place the Emperour aboue the Pope defyne together with the Latins that the Bishop of Rome hath primatum in vniuersum orbem primacy ouer the whole world 8. In two other matters Bel iniuryeth Bel p. 127. the Pope auouching that he would neuer shew his face in any Councel And that he shamefully vntruth 102. vntruth 103. abuseth the worlde because he can not communicate his supreame iudicial authority to his Legates and wil approue nothinge decreed in Councel vnles it be agreable to that vvhich he decreeth a part in his chaire at home For the first of these is a manifest vntruth because the Pope hath bene personally present almost in al the general councels helde in the west as at Florence at Constance at Viena at Lyons at Rhemes at Claremount and diuers councels of Lateran In the other the Pope abuseth the worlde no more then doth the Prince abuse the Parliament when sending thither the L. Chaunceller to supplie his place and praeseed in his roome wil neuerthelesse approue nothing what the Peeres doe or decree vnles himselfe iudgeth it conuenient CHAP. XIIII Of the oath vvhich Bishops vse to make vnto the Pope BECAVSE Bishops sweare fidelity to the Pope and to keep and defend the primacy of the Romane Church and rules of holy fathers against al men and neuertheles as Bellarmin writeth are not to obey Bellarm. lib. 1. de concil cap. vlt. him but when he commandeth according to Gods law and holy canons and may notwithstanding their oath speake their minde in councel and depose the Pope if he become an heretike Bel inferreth diuers pag. 125. 126. things requisit to be answered First that Bishops sweare the Pope can depose al Emperours and Kings in the Christian wordle Secondly that they sweare to admit his decree whome they vntruth 104. freely graunt may be an hereticke Thirdly that they sweare obedience to him in matters of faith whome they can depose for heresy Fourthly that the Pope is not supreame Iudge of controuersies seeing Bishops may examyne and iudge whether what he commaundeth be agreable to Gods worde and the Canons Lastly that they sweare flat rebellion against their Soueraigns seeing they sweare to defend the Popes Primacy against al men whomsoeuer 2. Answer As for the oath of Bishops made to the Pope the lawfulnes thereof appeareth because it is made withal Catholique princes consent and meant only in iust and lawful things which are according to Gods law and holy Canons And it hath bene vsed aboue a thowsand yeare agoe as is euident by the like oath made by a Bishop vnto S. Gregory the great And S. Boniface the S. Gregor â—â— 10. ep 31. Baron Ann. 723. Apostle of Germany and worthiest man that euer England bredde did sweare when he was consecrated Bishop to concurre with See Concil Tolet. 11. can 10. the Pope and commodities of his church And as for the first point which Bel inferreth it is vntrue as appeareth by the answer to the first article The second and third contayne no inconuenience For we must obey what he decreeth or defyneth Iudicially as sitting in S. Peeters chaire though in hart he were an hereticke As our Sauiour coÌ„manded S. Math. 23. v. 3. S. Mare 8. v. 15. S. Math. 16. v. 6. the Iewes to follow what the Scribes taught out of Moyses chaire but abstaine from their priuate leauen If Bel can not imagine how a man by Gods disposition may vtter truth coÌ„trary to his owne minde let him remember Balaam and Caiphas Numer 22. Ioh. 11. v. 52. Chap. 10. parag 9. Bellarm. lib. 4. de Rom. Pont. cap. 6. 7. Bel p. 125. and what hath bene said before out of S. Austin Besides we graunt not freely as Bel freely forgeth that the Pope may be an hereticke For Bellarmin whose only testimony saith Bel is most sufficient in al popish affaires defendeth the contrary And by that which hath bene said to these two points appeareth the answer to the fourth Because Bishops must not examin the doctrine which the Pope deliuereth iudicially out of S. Peters chaire as supreame pastour of Gods church but only that wherein he vttereth his owne priuate opinion 3. And as for the last point Bishops sweare no rebellion Both because they sweare to defend the Popes primacie only according to Gods worde and holy Canons which admit no rebellion As also The vveapons of our vvarfare are not carnal 1. Cor. 10. v. 4. Euseb lib. 6. c. 25. Gelas epist ad Anast S. Chrysost lib. cont Gent. because the defence which Bishops are to vse is not by insurrection and rebellion but by spiritual chastisment and correction In which sort S. Fabian defended the orders of the Church against the Emperour Philip. S. Innocent defended S. Chrisostom against Archadius S. Babilas and S. Ambrose punished their Emperours without any rebellion at al. 4. After the foresaid collections Bel pag 128. Rhemists Act. 15. vntruth 105. auoucheth an vntruth vpon the Rhemists affirming them to tel plainely and rowndly that the determination of Councels is needles because the Popes iudgement alone is infallible Where as they in that place which Bel cyteth write that though the Sea Apostolique haue infallible assistance yet the determinanation of Councels are necessary for many causes as for searching out the truth for the recouery of hereticks and contentation of the weake who not alwaies giuing ouer to one mans determination yet wil either yeeld to the iudgement
c. 6. Malmesb. lib. 1. Reg. lib. 2. Pont. Huntingt l. 3. Marian. A. 693. al. 617. VVestman 616. who thereupon returned to the Chaistian faith recorded by S. Beda aboue eight huÌ„dred yeares agoe who wrote nothing but what he knew him selfe or receaued from credible men whose history was approued by the King of his dayes by the Protestants Godvvin in life of Tatvvin Cambd. in Britania p. 12. now and finallie it is contested deliuered by our best Chroniclers Not long before when the King had built a Monasterie and Church in honor of S. Peter where now westminster standeth S. Peter came from heauen and consecrated as by miracle he confirmed the same church promising that there he would heare the prayers of the faithful VVherupoÌ„ King Edward Conss reedified that church of new chose it for the place of his sepulture whom the most of his successors haue imitated and bene there also crowned Authors of this are Abbat Ealred Malmesburiensis In vit S. Eduardi Malmesbur l. 1. de Pont. See Sauil ep ad Reg. Elizab ante Malmesbur Epist ad Eduard R. apud Sur. Baron An. 610. a man highlie esteemed of Protestants P. Nicolas 2. and others In like maner when England was sore oppressed by the Danes S. Peter was seene of Brithwald a holie B of winchester in a vision to anoint S. Edward Conss King of England and to foretel the yeares of his raigne and the end of the Danish fury adding withal these most comfortable words The kingdome of England is the kingdome of Loc. cit Malmesb lib. 2. reg cap. 13. p. 91. lib. 8. histor Angl. God This testifie the foresaid Ealred Malmesbury Polidor and others If ProtestaÌ„ts obiect against my Authors that they were Papists I must confesse but to their shame that I finde no protestaÌ„t writer before K. Henry 8. his time yet such papists they are as protestants account some of them the singular Cambden in Britan. p. 12. in Durham Stovv A-726 Bel in dovvnefal p. 54. of S Beda Sauil of Masmesbur Hunting and Hoveden epist. ante Malmesbur ornameÌ„ts of England especial friends of truth and renowmed through Christendom for vertue and learning and others they cal faithful recorders of things done good and diligent Authors and most true guides of the times past Such also they are as wrote long before protestants were therefore not vpon any splene against them and finallie such they are as vpon their authority principallie dependeth al the credit of our English Chronicles Others perhaps wil say that the foresaid histories are not in scripture True nor almost any thing els in al our Chronicles Shal we therefote beleue nothing but what God reporteth I request no more but that the foresaid matters be as wel credited as other things are which the same Authors report This affection and loue towards England was not proper to S. Peter alone but descended vnto his successors For when the sweet sound of the Ghospel first preached here by him had so increased as it came to the eares of Lucius then King of this land he sending to Rome for preachers P. Eleutherius about the yeare 156. sent P. Eleutherius A. 156. S. Beda lib. 1. c. 4. Martyr Rom. 26. Ado Marian in chronic VVestmon A. 188. Stovv 179. hither S. Fugatius and S. Damian who baptized the King Queene and almost al his people VVhereby our Country became the first that publikely professed the faith of Christ and there vpon is called Primogenita Ecclesiae The like charitable office performed also P. Victor vnto Scotland P. Victor 203. Boet. lib. 6. histor Scot. Genebr chron in Victore about the yeare 203. sending thither his legates at the request of King Donaldus who conuerted the King together with the Q. and nobility And about the yeare 324. Pope Siluester P. Siluester 324. Constant in edicto Menolag Graecor cal Ion. Huntingt l. 1. hist p. 306. Acta liberij vita Siluestri hauing perfectlie instructed our great Emperor Constantin baptized him and miraculouslie cured him of his leprosie as the said Emp. and many others testifie Afterward when the Christian faith in Britany began to be infected with heresie P. Celestin about P. Celestin A. 432. Prosper in chron An. 432. Baron 429. Prosper An. 434. Beda l. 1. c. 13. Plat. in Celestino Baron Ann. 429. Cambden in Hibernia Marian. in chron Cambd. in Hibern the yeare 432. sent hither S. S. German and Lupus for to expel and confute the heresies which they accoÌ„plished And the same P. in the yeare 434. consecrated Palladius a Bishop and sent him to Scotland where as yet was no B not forgetful of Ireland sent thither S. Patrick who with miracles coÌ„uerted the Iland deserued saith Cambdin the title of Apostle thereof Thus coÌ„tinued the loue of the Sea Apostolicke towards our CouÌ„trey al the time that the BritoÌ„s possessed it But towards our English nation after they had conquered this Iland Beda lib. 1. â— 22. it was far greater For whereas not only the Britons refused but the French also and other Christian nations Gregor lib. 5. epist 58. 59. Gadvvin us life of S. Austin neglected to preach vnto our English aunciters who euer vntil that time had bene Pagans bondslaues saith S. Beda of Idols only Rome lib. 2. c. 1. put forth hir helping hand to draw theÌ„ out of that darcknes miserie of Infidelity For no sooner that blessed holie father S. Gregory as Gadwin P. Gregory An. 596. loc cit calleth him vnderstood that the Angles or English whom for their bewtie and his tender affection he called Angels were Pagans but forthwith he Beda lib. 2. c. 1. Malmesb. l. 1. Reg. went to the P being him selfe yet a monke and desired him to send Preachers into England and offering him selfe to be one And obtaining Ioan. Diâ—â— in vit Gregor licence came on his voyadge towards England three daies Iourney but was recalled at the importunity of the Romanes who were vnwilling to forgoe soe worthie a man neuertheles he forgot not his holie enterprise For as soone saith S. Beda l. 1. cap. 1. as he was high Bishop ouer the vvhole vvorlde he made our nation the Church of Christ vvhich had bene euer vntil that time the bondslaue of Idols And in the yeare 596. Beda sup Stovv An. 596. Godvvin sup sent hither S. Augustin with almost forty Moncks more to preach who being receaued of K Ethelbert in short time conuerted both him his CouÌ„try And that they preached the true faith and religion of Christ appeared by the miracles they wrought in testimony thereof which were so great and many as it seemed saith S. Gregory lib. 7. epist 30. that they imitated the vertues of the Apostles by the miracles they wrought and are withal so certaine as they are not only testified by the said S. Gregory lib. 9. ep 56.
had once deceaued you in a mony matter you wold beware how you trusted them again and wil you beleeue them stil they hauing by their owne confession hitherto deceaued you both in your Church seruice Bible commending the one to you as diuine seruice and the other as Gods pure word and now condemning them both Open your eyes for the passion of Christ and seeing publike conference wil not be graunted where we might lay open vnto you the deceits of your Ministers help your selfs as wel as you may read with indifferency such books as are written for this purpose make earnest intercession to God to see the truth grace to follow it when you haue found it which God of his goodnes graunt Farewel 2. Februar 1605. Thy seruant in Christe IESV S. R. A TABLE OF THE ARTICLES AND CHAPTERS ARTICLE I. Of the Popes Superiority BELS argument against the Popes superiority answered diuers his vntruths and dissimulations therin discouered Chapt. 1. The opinion of Protestants touching Princes supremacy set down Chapt. 2. The opinion of Protestants touching deposition of Princes Chapt. 3. The practise of Protestants touching deposition of Princes Chapt. 4. Bels proofes of his assumption against the Popes superiority answered Chapt. 5. Bels answer to an argument of Catholiks for the Popes superiority confuted Chap. 6. Some of Bels slaunderous vntruths disproued Chapt. 7. Certain fals steps of a ladder which Bel imagineth the Pope had to clime to his superiority disproued Chapt. 8. The rest of Bels fals steps and slaunderous vntruths in this article disproued Chap. 9. ARTICLE 2. Of the Masse Bels reason against the real presence of Christ in the B. Sacrament answered his vntruth and dissimulation therin discouered Chapt. 1. Authorities alleadged by Bel against the real presence answered Chapt. 2. Masse proued Bels argumēt against it answered his manifold vntruths therin disproued Chap. 3. The rest of Bels arguments against the Masse confuted Chap. 4. Berengarius his recantation explicated and S. Austins authority answered Chap. 5. Bels imaginary contradictions in the Masse answered and true contradictions in his communion shewed Chap. 6. ARTICLE III. Of the Popes Dispensations Chapt. 1.  ARTICLE IIII. Of original concupiscence in the regenerate The Catholike doctrin touching concupiscence explicated and proued Chap. 1. Diuers vntruths of Bel disproued his arguments out of S. Paul against the doctrin of the former Chapter answered Chap. 2. Bels arguments out of S. Austin touching concupiscence answered Chap. 3. Bels arguments out of S. Ambros S. Bede S. Thomas touching concupiscence answered Chap. 4. ARTICLE V. Of the merit of good vvorks Of the Protestanis enmity to good works and frendship with euil Chap. 1. Of Bels positions touching good works Chap. 2. The Catholiks doctrin touching merit particulerly set downe and proued Chapt. 3. Bels arguments out of Scripture against condigne merit answered Chap. 4. Bels arguments out of holy Fathers against condigne merit answered Chap. 5. Bels arguments out of late Catholik writers against condigne merit answered Chap. 6. ARTICLE VI. Of the distinction of mortal and venial sins The true distinction proued and Bels obiection answered Chapt. 1. A text of S. Ihon epist 1. explicated Chap. 2. ARTICLE VII The Catholike doctrin touching sufficiency of Scripture propounded proued certaine vntruths of Bel disproued Chap. 1. Bels arguments out of the old testamēt concerning the sufficiency of Scripture answered Chap. 2. Bels arguments out of the new testament touching sufficiency of Scripture answered Chap. 3. Bels arguments out of Fathers touching sufficiency of Scripturs and Traditions answered Chap. 4. Bels arguments out of late Catholik writers touching sufficiency of Traditions and Scripture answered Chap. 5. Of the difficulty or easynes of Scripture Chap. 6. Of the vulgar peoples reading Scripture Chap. 7. Of the translation of Scripture into vulgar tongs Chap. 8. Of Apostolical Traditions whether ther be any or none Chap. 9. Of the certainty of Apostolical Traditiōs Chap. 10. Of the examination of Traditions Chap. 11. Bels arguments out of Fathers about the examination of Traditions answered Chap. 12. Of the authority of late general Coūcels Chap. 13. Of the oath which Bishops vse to make vnto the Pope Chapt. 14. ARTICLE VIII Of keeping Gods commandements The possibility of keeping Gods commandements explicated and proued out of Scripture Chap. 1. The possibility of keeping Gods commandements proued out of Fathers and reason Chap. 2. Bels arguments out of Scripture against the possibility of keeping Gods commandements answered Chapt. 3. Bels arguments out of Fathers against the possibility of keeping Gods commandements answered Chapt. 4. THE FIRST ARTICLE OF THE POPES SVPERIORITY CHAPT I. Bels arguments against the Popes Superiority ansvvered diuers his vntruthes and dissimulations therin discouered BEL like a man in great choler and very desirous to encounter with his enemie beginneth his chalenge very abruptly hastily yet not forgetting his scholerschip or ministerie he geueth the onset with a syllogisme ful charged with vntruthes dissimulacions You Papistes saith 3. Vntruthes 2. dissimulations he tel vs that the Pope is aboue al powers and potentates on earth that he can depose Kinges Emperours from their royal thrones and translate their empires and regalities at his good wil and pleasure But this doctrin is false absurde nothing else but a mere fable And conseqently Romish Religion consisteth of meere falsehoods fables flat leasinges 2. Not without cause gentle Reader hath Bel proposed these bloudy questions of the Popes supremacie and deposition of Princes in his first article and placed them in the forefront of his battel for he hopeth that they wil be his best bulwarke and surest defense in the combate that in such lystes he shal not fight alone but assisted with the Princes sworde wherein he dealeth with Catholiques as Puritanes which Conference at Hampton Court pag. 82. 83. his Maiesty prudently obserueth doe vvith protestants vvho because they could not othervvise make their partes good against protestants appeale to his supremacie And as the old Arians Ambr. epist 32. victor lib. 1. de preste◠vandol did who euermore accused the Catholiques as iniurious to the Prince which they al learne of the Iewes who being vnable to disprooue Christs doctrine endeuoured to bring him into the compasse of treason and Matth. 22. v. 17. at last procured his death as enemy to Cesar Wherfore ymitating the example of our Sauiour when the like question was propounded to seeke his bloud I answere Bel briefelie That what is Cesars we ought to Luc. 20. v. 25. geue to Cesar and what is Gods to God and what is Gods Vicars to Gods Vicar Onely because Bel in his said syllogisme chargeth Catholiques most falsely withal dissembleth the opinion of protestantes touching the supremacie and deposition of Princes I wil disproue his vntruthes and discouer his dissimulations and afterward compare the opinion and practise of Protestants Catholiques touching this matter
together whereby the indifferent Reader may by Bels euil and corrupt dealing in the very beginning of his chalenge take a taste of the rest of his proceedings for as Tertullian saith well vvhat truth doe they Tertull. l. do praescript defend vvho begin it vvith lyes 3. I demand therfore of Bel who they are whome he chalengeth to whome he speaketh and whome he vnderstandeth by You Papists Surely I suppose he writeth in English to none but such as vnderstand English whome in his preface he termeth English Iesuyts Seminary Priests Iesuyted Papists Yf these Maister Bel be they whome ye meane I tel you in their name that as your propositioÌ„ hath two parts viz. the Popes Superiority ouer al Princes and of his power to depose them so it conteineth three to vse your owne tearme flatte leasinges For though concerning Christians they beleeue the Pope to be spiritually superiour aboue al whatsoeuer accordinge to Christs words spoken to the first Pope S. Peter Matth. 16. viz. Thou art Peter and vpon this rocke vvil I buylde my Church and Io. 21. v. 17. Feede my sheepe which sheepe conteine and include as wel Christian Princes and potentates as subiects and vnderlings And concerning infidels they also beleeue that the Pope ought to be spiritually aboue them and they vnder him in that they be bound to be Christians neuerthelesse vntil these be Christened he is not actually their superiour vntil they be made members of Christs Church he is not de facto their head vntil they be in Christs fould he is not their sheape hearde For as Bellarmin writeth Bellarm. lib. 5. de Rom. Pont. c. 7. Bel p. 29. 125. whose testimonie saith Bel is most sufficient in al Popisshe affaires Christ vvas aboue as vvel infidels as faithful But to S. Peter he committed onely his sheepe that is the faithful Wherefore S. Paul as not acknowledging that he had any superiority or iurisdiction ouer infidels said vvhat belongeth it to me to iudge of them that are vvithout 1. Cor. 5. And although the Pope may preach him selfe or send others to preache to infidels without their licence yet this argueth no more but that the commission which he hath from God to preach the Ghospel vnto al nations is independent of the infidels and that they ought to be vnder his iurisdictioÌ„ Wherefore vntil Bel doe prooue that there are no powers or poteÌ„â—ates on earth which are infidels I must needs tel him that he vntruly auoucheth vs to say that the Pope is spiritually aboue al powers and potentates on earth 4. And much lesse did we euer tel you that the Pope hath temporal superiority ouer al Princes on earth but teach the quite contrary with VValden Bellarmin and VValden tom 1. lib. 2. art 3. c. 78. Bellarm. lib. 5. de Rom. Pont. c. 4. Gelas 1. de vincul Anathematis Nicol. 1. de 96. Can. cum ad verum others For as two most auncient Popes Gelasius 1. and Nicolaus 1. taught vs the Pope by his Pontifical dignity chalengeth neither royal soueraignity nor imperial name But what royalties he hath either in the Popedome or els where he chalengeth by the guift of Christian Princes whereof Some as your selfe confesse haue yeelded Pag. 17. vp their soueraigne rights vnto him And what superiority we thinke him to haue ouer Christian Princes he should haue though he were not Lord of one foote of land but as poore as he that said Math. 19. v. 27 Behould vve haue forsaken al. For his S. Mathevv Papal superiority and authority is not temporal or of this world nor the weapones of his warfare carnal but as S. Paul speaketh S. Paul 2. Cor. 10. mighty to God vnto the distruction of munitious destroying Counsels and al loftines extolling it selfe against the knowledge of God and hauing in readines to reuenge al disobedience Wherupon P. Innocent Cap. per venerab extra qui filij suâ—â— legitimi 3. professeth that the Pope hath ful power in temporal matters only in the Popedome and that Kings acknowledge no superior in temporal affaires And this also teach S. Ambros de Apol. Dauid c. 4. 10 Gloss S. Ambros tom 4. Lyra in psalm 50. and others By which it appeareth how much he is abused who is made to beleue That the Pope present challengeth an imperial ciuil power ouer Kings Emperors or that English Papists do attribute vnto him any such power For neither doth Paulus 5. challeng more authority then Innocent 3 did not English Papists attribute vnto him other authority ouer Kings then spiritual But do with tong and hart and with the Popes good liking professe That our Souereigne Lord King Iames hath no superior on earth in temporal matters If Bel reply that some Canonists haue affirmed the Pope to be temporal Lord ouer the world let him challeng them not like a wise man strike his next sellows the English Papists who mantayne no such opinion 5. The second parte of his Proposition touching the Popes deposition of Princes pag. 1. 4. 17. at his pleasure though he repeat it thrise is most vntrue For no Catholiques English or strangers teach that the Pope can depose Princes but for iust causes yea ordinarily saith Bellarmin not for iust causes but when Bellarm. lib. 5. de Rom. Pontif. c. 6. it is necessary for the sauing of souls And surely otherwise Princes shold be but his tenants at wil and he haue more power ouer them then they haue ouer their subiects which is far from al Catholiques imaginations let vs see therfore how Bel proueth vs to teach Bel p. 1. this doctrin 6. Because saith he Bellarmin setteth it downe Bellarm. de Rom. Pontif lib. 5. c. 7. in these words If therfore any Prince of a sheep or a ram become a wolfe that is to say of a Christian be made an heretike then the Pastor of the Church 4. vntruth may driue him away ly excommunication and withal command the people not to obey him and therfore depriue him of his dominion ouer his subiects Behold good Reader the forsaid vntruthes proued with an other Because Bellarmin calleth the Pope Pastor of the Church Bel auoucheth him to think the Pope to be aboue al Princes Potentates on earth as if there were no Princes infidels or out of the Church and because he teacheth that the Pope may excommunicate and depose Princes for Heresy that he may depose them at his pleasure as if matters of Heresy which is one of the greatest sinns that is were the Popes pleasure An indifferent reader would rather haue inferred that because the Pope is Pastor of the Church he is not aboue any infidel Prince or subiect which Bellarmin teacheth in Bellarmin expresse words in the same booke c. 2. c. 4. And because he can not excoÌ„municate so neither depose Princes for his pleasure which Bellarmin euery where supposeth yea in the same book c. 6.
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 Iâ— 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 speâ—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 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 challeÌ„ged more then human royal power For such is al spiritual power as shal hereafter be proued But most false it is that any Pope auncieÌ„t 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 coÌ„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 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 challeÌ„g 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 Sheâ— shal be my Goddesse the grouÌ„d 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 challeÌ„g 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 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 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 coÌ„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 IrlaÌ„d to the King of England Stovv ann â—â—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 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 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 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 ConstaÌ„tins 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 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. â— 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 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
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 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 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 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 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 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
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 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 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 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 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. THE SECOND ARTICLE TOVCHING THE MASSE PREFACE Bel deuideth this Article into foure members in the first wherof he impugneth the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist in the second the sacrifice of the Masse in the third he inueigheth against the recantation which Berengarius made when he adiured Bels heresie and in the fourth he treateth of apparent contradictions which saith he are in the Masse And the like method we wil keepe in our answer 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 of the B Sacrament For
the Churches authority S. Austin there saith no word at al. 13. Finally Bel concludeth this Article with an egregious slaunder of the Pope and false dealing with S. Antonin For he auoucheth that P. Martin 5. dispensed with one Bel pag. 40. who had contracted and consummated matrimony with his owne natural and ful sister of the 45. vntruth same father and mother This he proueth out of S Antonin saying That P. Martin dispen Antonin 3. part tit 1. c. 11. sed with one who had contrasted and consummated matrimony cum quadam eius germana Here Bel maketh a ful point and addeth no more But S. Antonin addeth quam cognouerat Fornicarie with a sister of hers with whom he had committed fornication And before the words cited by Bel he saith that seeing affinity is contracted by fornication as by coniugal act he that hath committed fornication with any vvoman can not mary cum filia eius vel germana eius vvith her daughter or her sister And affirmeth that Paludan thinketh the Pope can not dispense in this matter yet saith he Martin 5. dispensed with one who had contracted and consummated cum quadam eius germana quam cognouer at fornicarie with a certain sister of hers with whom he had committed fornication What now more euident then that S. Antonin speaketh not of a man marying his owne sister but his harlots sister wherin though the Pope as he saith made great difficulty yet perhaps Protestants wold make smale or no scruple at al. Behould therfore gentle Reader not the excellency of holy Popery as Bel scornfully exclameth but excellency of wholy ministery which hath as I say said of some made lying Isai c. 28. v. 15. their hope Is this M. Bel your promise pag. 22. of auouching no vntruth vpon any man Is this the sincerity you make shew of pag. 5. and 221 Is this your protestation made in your preface to yeeld if any can conuince Bel bound to recant the 3 tyme you to haue alleadged any writer corruptly quoted any place guilfully or charged any author falsly Let now the Reader be iudge by this your dealing with S. Antonin whether you be not bound to recant the third tyme. Be mindful therfore Bel from whence thou art Apocalip fallen and do penance Apocal. 2. THE FOVRTH ARTICLE OF ORIGINAL CONCVPISCENCE IN THE REGENERATE CHAP. I. The Catholique doctrin touching concupiscence explicated and proued BECAVSE Bel in this Article doth after his accustomed manner proceed confusedly and deceitfully before I answer his obiections I wil particulerly by Conclusions set downe the Catholique doctrin vpon this matter wherby the Reader may clearly see both what Catholiques defend and what Bel ought to impugne Supposing therfore a distinction of Concupiscence which Bel him self vseth pag. 49. into Habitual which is the pronesse and inclination in the inferior portion or powers of our corrupt nature vnto disorderly actions and Actual which is the disordinate Acts them selfs 2. The first conclusion is That habitual coÌ„cupiscence in men not yet regenerat See S. Tho. 2. d. 30. q. 1. art 3. S. Thomas Bellarmin is materially original sinne This teacheth S. Thomas 1. 2. q. 82. ar 3. and Bellarmin l. 5. de amiss grat c. 5. whose testimony I the oftener more willingly vse because Bel accounteth it most sufficient in al Popish affaires Bel p. 125. and the Protestants deny it not and I proue it Because as original iustice did formally consist in the conuersion of the wil to God and did materially connotate the due subiection of the inferior powers So original sinne doth formally coÌ„sist in the auersion of the wil from God materially connotateth the rebellion of the sayd powers And because concupiscence is thus materially original sinne S. Aust somtymes calleth it original sinne and saith it is remitted in baptisme when the guilt of Adams sinne annexed vnto it which maketh Cap. 2. parag 2. it formally sinne is taken from it as herafter shal be shewed 3. Second conclusion Habitual concupiscence euen in the regenerate is euil This teach S. Thomas 3. p q. 15. ar 2. and q. 27. S. Thomas ar 3. Bellarmin l. de grat primi hom c. 7. and l. 5. de amiss grat c. 10. and al Catholiques And the contrary is Pâ—lagianisme as is euident out of S. Austin l. 6. cont Iulian. S. Austin c. 5. l. 5. c. 3. tom 7. and l. 1. de nupt concupis c. 35. And the Conclusion is manifest because Habitual concupiscence includeth Habitual Concupiscence both positiue priuatiue euil not only prones to euil but also difficulty to do good and want of habitual order in the inferior powers and therfore is both positiue and priuatiue euil Hereupon S. Paul Rom. v. 7. 18. calleth concupiscence S. Paul in him selfe not good And v. 21. euil and v. 16. he saith that he hateth it And S. Austin lib. 6. cont Iulian c. 15. said who is so impudent or mad as to graunt sinne to be euil and to deny concupiscence of sinne to be euil And because concupiscence allureth to euil it is somtyme called of the Apostle Sinne lavv of sinne Rom. 7. of Deuines fomes peccati the fomet of sinne and tyrant of S. Austin iniquity S. Austin see him lib. 2. de nupt concup c. 9. S. Ambrose tom 3. serm 12. de verb. Apost c. 5. Vice l. 2. cont Iulian. c. 3. to 7. Vitious and culpable l. de perfec iustit c. 6. S. Ambrose de apolog Dauid c. 13. Root and seminary of sinne And because it causeth difficulty to do good it is otherwhile called of S. Austin l. 6. contr S. Austin tom 7. Iulian. c. 19. 1. Retract c. 15. serm 12. de verb. Apost l. de continent c. 4. others languor sicknes defect infirmity As because it is in our inferior portion it is called of the Apostle Rom. 7. v. 23. lavv of our members and of others lavv of the flesh And finally because it is inflicted vpon vs for Adams sinne S. Austin 1. Retract c. 15. calleth it punishment of sinne and also Sinne because it is the effect therof l. 1. contr duas epist S. Augustin to 7. Pelag. c. 13. and l. de spirit lit c. vltimo tom 3. 4 Third conclusion Actual concupiscence though inuoluntary is euil This teach al Catholiques with Bellarmin loc cit against the Pelagians and it is maniâ—est by S. Paul Rom. 7. v. 19. The euil which I wil not that I do by S. Austin lib. 1. de nupt S. Augustin to 7. Tom. 8. concup c. 27. and 29. and l. 6. cont Iulian. c. 16. l. 5. c. 3. in psal 118. conc 8 and otherwhere often and by the reason which he giueth l. 5. cont Iulian c. 3. because it is a disordinate act contrary to the rule of reason Hereupon men are ashamed of it and S. Austin lib. 2. cont Iulian. c. 5. and lib. 6. c. 19.
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 â—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 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. Lukâ— 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 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 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 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
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 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 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 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 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
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
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 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 â—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 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 TraditioÌ„ 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 Thessaâ— 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 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 Pompeiâ—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 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.
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
oy Bel art 4. c. 3. parag 7. P. S. Paul how he vnderstood the worde beside Galat 11. v. 2. a 7 c. 11. parag 5. S Paul loc cit meant of his preaching not of Scripâ—ure art 7 c. 1. parag 6 S. Paul might haue called glory a stipend arâ— 5. â— 4. parag 2. S Paul Rom. 7 explicated a. 4 c. 2 per tot S. Paul Rom 8 explicated a. â— c. 4. par 10. Pelagians thought knowledge of Scripture necessary to euery one art 7. c. 1 par 3. Pelagians licenced wemen to be skilâ—ul in Scripture to sing with them a 7. c. 7. parag 13. Peoples owing no obedâ—eÌ„â—â— to euil Princes no doctrin of Catholiks art 1. c. 9. par 4. S. Policarps account of the Popes sentence art 7. c. 10. parag 4. Popes accounted loyal excommunicated Emperors art 1. c. 5. parag 4. Pope as Pope challengeth no royal right to ether sword art 1. c. 9. parag 22. Pope can not depose Princes ordinarily euen for iust causes art 1. c. 1. par 5. 6. Pope can not depose princes for his pleasure art 1 c. 1. parag 5. Popes and Protestants proceedings in deposing Princes compared a. 1. c. 9. par 26. Pope cold not become Antichrist by the acceptance of the Exarchate a. 1. c. 9. par 4. Pope as Pope hath no temporal iurisdiction at al art 1. c. 1. parag 4. Popes confirmation by Emperors when it began and when it left a. 1. c. 8. par 8. Pope hath censured al that molest our King art 1. c. 4. parag 6. Pope did neuer challeng power proper or equal to God art 1. c. 7. parag 3. Pope how he is said to haue more then humain power art 1. c. 7 parag 3. Pope how he may be called King of Kings art 1. c. 7. parag 6. Pope how he may he King now though he were not in Pepins tyme art 1. c. 9 par 8. Pope highly esteemed by S. Bernard art 1. chap. 7. parag 6. Popes sentence highly esteemed by S. Hierom art 7. c. 12. parag 1. and by others ibid. c. 10. parag 4. Popes definitiue sentence a rule of faith in S. Cyprians tyme art 7. c. 12. parag 1. Pope neuer dispensed to mary a ful sister art 3. c. 1. parag 13. Pope in Councel as King in parlament art 7. c. 13. parag 8. Popes haue giuen three Kingdoms to England art 1. c. 9. parag 17. Popes liberality to Christian Princes art 1. c. 9. parag 37. Popes most cruelly handled by Christian princes art 1. c. 9. parag 27. Popes might haue apostatated from faith yet not taught heresy art 7. c. 10. par 9. Popes name euer from the Apostles tyme art 1. c. 5. parag 6. Popes neuer apostated in hart a. 7. c. 10. par 9. Popes not prowde in mainteining their dignity art 7. c. 13. parag 5. Popes or princes of what nothing they can make somthing art 1 c. 9. parag 29. Popes or princes of what things they can alter the nature art 1. c. 9 parag 28. Popes true step to his primacy a. 1. c. 9. par 32. Pope nether spiritual nor temporal superior to al princes on earth a. 1. c. 1. par â— 4. Popes primacy acknowledged by Gretian Emperors Councels and Patriarchs art 7. c. 13. parag 6. Popes priuate doctrin may be examined but not his iudicial sentence of faith art 7. c. 14. parag 2. Popes present in most Councels of the west art 7. c. 13. parag 8. Popes taught alwaies the doctrin of S. Peter art 7. c. 10. parag 8. Pope translated the Empire and appointed the Electors art 1. c. 6. parag 3. 4. Popery confessed to haue bene with in 200. years after Christ art 7. c. 10. parag 2. Prayers in an vnknowne tong commended by S. Paul art 7. c. 8 parag 2. Princes absolute haue no temporal superior art 1. c. 1. parag 4. Princes deposed by Prophets a. 1. c 5. par 3. Protestants admit Tradition a. 7. c. 9. par 11. Protestants haue no reason to admit one tradition no more art 7. c. 9. par 11. Protestants arrogate more power and authority then the Pope a. 1 c. 7 par 3. Protestants cal Catholiques Papists and Popish of the Pope yet wil not cal him Pope art 1. c. 5. parag 5. Protestants censure of the communion booke art â— c. 6 parag 10. Protestants contradictions about the Eucharist art 2. c. 6. parag 11. Protestants innumerable explication of fower words art 2. c. 6. parag 7. Protestants iudgment of Fathers when they are against them art 5 c. 4 parag 5. Protestants dissentions touched in the late conference art 4. c. 4 parag 7. Protestants enemity to good workes by word and deed art 5. c 1. parag 2. 3. Protestants frendship to euil works Ibid. parag 3. Protestants had the bible from Catholiques and how art 7. c. 9. parag 9. Protestants in 70. years haue attempted to depose to princes art 1. c. 4. parag 6. Protestants haue murdered diuers princes art 1. c. 4. parag 6. Protestants haue burnt two Kings bodies Ibid. Protestants abuse princes art 1. c. 9. par 3â— Protestants make and vnmake Emperors as they list art 1. c. 6 parag 3. Protestants opinion of deposing princes art 1. c. 3 per tot Protestants and the Popes deposing princes compared art 1. c. 4. parag 6. Protestants opinion of princes supremacy art 1. c. 2. parag 1. 2. Protestants and Catholiques opinion about supremacy compared ibid. parag 3. Protestants make their professed enemyes papists art 7. c. 1. parag 13. Protestants manner of answering Catholiques art 1. c. 6. parag 1. Protestants new light art 1. c. 6. parag 9. Protestants ouerthrow their owne arguments against Tradition art 7. c. 9. par 11. Protestants persuade to read Scripture as the serpent to eate the apple art 7. c. 7. parag 2. Protestants good by english bibles art 7. c. 8. parag 1. Protestants promise with Manichees vndoubted truth for to ouerthrow authority art 7. c. 9. parag 23. Protestants teach doctrin of Diuels art 2. c. 1. parag 1. 2. 3. Protestants try deuine truth a. 7. c. 12. par 4. Protestant wemen preached publikly in Germany art 7. c. 13. Puritans subscribe to the communion book only in respect of tyme art 1. c. 2. par 2. Puritans vrge the supremacy only for pollicy art 1. c. 2. parag 2. Q. Q. Elizabeths affiance in Catholiques fidelity art 1. c. 4. parag 4. R. REading of Scripture not debarred from the godly art 7. c. 7. parag 3. Reading or hearing Gods worde without vnderstanding of great effect ibid. Reading of Scripture not necessary nor expedient to al art 7. c. 7. parag 1. 2. Real presence proued out of Scripture and Fathers art 2. c. 1. parag 7. 8. Reason not to be sought in Gods workes art 2. c. 1. parag 11. Remaining of sinne what it is a. 4. c. 1. p. 16. Reprobats not al positiuely damned for original sinne art 4. c. 2. parag 6. Reprobats how may be said to be damned for