to preach and testify his truth to infidels to whom if she be no fit witnes the fault is in God to send such insufficient witnesses as infidels are not bound to beleeue 6. And Bel is far deceaued in thinking that seeing or hearing make men sufficient witnesses of deuine and infallible truth or VVhat maketh sufficient vvitnesses of Gods truth the want of them maketh insufficient For not humane sense vvhich is subiect to error and deceit but Gods deuine assistance maketh men infallible and sufficient witnesses of his truth and the want of this insufficient Wherfore S. Mathew was as sufficient a witnes of Christs natiuity which he saw not as of other things he saw and S. Luke as sufficient a witnes of the things he wrote by hear say as S. Ihon who saw and heard almost al he wrote because they were equally assisted by God in their writing And in like sort the Church of what tyme soeuer is equally a sufficient and infallible witnes of Christs truth though she be not an eye or eare witnes of his speeches and actions as the primatiue Church was Because Math. 28. v. 20. Ioan. 14. Math. 16. Christs promises of his presence and the holy Ghosts assistance and that the gates of Hel should not preuaile against her appertaine equally to the Church of al tymes 7. But suppose that the present Church could not be a fit witnes as the primatiue Bel ansvvereth not to the purpose was what is this to the argument that proueth necessity of Tradition because without testimony of the Church we can not discerne true Scripture from false This Bel should ether graunt or deny if he meant to answer to the purpose and not tel vs of an other matter vz. That the present Church can be no fit witnes whereof if it were true wold follow that we can beleeue no Scripture at al seeing we haue no other infallible external witnes of Scripture 8. His second answer is That as Papists Bel p. 134. admit the Iewes Tradition of the old Testament to be Gods word and vvithal refuse many other Traditions of theirs So Protestants admit this Tradition Bel admitteth tradition of the Bible to be Gods worde and reiect al other And pag. 128. He dareth not deny Traditions absolutly yea admitteth them when they be consonant to Scripture Behold the silly fox in the toyle We contend against Protestants That Scripture is not sufficient to proue al points of Christian faith but that Tradition is necessary for some and Bel here confesseth it where is now the downeful of Popery Me thinks it is become the down fal of Protestantry Where is now Bels first proposition pag. 86. 88. That Scripture conteineth in it euery doctrine necessary to mans saluation Where is now that pag. 87. vve must not adde to Gods vvritten vvorde if this Tradition must needs be added therto where is now that the present Church can be pag. 134. not fit vvitnes if by her testimony we come to know Gods truth Where is now the curse which S. Paul as thou saist pag. 117. pronounceth Bel cursed of S. Paul by his ovvne iudgement against him that preacheth any doctrine not conteined in Scipture where is now That Scripture is the sole and only rule of faith 9 But seeing the fox is in the toyle we pag. 128. must needs haue him preach and tel vs of whome he first had this Tradition Perhaps he wil confesse with his brother Doue that Protestants had the Bible as Gods worde Doue of Recusancy pag 13. from Papists Sure I am he can name no other of whome he first had it Likewise he must tel vs. How he beleeueth this Tradition Whether as fallible and humane truth or as infallible and deuine If as fallible and humane surely he can beleeue nothing in the Bible as deuine truth If as infallible and deuine truth surely the Papists Church for whose only testimony speaking of outward testimonies Protestants first beleeue as an infallible truth that the Bible was Gods worde hath infallible authority 10. Nether is Bels comparison true For we beleeue not the old testamēt to be Gods worde for any Tradition which the Iewes haue but which the Catholique Church hath from the Apostles their successors euen as S. Austin writeth from the very Cont. epist fundam c. 4. to 6. seat of Peter to whom our Lord commanded his sheepe to feed to this present Bishop who deliuered vnto the Church and she to vs as wel the olde as the new testament for Gods worde Let Bel if he list beleeue the old testament for the tradition of Iewes and if he can not finde the like vninterrupted tradition for the new testament but in the Papists Church let him confesse that for her authoriry he beleeueth this tradition as infallible truth and I aske no more 11. But what shift findeth he for this notorious contradiction in admitting one tradition and before impugning traditions in general Forsooth because as he saith and it is his fourth solution VVhen Protestants Bel p. 135. say Scripturs conteine al things necessary to saluation they speake of Scripturs already agreed vpon Protestants admit tradition to be such and so exclude not this tradition but vertually include it in their assertion Behold the fox againe in the toile admitting one tradition ful sore against his wil. O violence of truth saith S. Austin l. cont Donatist post Collar c. 24. stronger then any racke or torment for to wring out confession For here Bel in name of Protestants confesseth that Protestants ouerthrovv their ovvne arguments against traditions they must needs admit one tradition which not only ouerthroweth al their arguments against other traditions For why may they adde one tradition to Gods written worde rather then more why may they beleeue any thing out of Scripture and no more why is one tradition equal to Gods written worde and no more How is one tradition certaine and no more But also sheweth that ether they receaue this tradition for no authority at al but only because it pleaseth them or that they beleeue it as infallible verity for the authority which they account but fallible For I aske why they beleeue this tradition If they answer because it commeth from God I demand how they know that Not by the Bible as is euident If by the Church then I aske why they beleeue the Church rather in this tradition then in other and whether they beleeue her testimony to be infallible in this point or no And whatsoeuer they answer they must needs fal into the toile 12. His third solution is That the nevv Bel p. 135. Testament is but an exposition of the olde and therfore may be tryed and discerned by the same But Syr wil you indeed try the new testament Bel vvil examin Scriptures wil you take vpon you to iudge Gods worde Surely this pride exceedeth Lucifers this is
euident then the holy Fathers when they speake of beleeuing the Ghospel they meane of deuine and Christian faith And what faith should S. Austin meane of but of such faith as he exhorted the Maniches vnto which was deuine And in the place alleadged by Bel he calleth outward teaching helpe to faith and only meaneth that a man can not learne faith of man alone without al inward teaching of God And therfore addeth That if he be not within who teacheth the Tract 3. in 1. Ioan. 10. 9. hart in vayne is our sound and where Gods inspiration is not there in vaine words sound outwardly which is most true and nothing against vs. Lastly it is against reason For the authority of Gods Church is not meere humane but in some sort deuine as a witnes by God him selfe appointed to testify his truth And therfore he said vvho heareth Luc. 10. v. 16. you heareth me therfore the faith that proceedeth from such authority is not humane 22. Wherfore Bel not trusting much to this shift flyeth to an other vz. That S. Austin said not these vvords of him selfe as he vvas then a christian but as he had bene in tymes past a Maniche This he proueth Because in the same chapter he saith That the authority of vntruth 93 1. vntruth 94 2. vntruth 95 3. the Ghospel is aboue the authority of the Churche in the chapter before That the truth of Scriptures must be preferred before authority consent of nations and the name of Catholique and promiseth to yeeld to Maniches doctrine if he shal be able to proue it out of Scripture But both this answer and proofs are most falsly auouched vpon S Austin For if he had meant the foresaid words of him selfe only as when he was a Manichist he wold not haue said Non crederem nisi commoueret c. I wold not beleeue vnles the Church did commoue me But non credidissem nisi commouisset I had not or wold not haue beleeued vnlesse the Church had commoued me Which Bel wel marking made him say so in english though he had not said it in latine Besides False translat 12. in the same chapter he addeth Qua authoritate Catholicorum infirmata iam nec potero Euangelio credere which authority of Catholiques being discredited I shal not be able now marke Bel to beleeue the Ghospel Moreouer cap. 4. he said That besides other motiues the authority of Catholiques tenet doth holde me in the lap of the Church 23. Bels proofs are nothing but his owne vntruths For though it be true That the Scripture is of greater authority then the Church yet nether doth S. Austin say it in that place nether maketh it any thing against vs. For albeit the Scripturs be in it selfe of greater authority yet the authority of the Church is both infallible and more euident to me And what maruel if for an infallible authority more euident I beleeue an other though greater yet not so manifest As S. Ihon was sent to giue testimony of Christ Ioan. 1 v. 8. and yet far inferior to Christ Nether saith S. Austin That truth of Scripture is to be preferred before authority and consent of Catholiques But Bel added the worde Scripturs as though S. Austin meant that their truth could be knowne without the authority of Catholiques or be opposit vnto it which he manifestly denyeth Nether meaneth he of the truth of Scripturs which the Manichist against whom he wrote reiected almost wholy and he him selfe professeth he could S. Austin speaketh of most manifest and euident truth and such is not the Scriptures not take for truth if it were contrary to Catholiques but of any knowne truth in general which he saith and truly is to be preferred before al authority opposit vnto it because such authority is not infallible but false and deceitful And therfore he speaketh vppon supposition that if it were true which other where he auoucheth to be impossible that Manichists taught truth and Catholiques error then their truth vvere to be preferred before the name of Catholiques consent of nations and authority begun with miracles nourished vvith hope encreased vvith charity established vvith antiquity and succession of Priests euen from the seat of Peter to vvhom our Lord after his resurrection commanded his sheep to be fed vnto this present Bishop But saith the glorious Saint vnto maniches I after him to Protestants Amongst you only soundeth the promise of truth vvhich if it vvere so manifest as it could not be doubted of it vvere to be preferred before al things that hold me in the Catholique Church 24. His third vntruth of S. Austins promise is directly contrary to S. Austin in the S. Austin vvold not beleeue Maniche though he had manifest Scripture Sup. paragr 18. same place If saith he thou shalt read any manifest thing for Manichey out of the Ghospel I vvil beleeue nether them nor thee Not them because they lyed to me of thee Not thee because thou bringest me that Scripture vvhich I beleeued through them vvho haue lyed As for Bels reasons to proue that we beleeue nothing with deuine faith for authority of the Church they are easely answered For though the formal obiect of faith be the first verity yet not simply as it is in it selfe but as it is proposed vnto vs by the Church And therfore though we beleeue nothing but because it is spoken and reuealed by God yet because he speaketh not immediatly to vs by him selfe but by the mouth of his Church whome who so heareth heareth God and Luc. 10. v. 16. 1. Thess c. 2. v. 13. whose worde is not mans worde but truly Gods worde therfore faith is not without the testimony of the Church As for S. Austins authority it hath bene answered before as also his arguments which Bel bringeth against Traditions CHAP. X. Of the certainty of Apostolical Traditions THERE are certaine and vndoubted Apostolical traditions This is against Bel pag. 128 129. c. But I proue it because the traditions of the Byble to be Gods worde of the perpetual virginity of our B. Lady of the transferring of the Sabbath and such like are certaine and vndoubted Besids if in the law of nature and Moyses traditions were keapt certaine why not in the law of grace But more euident wil the conclusion be if we descend to perticuler traditions which Bel endeuoreth Bel p. 128. 129. to proue vncertaine First he setteth-downe this Proposition Vnwritten traditions are so vncertaine as the best learned papists are at great contētion about them This he proueth in the tradition of Easter about which contended S. Victor P. the Bishops of Asia aboue 1400 years agoe both earnestly alleadging Apostolical traditions Likewise S. Anicetus and S. Policarpe who liued al within 200. years after Christ when the Church was in good estate and stayned vvith fevv or no corruptions 2. Marke good Reader his conclusion and proofs therof and thou wilt
contained Ergo it is truth But perhaps Bels dul head thought it al one to say Al conteined in Scripture is truth wherupon the said Syllogisme dependeth Scripture coÌ„teineth al truth As for S. Athanasius his reuerence of Traditions it is euident by his prouing S. Athanas l. de Nicen. Synod epist ad African apud Theodoret. lib. 1. c. 8. the Godhead of Christ and name of consubstantiality by Tradition by his words lib. de incarn verbi who sticketh to Traditions is out of danger 10. S. Epiphan he alleadgeth writing Bel pag. 98. S. Epiphan haer 65 Chapt. 1. parag 8. S. Epiphan That vve can tel the finding of euery question by consequence of Scripture But these words haue bene explicated before As for Tradition he saith haere 61. VVe must vse it for althings can not be taken out of Scripture For the Apostles haue deliuered some things by writing some things by Tradition The like he saith haere 55. and 75. S. Cyril he citeth where he saith That vve S. Cyrill lib. 2. de recta fid ad Regin must follovv Scriptures in nothing depart from their prescript This maketh not against vs who professe so to doe and yet Withal follow Traditions And what account S Cyril S. Cyril made of Traditions appeareth by his obseruing lent lib. 10. in leuit and vse of the Crosse lib. 6. in Iulian. which are Traditions Apostolical as witnes S. Ambros ser S. Ambros Tertullian 25. 34. 36. Tertul. de corona mil. and others 11. He citeth S. Chrisostome writing Bel pag. 98. Chrysost in psalm 95. That if any thing be spoken without Scripture the hearers mynde wauereth somtymes doubting somtymes asâ—enting otherwhile denying But maruel it is that Bel would touch S. Chrisostome S. Chrysost who hom 42. Thesal vpon these words Holde Traditions saith Hence it appeareth that the Apostles deliuered not althings by letters And the one as vvel as the other are worthy of the same credit wherfore we thincke the Churches Traditions to deserue beleefe It is a Tradition marke Bel aske no more And if Bel had cyted the words immediatly before he had explicated of what kinde of speaking without Scripture S. Chrisostom meant namely sine testibus solaque animi cogitatione vvithout vvitnesses and of his ovvne head But Churches Traditions haue her for witnes descend from the Apostles An other place he bringeth out of the same S Chrisostom as he Author imperf hom 41. in Math. saith but it is out of the Author imperfect who was a flat Arian and therfore his testimony is worth nothing otherwise then he agreeth with holy fathers though his saying cyted by Bel That al is fulfilled in Scripture vvhich is sought to saluation may be explicated by the first or second conclusion 12. Next he bringeth S. Ambrose bidding Bel pag. 98. S. Ambros 1. de fide ad Gratian. c. 4. vs not to beleeue argument and disputations but aske the Scriptures Apostles Prophets and Christ This maketh rather for vs because it alloweth enquiring of others besides Scriptures namely of Apostles from whom the Churches Traditions came And nothing against Traditions because they be no arguments or disputations And indeed S. Ambrose meaneth of humane arguments and reasons such as in the Chapter before he said the Arians vsed to proue Christ to be vnlike to his Father Besides he speaketh only concerning one point vz. the consubstantiality of Christ And therfore though he had bidden vs therin seeke only Scripture he had nothing preiudicated Traditions which plainly he maintaineth ser 25. 34. 36. 38. epist S. Ambros 81. and other where Only I maruel wherfore Bel corrupted S. Ambrose his words Corrupt of Fathers For where he saith vve deny yea abhorre Bel maketh him say vve deny not but abhorre Making S. Ambros teach heresy in graunting Christ to be vnlike his Father which was the matter he spake of and to speake absurdly in abhorring a speech which he doth not deny 13. S. Basil he citeth saying vvhatsoeuer is Bel pag. 99. S. Basil in Ethic. defin vlt ad Eustachium â—icdicum extra scripturam out of the Scriptue seeing it is not of faith is sinne And in an other place Let vs stand to the iudgment of Scripture and let the truth be iudged on their side whose doctrine is agreeable to Gods oracles Answer In the first place by extra scripturam he vnderstandeth things contrary to Scripture as in the same place he vnderstandeth with the Apostle by non ex fide things contrary to faith as appeareth both because he saith such things are sinne which is not true of things which are barely beside Scripture as also because he proueth such things to be sinne because they be non ex fide contrary to faith as the Apostle speaketh Rom. 14. v. 23. Beside by Scripture he vnderstandeth al Gods words as vsually we vnderstand the whole by the cheefest part Which may be proued because before he defined faith to be certaine persuasion of Gods vvorde affirmed it to a rise of hearing Gods worde and therupon inferreth what is beside Scripture is not of faith In which illation if he tooke not Scripture for Gods whole worde as he did in the Antecedent he did manifestly paralogize And thus vnderstood he speaketh nothing against Traditions which are part of Gods worde and as him selfe saieth otherwhere of as equal S. Basil lib. de Spir. c. 27. 29. force as the written worde is 14. The second place maketh nothing to the purpose For he biddeth not vs be iudged by only Scripture yea in allowing those opinioÌ„s for true which are agreable to Scripture he insinuateth that to discerne the truth of opinioÌ„s it is not necessary to proue them out of Scripture so they be consonaÌ„t thereto How earnest a defender of Traditions S. Basil was appeareth lib. de spir c. S. Basil 29 I thincke quoth he it an Apostolical thing to sticke vnto Traditions not written and c. 27. Some doctrine vve haue by writing some vve receaued of the Apostles Tradition and both haue equal force to piety Nor any contradicteth these marke Bel vvho neuer so slenderly haue experienced the rights of the Church And c. 10. he writeth That Hereticks abolish Apostolical Tradition A Trick of Heretiks to reiect tradition Bel pag 99. S. Hierom. and reiect vvritten testimonyes of Fathers as of no account 15. The last Father he citeth is S. Hierom out of whom he alleadgeth three places The first is in math 23. This because it hath no authority from Scripture is as easely reiected as it is affirmed The second is in psal 86. where vpon that verse Dominus narrabit in scripturis populorum he saith God vvil shew not by worde but by Scripture that excepting the Apostles what is said afterward shal haue no authority The third place is in Hierem. c. 4. That we must not follow the error of our Auncestors or parents
conuinceth that we can doe it without deadly breaking it As for our confession we doe not confesse that our daylie offences are most great faults but daily confesse our most great fault whether it were done then or before Besides that humble and penitent mindes accompt themselues greatest sinners and their offences greatest faults So S. Paul 1. Timoth 1. v. 15. accounted S. Paul himselfe the chiefest sinner Yea good souls as S. Gregory saith acknowledge sinne where S. Gregor epist ad August Cant. cap. 10. Iob cap. 9. S. Gregor in Psalm 4. Paenitent none is and with Iob feare al their works And as the same holy Doctour noteth the reprobate accompt great sinns litle and the elect litle sinns grear and which before they thought were light straight they abhor as heauy and deadly And S. Hierom S. Hieron epist ad â—â—lant obserueth that it increaseth warines to take heed of litle sinnes as if they were great For with so much the more facility we abstaine from any sinne by how much more we feare it 6. And hence Bel may see why we in dayly confessions confesse our most great fault which I would God he would imitate and both confesse and amend his heynous fault of sinning against the holy Ghost and impugning the Catholique Church which he knoweth to be Gods Church Otherwise let him assure himselfe that shame wil be his end in this life and endles punishment his reward in the next Wel he may beat against this rocke but like the waues he shal without hurting it beat himselfe in pieces and be resolued into froth and foame Let him write books let him spend himselfe and make nets with the Spider of his owne guts they wil proue only spider webbes apt to cath or holde none but such as like inconstant and fleshly flyes are carrayed about with euery mynde of new doctrine and following their carnal appetites and licentiousnes seaze vpon fleshly baite And so Bel though he could become an other God Bel he should but be Beel zebub the God of flies Be myndful therfore Bel from whence thou art fallen and do penance Apocalip 2. FINIS Al praise to Almightie God A TABLE Of the things coÌ„teined in this booke vvherin a signifyeth article c. chapter and parag paragraph ADDITION of one tradition as much forbidden as of many ar 7. c. 2. parag 1. Addition to Scripture which forbidden which not ar 7. c. 2. pareg Anomia how it may signify transgression of the law ar 6. c. 2. parag 2. Antichrists true hinderance meant by S. Paul ar 1. c. 9. parag 4. Antichrists hinderance not taken away in Pipius tyme a. 1. c. 9. parag 3. Angles falsly charged by Bel art 5. c. 5. parag 6. S. Antonin falsly charged by Bel art 3. c. 1. parag 1. and 13. Apostataes may teach true doctrine art 7. c. 10 parag 9. Apostles Creed conserued by Tradition art 7. c. 9. parag 4. S. Athanasius explicated and his reuerence of Traditions art 7. c. 4. parag 9. S. Austin as a Christian said he wold not beleeue the Ghospel without the Church art 7. c. 9. parag 22. Sainct Austin wold not beleeue Maniche though he had had expresse Scripture ar 7. c. 9. parag 24. S. Austin how he compared Concupiscence with blindnes of hart art 4. c. 3. parag 1. S. Austins opinion of habitual Concupiscence art 4. c. 1. parag 18. S. Austins opinioÌ„ of inuoluntary motions art 4. c. 1. parag 13. S. Austin preuented Bels obiections art 4. c. 1. parag 18. S. Austin how he meant that we loue not God altogether art 8. c. 4. parag 2. S. Austin how he called our keeping the commaundements defectuous art 8. c. 1. parag 9. S. Austins teuerence and rule to know Traditions art 7. c. 4. parag 3. S. Austin said the Apostles eat bread our lord art 2. c. 5. parag 8. S. Austin said Iudas eat our price art 2. c. 5. paragr 8. S. Austin why he said Iudas eat bread of our lord art 2. c. 5. parag 8. S. Austin wold not credit the Scripture if the Catholiques were discredited art 7. c. 9. parag 22. S. Austin and S. Prosper Papists out of Bel. art 2. c. 4. parag 13. B. S. Basil explicated and his reuerence of Traditions art 7. c. 4. parag 13. S. Bede a Papist art 4. c. 4. parag 4. Bellarmins doctrin of merit the common doctrin of Catholiques a. 5. c. 6 parag 9. Beleefe in al points not prescribed at once art 7. c. 2. parag 7. Bel a right Apostata from Preisthood art 1. c. 9. parag 31. Bel against Caluin art 5. c. 2. parag 3. Bel admitteth Tradition a. 7. c. 9. parag 811. Bels answer about Tradition of the bible refuted art 7. c. 9. parag 5. Bel admitteth venial sinns art 6. c. 1. parag 1. Bels beleefe of venial sinne beside Gods booke art 6. c. 1. parag 2. Bel a Papist by his owne iudgement art 4. c. 1. parag 10. Bel against al Gods Church which liued in the first 200. years art 7. c. 10. parag 2. Bel alleadgeth authority against him selfe a. 7. c. 10. parag 5. Bel answereth not to the purpose art 7. c. 9. parag 7. Bels argument returned vpon him self art 2. c 6. parag 3. Bels blasphemy against God art 8. c. 2. parag 1. against his Church a. 7. c. 9. par 5. against iustification a. 4. c. 2. parag 1. Bels blasphemy accursed by S. Hierom art 8. c. 2. parag 1. Bels blindnes discouered art 1. c. 9. parag 6. Bel bound to recant art 3. c. 1. parag 13 a. 2. c 5. parag 9. Bels buckler the Princes sword art 1. c 1. parag 10. Bels challeng is Bellarmins obiections art 4. c. 3 parag 2. Bels complaint against Catholiques art 5. c 1 parag 1 Bel condemneth as blasphemy in the Pope which he iudgeth treason to deny to Princes art 1. c. 9. parag 23 Bels contradictions arâ— 1. c. 5. parag 4. c. 8. parag 5 a. 2. c 2. parag 4. a. 4 c 1. parag 12. 13. c. 2. parag 6. art 5. c. 3 parag 3. c. 5. parag 7. art 7. c. 7 parag 19 art 8. c. 1. parag 5 7. c. 2. par 4. Bâ—l câ—rrupted Scripture art 7. c. 2. parag 8 c. 7. parag 3. 12. corrupteth S. Ambros art 7 c. 4. parag 1â— Bel cursed of S. Paul by his owne iudgement art 7. c. 9 parag 8. Bel discredited him selfe art 1. chap. 9. parag 10. Bels dissimulation art 1. c. 1. parag 1. a 2. c 1. par 5 art 3. c. 1 parag 2. Bâ—l denyeth deuine faith to proceed from mans teaching art 7. c. 9 parag 20. Bel disproueth him self art 5. c. 6. parag 6. art 4. c. 1. parag 17. Bel exceedeth Pelagius art 7. c. 7. parag 1. Bels faith grownded vpon reason art 2. c. 1. parag 7. Bel slenderly grownded in faith art 2. c. 5. parag 6. Bels false translation art 2. c. 3. parag 8. c. 4. parag 13 a. 4 c. 2. parag 4. 7. 10. c. 5.
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.
Iohannes Six emprisoned 9. Paschorlis 2. Boniface 8. Vrbanus 6. Clement 7. besyd Sergius 1. others whom they attempted to imprison They haue deposed as much as they could sixteene vz. Iohannes 12. al. 13. Benedict 5 Gregory 5. Benedict Sixteene deposed 8. and 9. Alexander 2. Gregory 6. and 7. Gelasius 2. Innocent 2. Alexander 3 Iohn 22. Vrban 6. Martin 5. by Alphons King of Arragon Platin. in Alexand. 3. Liberality of Popes tovvards England Stovve an 1171. Polidorus lib. 16. Comin ventura in relation de Napoli VVhen vvould Luther and Caluin haue giuen three Kingdomes to England Eugen. 4. by procurement of Philip Duke of Millen Iulius 2. whereas on the contrary side to omit spiritual benefits Popes haue bestowed the Empire vpon almost al them Emperours whom they deposed and haue refused to take the Empire from the Germans though they haue bene much sollicited thereto by the Grecians and to let passe their liberality to other Princes they haue bestowed the Kingdome of Ireland vpon Henry the second and of Naples and Sicily vpon Henry 3. and the most honourable title of defender of the faith vpon Henry 8. Kings of England hereby may the indifferent reader euen setting aside the iustice of the cause and considering only the fact clearly perceaue whether Christian Emperours and Princes haue more tiranized ouer Popes then Popes ouer them now let vs come to Bels proofe of his ould slaunder here againe renued of the Popes taking vpon them power proper to God alone 28. A Closse saith he affirmeth the Pope Bel pag. 14. Gloss lib. 1. tit 7. c. 3. to haue celestial arbitrement to be able to alter the nature of things applying the substance of one to an other and to make something of nothing and the Pope saith Bel is wel pleased there with Answer As for the Pope being pleased with the foresaid words it is more then Bel knoweth but sure I am he detesteth them if they be meant of power to create or proper to God alone But wel I see that which doth not displease Bel if it be giuen to Princes he condemneth as intolerable blasphemie if it be attributed to Popes For the foresaid words are al in the ciuil lawe and by the Emperours applied either to them selues or to the Pope as the Emperours Gratian Valentinian and Theodosius de sum Three Emperours say the P. hath celestial arbitrement Trin. lib. 1. affirme the Popes to haue celestial arbitrement and condemne them as infamous hereticks who follow not the religion of Pope Damasus and his arbitrement in spiritual matters may be called heauenlie because his authority therein came from heauen That of altering the nature of things and applying the substance of one to an other the Emperour Iustinian C. communia de leg lib. 2. applieth to him selfe Of vvhat things Popes or Princes can alter the nature and meaneth of ciuil contracts as legacis and feoffees in trust which by his imperial power he can alter and change and the like power saith the glosse hath the Pope in contracts pertayning to spiritual matters But of altering the nature of natural things neither the Emperour nor the glosse dreamed 29. But the words which Bel most vrgeth are that the Pope can make de nihilo aliquid something of nothing For saith he it is a thing proper to God to make something of nothing in al cases and at al tymes But besides that the glosse neither saith that the Pope can make de nihilo aliquid but de nullo aliquid neither yet in al cases and al times as Bel addeth the foresaid words are taken out of Iustinian C. de rei vxor act lib. 1. where the Emperour Of vvhat nothing Popes or Princes can make something saith that because he can make to be accompted a stipulation where none is much more he can an insufficient stipulatiō to be sufficient the like authority in humane contracts touching spiritual matters the glosse attributeth to the Pope this he meant when he said the Pope can de nullo fecere aliquid of no contract make one which Bel would applie to creatiō making creatures of nothing as God made the world 30. Secondlie he proueth his slaunder out of Gersons rep ort before answered and thirdlie out of Gregory 9. saying Ad firmamentum Gregor 9. lib. 1. de cre◠tit 33. c. 6. Caeli c. to the firmament of heauen that is of the vniuersal church God made two lights Pontifical authority and power Roial that we may knowe there is as much difference betweene Pope Kings as bet wixt sunne moone Is here any word of authority belonging to God or yet of deposing Kings but only a cōparison of Pontifical Royal power with the sunne moone allowed by the publique letters VVritten 1279. and one extāt in Baron tom 10. an 996. Matth. 16. vers 19. 18. Iob. 21. v. 15. 16. Act. 20. v. 18. Matth. 28. v. 19. of three Princes electors and a preferring of the Pontifical before the Royal which if Bel had any feeling of Christianity in him he would not deny Is not the loosing and binding of sinns in heauen earth of preaching the ghospel admnistring the sacraments of feeding Christs sheepe and the like which belongeth to Bishops as is euident out of scripture far more excellent then Royal power which as wel woemen and children as men infidels as Christians may haue 31. The sunne moone are of the same Royal povver far inferour to Pontifical nature and quality differing only in more or lesse light but Royal power is both of nature and quality far inferiour to Pontifical thas is more humane and begun by Constantin called Bishops Gods and professed him self vnder them Ruffin lib. 1. hist c. 2. men this supernatural and instituted by God that common to Infidels this proper to christians that passeth not earth this reacheth to heauen that concerneth only the body this the soule that helpeth men to worldhe and transitorie quietnes this to heauenlie and euerlasting rest Bel could not abide Pope Gregory saying Pontifical authority excelled Royal as far as the sunne excelleth the moone nor the glosse saying it excelled it 47. times how then wil he abide S. Chrisostom saying it excelleth the kingdome Chrisost l. 3. de sacerd Ambros lib. de dignit sacerd c. 2. as much as the soule douth the body or S. Ambrose saying that nothing can be equal to Pontifical dignity and that Royal glorie and Princes crownes are far more inferiour to it then lead is to glistering gould And againe nothing in this world is more Ibid. cap. 3. excellent then priests nothing higher then Bishops or S. Ignatius saying that nothing is more honourable Ignat. epist ad Smirnenscs in the church then Bishops and that we owe the first honour to God the second to Bishops the third to Kings he exclamed against the glosse for affirming the Pope
the body of Christ but improperly wherefore it is said after it manner but not in the truth of the thinge but in the thing signified that this may be the sense it is called Christs body that is to say it signifieth his body These saith Bel are golden wordes as God would by pens of Papists deliuered 13. I accept his confession First then S. Cratian de consecrat d. 2. can Hoc est Austin and S. Prosper are Papists for as Gratian out of whom the decree is takeÌ„ testifieth the words of the Decree were first deliuered by S. Austins pen and after recorded S. Austin and S. Prosper Papists Sacrificing of flesh by Priests haÌ„ds allovved by Bel. 2 False translat by S. Prosper Secondly I hope Bel hereafter wil allowe of sacrificinge or offering flesh by the hands of the priests because these are part of the golden wordes of that decree For this so gentle confession I wil dissemble with a litle fault of Bels translatinge quod visible quod palpabale mortale in cruce positum est Thus which is visible palpable mortal nayled on the crosse When he shoud haue said which being visible palpable mortal was nailed on the crosse Now let vs heare what he gathereth out of the aforesaid words to the confusion as he saith of Papists but he should haue said to his owne 14. 1. That the blessed bread of the Eucharist is pag. 27. called the Body of Christ What is here against Papists who willingly so cal it but rather against Protestants who seldom or neuer cal it so 2. That it is also called the passion and 37. vntruth death of Christ This is an vntruth for not bread of the Eucharist but the sacrificing of flesh with Priests hands is so called 3. That it is not Christs body truely This is most true for the bread or rather the forme therof in the Eucharist is not Christs body truely properly 4. That it is Christs body as the Sacrament of Baptisme is fayth This is nothing against vs who confesse bread or rather the forme therof called bread because it so seemeth to sense to be but a Sacrament of Christs body 15. 5. That it is not Christs body in truth but in signification This S. Austin saith not but onely that the oblation of the flesh of Christ by the priest is his death and passion not truly but in a mistery signifyinge his death which maketh nothing against vs or to this purpose The glosse in deede saith that the Sacrament is not Christs body in truth but in signification and the same say al Chatholiques namely Bellarmin Bellarm. l. 1. de Eucha c. 14. The Sacrament of the Eucharist is not Christs body but contayneth Christs body for a Sacrament is asensible signe and this sensible signe of bread and wine is that which the glosse sayd is not in truth Christs body but is improperly so called which is so far from being the vpshot of the controuersy or not admitting any solution as Bel fondly boasteth as in mans sight that Bel pag. 27. hath eyes it requireth no solution For who wil thinke that one denieth Christs body to be truely in the Sacrament because he denieth the Sacrament which is the sensible signes of bread and wine to be truly his body So Bel may gather that a body containeth not a soule nor a place a body because the continents are not the thing conteyned But saith Bel if Christs body were in the SacrameÌ„t really it should be there in rei veritate truely As if the glosse had denyed that Christ is in the Sacrament in rei veritate Suerly this sheweth that Bel neuer ment to deale in rei veritate And thus much of the 2. member of this Article Now let vs go to the third CHAP. V. Berengarius his Recantation explicated and S. Austins authority answered POPISH decrees saith Bel tel vs a long Bel pag. 28. tale of one Berengarius some tyme Deacon of a church in Gaunt No maruail if this tale seeme long to Bel which recounteth the foyle of his heresie against the real presence Berengar condemned of 113. Bishops Lanfranc de Sacram. Eucharist in Berengarius the first brocher therof in a general councel at Rome vnder Pope Nicholas the second aboute the year of Christ 1060. wher he recanted publikly and as him selfe saith willingly denouncinge al such to deserue eternal curse who denyed Christs body and blood to be really in the Eucharist Bel maketh him Deacon of Gaunt wheras Bel lacketh latin he was Archdeacon of Angiers in France not being able to distinguish Andeauum from Gandauum Angiers from Gaunt and because he abiured his heresie Bel termeth him a silly Deacon though his brother Buckly cal him an excellent and holy man In deed Bucleis ansvver to 8. reasons p. 62. he found more mercy at Gods hands then I read of any Arch-hereticke and dyed a penitent Catholike For dying on twelf day said as Malmesbur an English author Malmesbur l. 3. histor Angl. in Gabriel 1. p. 114. at that tyme writeth In this day of his apparition my lord Iesus wil appeare to some to glory as I hope for my repentance or to punishment as I feare for others seduced The like repentance I pray God send to Bel ere he dye that as he hath imytated Berengarius in heresie and in abiuration also of it at Rome if I be not deceaued he may likewise imitate him in repentance and penance 2. But because Berengarius in his recantation which was afterward put amongst Distinct 2. â—it the Decrees professed that Christ in the Eucharist sensualiter manibus sacerdotum tangitur frangitur dentibus fidelium atteritur is sensibly touched with hands of Priests broken and chewed with the teeth of the faithful Bel exclaymeth mightely calling his recantation but yet without al proofe cruel barbarous villanous blasphemous and horrible impietie Gladly he would haue the reader beleeue that Catholiques professe Christs body to be in it selfe broken and torne in peeces one member from an other though him selfe soone after not only alleadge Bellarmin to the contrary but confesse also that by the Popes p. 29. doctrin Christs body can not be broken or torne truely and in deed and cite the Glosse vpon the said decree saying that it were a worse pag. 30. heresie to thinke we made parts of Christ then to deny him to be in the sacrament And this is euident by the Masse it selfe where we say Christ nether broken nor deuided is receaued Missa de corpore Christi whole and no cuttinge is of the thing the breach is onely in the signe 3. Neuertheles Christs body is said to be toucht broken and chewed in the Eucharist because the signe of bread in which it really is is so vsed As God is said to haue bene crucified because the humanitie in which he was was so handled and Christ touched when his garment was
Aug. lib. 2. cont Crescon cap. 26. to 7. Apoc. 22. v. 8. c. 19. v 10. S. August q. 61. in Gen. â—â— 4. Genes 29. v. 24. sinneth therin greeuously but the people worshiping erroniously vpon inuincible ignorance offend no more then did S. Ihon when he worshiped an Angel as God thinking as saith S. Austin it had bene God him self or as did Iacob when he lay with Lia who was not his wife thinking verely it had bene his wife Rachel But to say that there is no consecration when the Priest omitteth any word at al or miscalleth any words so as the sense be not altered thereby is not Catholique doctrin but Bels vsual false dealing 9. His last contradiction is that vvhen pag. 34. many Priests are made together in Rome they al pronounce the vvords of consecration This is true but what then Papists saith he can not tel hovv many Gods or hovv many times God is made in a peece of bread O accusator fratrum Where didest thou heare of many Gods amongest Papists Where of making of God we say after S. Hierom and S. S. Hieron eâ—ist ad Helâ—odor S. Pontian epist 1. Decretali Pontian that Priests conficiuni Corpus Christi make Christs body but dreame not of making God These be the slanders malitiously obiected to Catholikes against thine owne knowledge and Conscience But where is the contradiction Forsooth because Inocentius hâ—ldeth that al such Priests do consecrate Durand thinketh that he only who first pronounceth the words and Caietan is of an other opinion I graunt these contradict one an other But what is this to the Massâ— are these contradictions in it You promised to shew vs Bel deceaueth his Reader contradictions in â—he Masse and twise you haue told vs of durand Caietans contradictions as often of other matters which had no shew of Contradiction Besides that the matter in which these three Authors contradict one an other is no point of faith For with Catholiques it is no more matter of faith whether al the said Priests or one only consecrate then it is with Protestants whither al or one should christen a child if many at once should dippe him into the font pronounce the words of Baptisme So the letter be wel sealed it skilleth not whither one or many be thought to make the print when many together put their hands to the seale 10. But if Bel when he looked vpon the Masse booke had looked on his communion booke and with the like eyes and affection Gilby admonition to England and Scotland fol. 70. he should haue found other stuffe in it then he did in the Masse For besyde that it is made out of our breuiary and Missal wherupon Gilby called King Edward the sixt his booke an English mattins patched forth of the Popes Portesse more then a thousand Ministers whome the vniuersity of Oxford acknowledged to be Ansvver to the PetitioÌ„ their brethren and fellow laborers in the Lords haruest in their petition exhibited Exhibited in April 1603. to his Maiesty say that they groan vnder a burden of humaine rites and ceremonies finde enormities in their Church discipline A thousand ministers censure of the communion booke and in their Churches seruice want of vniformity of doctrin Popish opinions and honor prescribed to the name of Iesus with diuers abuses which they are able say they to shew not to be agreable to Scripture Thus Syr haue your owne ministers deminished the credit of your communion booke And Reynolds an excellent ornament saith Ansvver to 8. reasons Confer p. 63. 86. pag. 25. pag. 59. Buckley in the conference at Hampton court 1. proued the communion booke to contradict twise the Byble the Bishops were faine to amend it 2. he argued it to contradict the 25. Article of their faith 3. to conteyne manifest errors directly repugnant to Scripture 4. he requested it to be pag. 23. fitted to more encrease of piety 5. professeth that vrging men to subscribe vnto it pag. 58. is a great impeachment to a learned ministery wherof he giueth diuers reasons as the repugnancy therin to Scripture the corruption of Scripture the interrogatories and ceremonies in baptisme and certayne D. Râ—inolds censure of the communion booke words in matrimony Thus syr the excellent ornament of your Church hath adorned your communion booke and this black verdict hath he giuen therof 11. And if I should but reckon the contradictions Protestants contradictioÌ„s about their communion in Protestants doctrin about the Eucharist I shold neuer make an end only I wil requite Bel with some few 1. how Christs body saith Willet shold be verily 1. VVillet Tetrostyl col 2. part 3. p. 82. present and yet not really Can there be verum and not res or ens vere and not realiter 2. how there can be a real presence 2. Perkins Reform Cath. p. 185. 189. of Christ in the Sacrament as saith Perkins and yet Christ no otherwise present then a thing to it name 3 How God giueth Christ 3. Perkins sup in this Sacrament saith the same Minister as really and truly as any thing can be giuen to man and yet he is giuen by only faith 4. 4. Caluin 4. instit c. 17. paragr 10. How as Caluin teacheth the Eucharist is no empty signe but hath the verity of the thing vnited to it and yet Christ is only in heauen 5. How there is saith Caluin 5. Caluin sup parag 19. 15. a true and substantial communication of Christs body and blood in the Eucharist and yet Christ no more there then he was 6. Sainctes de Euchar. repetit 6. c. 1. p. 208. Mich. Fabrit ep de Beza in the Sacraments of the Iews which were before his body was any substance 6. How Christs body is truely really and substancially in the Eucharist as Beza wrote in his confession exhibited to the Count Palatine and vttered publikly in the disputation at Surius An. 1556. Poysi and yet withal as far from the Eucharist as heauen from earth Surely such fellows as these haue yea no in their religion 2. Cor. 1. v. 17. 2. Cor. 4. v. 2. or els walking in craftines adulterat as the Apostle speaketh Gods worde For if their words be vnderstood as they signify purport they include manifest contradiction and thus much of the second Article VVherfore be myndful Apotal Bel from wheÌ„ce thou are fallen and do penance Apoc. 2. THE THIRD ARTICLE OF THE POPES DISPENSATIONS CHAP. I. BEL beginneth this Article as he did Bel pag. 36. the two former with vntruthes and dissimulatioÌ„s His vntruths appeare in that he chargeth S. Antonin and Austin of Ancona Antonin 3. part tit 22. c. 5. parag 8. vntruth 42. vntruth 43. with teaching the Pope to haue equal powre with God Because S. Antonin writeth That seeing the Pope is Christs vicar none can lawfully withdraw him self from his
of Protestants touched in their late Conference of dissention amongst them gathered out of the conference at Hampton court as 1 whether baptisme by vvoemen be allowable pag. 8. 14. 15. 17. 18. 2. vvhether confirmation be lawful pag. 10. 3. vvhether baptisme be necessary pag. 16. 4. vvhether after receauing the holy Ghost we may totally depart from grace pag. 28. 5. vvhether the communion booke contradict the 15. article of their faith pag. 25. 6. vvhether there ought to be any Bishops pag. 36. 7. vvhether the intention of the Minister be essential to the Sacrament pag. 38. 8. vvhether a man once iustifyed remaine truly iust before God whatsoeuer sinne he commit pag. 41. and 14. 9. vvhether a iustifyed man falling into greeuous sinnes shal be saued without repentance for them 16. 10. vvhether the English Byble be truly translated pag. 45. 46. 11. vvhether the communion booke corrupt the Byble in two places pag. 63. 12. vvhether the Crosse be to be vsed in baptisme pag. 65. 13. VVhether the Church can institute an external significant signe pag. 67. 14. vvhether the Churches institution can bynde in conscience pag. 70. 15. VVhether the communion booke containe errors repugnant to Scripture pag. 59. 8. Moreouer more then a thousand Ministers In their Supplicatiō exhibited in April 1603. Ansvver to the Supplication whom the whole vniuersity of Oxford calleth their brethren and fellovv laborers in the Lords haruest in the supplication to his Maiestie exhibited in April 1603 professe That there is not in their Church an vniformity of doctrin This the Oxonians deny against their owne knowledge and the knowlege of al England For what vniformity is there where a thousand Ministers their fellow laborers professe them selues to disagree in points of religion from the rest yea his Maiestie witnesseth him selfe to haue receaued Conference p. 5. 22. many complaints through the dissentions in the Church and purposeth as he saith to setle an vniforme order through the vvhole Church and to plant vnity Wil now the Oxonians say there are no dissentions wil they make his Maiestie actum agere in setling vniformity and planting vnity where none wanteth And in like sort of the Scottish Church he testifyeth That there is such dissention euen in Conference p. 44. the Catachisme doctrin as vvhat vvas Catachisme dostrin in one congregation vvas scarsly accepted as sound and orthodox in an other And this dissention amongst Protestants about matters of religion is with such obstinacy as notwithstanding proclamations disputations conferences and decrees or Canons of their Church it remaineth stil amongst them and wil as long as heresy remayneth in them which teacheth them to expound Scriptures according to their priuate spirits and to recant nothing because as his Maiestie Conference p 102. saith of the Scottish Ministers it standeth not vvith their credits 9. The fourth note which Bel gathereth out of S. Thomas his words is more to the purpose vz. That motions of concupiscence preuenting reason are venial sinnes But if Bel had amongst his important obseruations obserued also that S. Thomas spake immediatly before of deliberate reason he might haue noted that he meant only of such motions as preuent perfect but not imperfect deliberation and therfore are as he saith imperfect or venial sinnes VVherfore be myndful Bel from vvhence thou art falne and do penance Apocalip 2. THE FIFT ARTICLE OF THE MERIT OF GOOD WORKES CHAP. I. Of the Protestants enmity to good vvorks and friendship vvith euil BEL beginneth this Article Bel pag. 60. with a greeuous complaint against Papists who saith he most vnchristianly slander the professors of Christs Ghospel as though they vvere enemies to good vvorks of vvhich they thinke speak teach and vvrite more christianly and more religiously then Papists do Both these points he proueth no otherwise then with an I say I say saith he that good vvorks though they can not go before yet do euer follovv iustification are necessary to saluation and true effects of predestination As if Bel were al the new Ghospellers or they al agreed with him concerning good works We alleadge their words produce their deeds shew the fruits and effects of their enmity to good works and Bel thinketh to answer al this with an I say Surely he presumeth of beneuolous and partial iudges or he wold neuer answer thus He with an I say may slāder Popes Princes Papists whatsoeuer and an I say yea manifest proofe to the contrary wil not suffice him Such force his I sayes haue Dixit facta sunt But Syr I both say wil proue by words and deeds that both you and your Ghospellers are not only enemies to good works but great frends to euil works And as for enmity to good works 2. First they bid vs beware of good works Let vs bevvare saith Luther of sinne Luther sermon de nouo testamēto seu de Missa Colloquiū Attenburg but much more of lawes and good works And some of his schollers in the conference of Altenburg teach vs to pray that we perseuer vnto the end in faith vvithout good vvorks 2. they teach good works to be harmful Good vvorks said the forsaid Lutherans are pernitious to saluation Againe Christians vvith good vvorks belong to Sathan And as Surius Surius comment Ann. 1564. Staphil in Apolog. Staphilus and others report a Minister was not allowed in Saxony because he beleeued not this 3. because they say al good works are sinne and vnciean so Luther art 23. Caluin 3. instit c. 14. parag 9. 11. c. 15. parag 3. and 4. whitaker contr Durae l. 1. p. 49. Bucley answer to 8. reasons p. 111. and 109. Perkins tit of merit and Bel art 4. pag. 48. teacheth that sinne is alwaies annexed to Epicur◠vvold seeme to loue vertue though he made pleasure his end good works 4. They teach that good works of their nature deserue damnation There was neuer saith Caluin lib. 3. instit c. 14. parag 11. any work of a godly man which if it were examined by Gods seuere iudgment were not damnable How can Protestants Habentes speciem pietatis virtutem autem eius abnegantes 2. Timoth 4. v. 5. now be friēds to good workes which they bid beware of account hurtful sinne and damnable Surely their friendship can be no better then Ioabs was to Amasa when he kissed him but withal thrust his dagger into his body 2. Reg. 20. 3. And on the contrary side their friendship Frendship of Protestants to euil vvorks to euil works is manifest 1. because they teach that euil works make not an euil man nor any can damne a man but incredulity this Luther teacheth in plaine Luther tearms lib. de libert Christian and lib. de capt Babil c. de baptis 2. because they make God author of sinne Zuinglius saith Zvvinglius sermon de Prouidentia ad Principem Cattorum 1530. c. 5. Caluin in playne termes maketh God author of sinne
That no points of Christian faith nor that al can not by some way or other be proued by some similitude congruity or probable illation nor that immediatly by testimony of the Church whose testimony in al doctrine of faith can be immediatly proued out of Scripture But only deny that al can be immediatly proued out of scripture by the very words of Scripture and so sufficiently as it sufficeth to captiuate our vnderstanding Articles 39 decreed by Bishops and Ministers 1562. and 1571. into obedience of faith This is directly against the sixt Article of Protestants faith and against Bel in this whole Article But I prooue it as I did the former conclusion For there is no place of al the Scripture which sufficiently proueth al the test Al thinges can not be taken out of Scripture Epiphan haer 61. to be Canonical our B. Lady to be a perpetual virgin and the Sabbath to be lawfully translated from Saterday to Sunday And it shal be more euident out of that which we shal say of Traditions and in answer to Bels arguments For the present it sufficeth that it is so cleare as our very aduersaries do somtime confesse it As See Couel art 4. p. 31. Hooper vvith him Bel p. 134. 135. Luther See Roffens con Luther verit 4. Bellarm. lib. 4. de verb. Dei c. 4. col 164. Luther certaine of Purgatory Bel pag. 134. and 135. art 7. admitteth one point of faith which is not in the Bible professeth that they meane not of it when they say al things necessary to saluation are contained in Scriptures And Luther art 37. said That purgatory can not be proued out of Scripture and yet in the assertion of the same he said That he was certaine there was Purgatory nor cared much what Hereticks babled to the contrary Now let vs come to Bels obiections which albeit for the most part be against Traditions yet because the matters of sufficiency of Scripture and of Traditions are connexed and because we wil keepe his order as much as we can we wil here answer them in that order as they are propunded by him CHAP. II. Bels arguments out of the oulde Testament concerning the sufficiency of Scripture ansvvered Bel citeth dyuers places which make Bel pag. 86. 87. 88. 89. nothing for absolute sufficiency of Scriptures or against Traditions but only bid vs obey and follow the law as Iosue 1. v. 7. and 23. v. 6. Malach. 4. v. 4. omitting therfore these places I answer to other as Deuter. 4. v. 2. and Prouerb 30. v. 6. where God forbiddeth vs to adde to his worde and Deuter. 12. v. 32. where we are bidden to doe to the lorde onely that which he commandeth without adding or taking avvay First that these places make as much against Protestants as Catholicks For they admit one vnwritten Tradition as Bel confesseth and appeareth Bel p. 134. 135. Brent in prolegom Kemnit in examin Conc. Trid. by Brentius Kempnitius the Deane of the chappel and the places cyted by Bel forbid as wel the adding of one thing as of many to Gods worde 2. Secondly I answer that they make nothing against these Traditions which Bel impugneth vz. such as are necessary to Bel pag 86. in praesat Articuli mans saluation for such are indeed Gods worde though vnwritten For the two first places only forbid adding to Gods worde any thing of our owne head or which is mans worde as may be proued First by the reason of the forbiddance prouerb 30. cit vz. least we be disproued and fownde lyers as no doubt we might by adding mans worde which is subiect to lye but not by adding Gods Worde which can neuer proue vntrue though it be not written Secondly because the Iewes did euer adde one thing to Gods written worde as Bel confesseth Conference at Hampton Court p 68. pag. 134. and the Deane of the chappel affirmed they added both signes and words vnto the institution of the Passouer prescribed vnto them by Moyses which addition and Tradition of Ievves added signes and vvords to Gods vvord and their addition confirmed by Christ. theirs saith he was approued by our Sauiour at his last supper And this doctrine was exceeding wel liked in the conference at Hampton Court Thirdly because the Prophets and Euangelists did adde to Moyses law without breaking of the commādement in the aforesaid places 3. Bel answereth That the doctrine of the Bel pag. 89. Prophets is nothing els but an explication of the law But if by the worde explication he vnderstand only such as adde nothing to the sense or meaning of the law but only explicate in other words types or figures the bare meaning of the law he speaketh most absurdly For beside that it is spoken without any reason at al it is against reason and sense to say that al the books of Iosue Iudges Kings and Prophets adde no sense to the law of Moyses For where doth the law of Moyses tel vs of euery worde or action of euery particuler man or woeman recorded in the books of the oulde Testament written since the law was giuen where is euery worde or deede of euery perticuler person in the new Testament And although dyuers actions of Christ especially his death and passion was prefigured in the law yet the like can not be thought of euery action or speech of euery perticuler person so that the words or figures of Moyses law actually tolde whatsoeuer perticuler things ether Prophets or Euangelists euer wrote Wherfore S. Austin S. Austin lib. 1. retract c. 22. recalled what he had said lib. cont Adimant c. 3. That al the precepts and promises in the new Testament are in the oulde For certaine precepts there be saith he not figured but proper which are not found in the oulde Testament but in the new And for this cause Tertullian lib. cont Hermog Tertullian called the Ghospel a supply of the oulde Testament 4. But if Bel by the word explication Hovv traditions are explicatiōs of the lavv comprehend al such additions as though they adde to the sense and meaning of the law yet are ether of their nature or of the intention of the adder referred to the better vnderstanding comprehension and fulfilling of the law as al the reasons similitudes comparisons examples and sentences in an oration are explications of the theame therof because though they adde sense to the sense of the theam yet they al tend to the perfect comprehension of the theame I graunt al the writings of Prophets and Apostles to be explications of the law as hath bene explicated in the second conclusion Chapt. 1. parag 7. 8. but withal adde that the Traditions of the Church are such like explications For what they containe is in like sort referred as a meane to the end to the perfect vnderstanding and fulfilling of the said law and so they are no other additions
to 1. S. Paul and corrected this error so I would wish Bel to do His third place is 2. Timoth 3. v. 15. Holy scriptures are able to make thee vvise to saluation This maketh not against vs. both Hovv Scriptures are able to make men vvise to saluation because we deny not that Scripturs are able to make men wise to saluation but only deny that they alone do it As also because we graunt they actually conteine whatsoeuer is necessary to euery mans saluation and vertually whatsoeuer els And lastly because the forsaid words are meant only of the old Testament which S. Timothy saith S. Paul there Had learned from his infancy which alone being not as Protestants confesse absolutly sufficient so as we may reiect the new testament they can not therof inferre Scripture to be so absolutly sufficient as that we may reiect Traditions Now let vs come to his proofs out of Fathers which particulerly proceed against Traditions CHAP. IIII. Bels arguments out of Fathers touching sufficiency of Scripture and Traditions ansvvered VIncentius lyrin who lyued in S. Austins Vincent Lyrin con haereses tyme Writeth That he enquiring of many holy and learned men How he should escape heresy they al answered him by sticking to Scripture and the Churches Traditions And. S. S. Ireney lib. 3. c. â— Ireney writeth of him selfe that by traditions of the Church of Rome he confounded al those that teach otherwise then they should No maruel therfore if Bel being desyrous noâ— to escape but to spread heresy and loth to be Ould heretiks detest traditions S. Iren. Tortullian S. Hilarie S. Augustin c. 1. to 6. S. Epiphan confownded do with the olde hereticks Marcionits and Valentinians ex Iren l. 3. c. 2. and Tertul. de praescrip with the Ari ans ex Hilario l. cont Constant August l. 1. contr Maximin with the Aerians ex Epipha her 75. with the Ennomians ex Basil l. de spir sanct c. 27. 29. with the S. Basil Nestorians and Eutichians ex 7. Synod 7. Synod act 1. impugne Traditions And let not the Reader maruel that Bel bringeth the words of dyuers Fathers against Traditions which almost al are obiections taken out of Bellarmin Bollarm lib. 4. de verbo Dei c. 11. For they make no more for his purpose then the words of Scripture did for the Diuel or Iewes when they alleadged them Math. 4. v. 6. Ioan. 12. v. 34. against Christ And we Wil bring such expresse words of the same Fathers for Traditions as shal cleare al suspition and can admit no solution 2. First he cyteth Dionis Areopag saiing Bel pag. 94. S. Dionys de diu nom c. 1. vve must nether speake nor thinke any thing of the Deity praeter ea beside those things vvhich Scriptures haue reuealed I might except that Protestants deny Dionis Areopag to be Centur. CeÌ„t. 1. lib. 1. c. 10. Luther Caluin ex Bellarm. l. 2. de Monachis c. 5. author of those bookes but I neede not For the words make nothing to the purpose both because they forbid only speaking or thincking of the Deity beside that which Scripture reuealeth as also because by praeter he vnderstaÌ„deth not euery thing out of Scripture els we should not vse the words Trinity and Consubstantiality but only such as are quite beside and neither actually nor vertually are conteined in Scripture But let S. Dionis tel plainly his owne minde concerning Traditions Those first Captaines saith he and Princes of our Hierarchy haue S. Dionys l. de ecclesiastic Hierarch c. 1. deliuered vnto vs diuyne and immaterial matters partly by written partly by their vnvvritten institutions How could Apostolical Traditions be more plainly auouched 3. Two places Bel bringeth out of S. Austin S. Augustin 2. de doct Christian c. 6. 2. de peccat mer. remiss â— vlt. which because we alleadged them in cap. 1. conclus 2. and proue no more then is there taught I omit And as for S. Austin he not only auoucheth Apostolical Traditions epist 118. but de Genes ad litt l. 10. c. 23. tom 3. professeth that baptisme of infants were not to be beleeued if it were not an Apostolical tradition and obiecteth them against the Pelagians in lib. cont Iulian. amoni and giueth vs this rule to knowe them If S. Austins rule to knovv Apostolical traditions S. Ireney lib. 3. c. 1. the whole Church obserue them and no Councel appoynted them l. 2. de bapt c. 7. 6. 23 24 S. Ireney he cyteth because he writeth That the Ghospel which the Apostles preached they aftervvard deliuered vnto vs in Scriptures and it is the foundation of our faith These words proue no more then that the Apostles preached not one Ghospel writ an other but one and the selfe same But that euery one of them or any one of them writ euery whit they al preached S. Ireney affirmeth not And his affection to Traditions is euident both out of his words before rehearsed as also lib. 3. c. 4. where he saith we ought to S. Ireney keepe Traditions though the Apostles had written nothing And affirmeth many barbarous nations of his tyme to haue beleeued in Christ keapt the doctrine of saluation and antient Tradition without Scripture 4. The next he produceth is Tertullian â—el pag. 95. Tertul. con Hermogen writing thus I reuerence the fulnes of Scripture which sheweth to me the Maker and the things made And soone after But whither al things were made of subiacent matter I haue no where readde let Hermogenes shoppe shew it written If it be not written let him feare that wee prouided for them that adde or take away Answer Tertullian speaketh of one perticuler matter which the hereticke Hermogenes of his owne head not only without Tradition or Scripture both contrary to both taught of creating the worlde of subiacent matter not of nothing And no maruel if Tertullian said the Scripture was ful in this poynt and required Scripture of Hermogenes for proofe of his heresy being sure he could alleadge no Tradition But for true Traditions Tertullian is so great a manteiner of them as lib. de prescrip he thincketh hereticks ought to be confuted rather by them then by Scripture and other where affirmeth Tertull. lib. de Corona milit lib. 1. cont Marcionem l. 2. ad vxorem diuers things to be practised in the Church as the ceremonies in baptisme signe of the Crosse and such like only by authority of Tradition without al proofe of Scripture vvhere of saith he Tradition is the beginner custome conseruer and faith the obseruer 5. Of S. Cyprian Bel much triumpheth Bel pag. 96. because writing against one particuler Tradition Primo imitare pietatem humilitatemque Cipriani tunc profes consilium Cipriani August lib. 2. cont Crescon cap. 31. to 7. S. Cyptian epist ad Pom peium of not rebaptizing the baptized by hereticks which he thought had
mantein wiues and children And yet Bel wil haue Bel p. 110. him to speake to both sexes as if both sexes had wiues As for woemen and children Hom. 9. ad Coloss hom 37. 1. Cor. he affirmeth That they ought to be instructed of men 6. Secondly he exhorteth not as Protestants do al kind of secular men to wit vnstable as S. Peter calleth them and inconstant S. Peter 2. c. 8. v. 16. in their faith For such are like rather to depraue Scripturs to their perdition as S. Peter testifyeth then to reape good by reading them Thirdly the secular men whom he exhorteth he exhorteth not as Protestants do to the reading equally of al parts of Scripture but especially such as are plaine and easy namely histories as appeareth by these his words 2. Thess hom 3. S. Chrysost But thou vvilt say they are obscure what obscurity is this I pray thee are there not Histories Thou knowest which are cleare what askest thou of the obscure places There are a thousand Histories in Scripture tel me one of them 7. Fourthly he exhorteth them not absolutly as Protestants do in al tymes without regard of any occasion or circumstance but seeing the people of Constantinople to whom he preached giuen as he saith to dissolute life to idlenes to haunting Proaem ep ad Rom. after dishonest shewes and riot for to withdraw them from such vice and to imploy their tyme better he exhorted them to buy Bybles and to read the Scripture and vpon this occasion he said That the Apostle Homil. 9. Coloss cit commanded to read the Scriptures diligently And in like sort seeing their children to haue learnt diuelish songs and dances as Ibid. he tearmeth them for to take such from them he biddeth men to teach them to sing psalmes But how things ought absolutly to proceed he vttereth in these words vnto men vos oportebat duntaxat à nobis institui Ibid. vxores vero à vobis à vobis liberos you ought only to be instructed of vs but your wiues children of you And 1. Corinth hom 37. he saith That S. Paul appointed S Paul men to reach their wiues as indeed he did in these words If they woemen list learne any thing let them aske their ovvne husbands at home 1. Corinth 14. v. 35. And the like he hath 1. Tit. 2. Behould S. Paul bids woemen learne of their husbands Bel bids them read and learne of Scripture let woemen chuse whether they wil follow 8. Fiftly he exhorteth not secular men to read Scriptures with that mynd and A mayne difference betvvixt S. Chrysost and Protestants purpose which Protestants doe to wit vpon curiosity and to become their owne interpreters following their owne priuate spirits and thereby to iudge of the doctrine of the Church and their Pastors whome Christ hath giuen to expound Scripturs lest they shold be carryed away with al wind of doctrine Ephes 4. v. 14. But S. Chrysostoms meaning was that reading Scriptures for their confort as he writeth hom 9. cit in aduersity for auoyding of vice and such like holy purposes they sâ—ould expound them according to their Pastors instruction you saith See S. Chrysost homil 10. in Ioan. 3. de Lazaro Origen 4. in Leuit. Autor imperfecti he ought to be instructed of vs and the Author imperfect hom 43. in Math. amongst other means which he prescribeth to lay men to know the truth of Scripture one is to aske the Priests whome he calletâ— clauicularios scripturarum key keepers of Scripturs which is the right order prescribed by God him selfe Deutr. 17. v. 9. Agg. 2. v. 12. and Malach Deuter. Aggae Malach. 2. v. 7. And the contrary course obserued by Protestants maketh Christ to haue giuen vs needles Pastors and Doctors bidding Ephes 4. v. 11. 1. Cor. 12. v. 28. Luc. 10. v. 16. vs heare them as him selfe maketh euery one his owne Pastor and to haue the gift of interpretation contrary to S. Paul 1. Corinth 12. v. 10. 30. And by this which hath bene said is answered whatsoeuer Bel alleadgeth out of S. Chrysos pag. 108. 109. 111. and he sound to be quite against Protestants and nothing against Catholiques proceedings And though S. Chrysostom had giuen far more lyberty to common Note this people to read Scriptures then now the Church doth as not hauing then experience of the harme redounding thereof what maruel if the Church finding by the experience of more then a thowsand years since S. Chrysostoms tyme that more harme then good commeth therby hath abridged that lycence For as S. Austin saith S. Augustin tom 2. Epist 50 Experience of many euils maketh many medicins to be found 9. Now let vs heare what Bel replyeth Bel p. 116. against this kind of answering to S. Chrysostoms authority First he saith That the doctrine in the pulpit ought to be as true as in the Schoole This is true but not to the purpose because we reproue not S. Chrysostom of vttering vntruths in the pulpit Next he saith That the doctrin in the pulpit ought to be as exact and absolute as in the schoole and the only difference is that in the pulpit it hath the pricke of exhortation which is wanting in schools What Syr Are these speeches of S. Chrysostom S. Chrysost hom 3. in 2. Thessalon Bel p. 108. cited by your selfe VVhat need a sermon what need a preacher as exact and absolute as can be deliuered in schools Surely then your preaching is needles and consequently the fifty pound pension giuen to you for it may be wel spared Yea if the doctrin of pulpit and schools be of like exactnes certes the auditors in both places are of like capacity and so Bels deuines be no better schollers then his common people 10. But little knoweth he what belongeth Bel knovveth not vvhat belongeth to a sermon to sermons who thinketh them to differ from schoole doctrine in nothing but in exhortation Are amplifications hyperboles and like figures excluded as wel from pulpits as from schools Are the same parts prescribed to be in a lecture by school men which are by Orators to be in a sermon or oration Doth Bel exact as strong proofs and like propriety of words of an orator or preacher persuading probably and accommodating him selfe to the capacity of his hearers as he doth of a Philosopher or Deuine teaching dogmatically Sure I am that both Aristotle and common sense teach Aristotel 1. Ethic. contrary But Bel euery where sheweth him selfe to be one of them who as S. Paul saith vnderstand not what they say or of what 1. Timoth. 1. v. 7. they talke 11. Againe suppose that S. Chrysostom had spoken of this point as exactly in the pulpit as any Dyuine can in schools what followeth thereof Forsooth that Bels proposition pag. 103. vz. That al persons of what sexe state calling or condition soeuer may
to make your selfe iudge aboue the highest And if you wil try Gods word by what wil you try the old testament Surely by tradition or by nothing Thus we haue heard Bel twise plainly cōfessing some tradition to be necessary now the third tyme supposing it For magna est vis veritatis praeualet 13. Yet because his stomacke could not pag 135 al. 117. disgest any one tradition at al he flyeth to a Fift solution commonly giuen by Protestants vz. That Canonical Scripture may be discerned Psalm 119. v. 105. 1. Pēt 1. v. 19. 2. Cor. 5. v. 3. 1. Cor. 2. v. 15. 1. Ioan. 2. v. 27. Ioan. 10. v. 3. 4. 1. Reg. 3. from not Canonical by themselues as light is from darknes This he proueth because Gods worde is called a light and a lantherne sayd to shyne to men spiritual men sayd to iudge al things the vnction to teach al things and Christs sheepe sayd to heare and know his voyce But this is easely refelled First because though Samuel were a faithful holy man and God spake thrise to him yet he tooke his worde for mans worde vntil Hely the high Priest tolde him it was Gods worde 1. Reg. 3. Gedeon was faithful and yet knew not at first that it was God that spake vnto him by an Iudic. 6. Angel and therfore demanded a miracle in confirmation of it Iudic. 6. The like may be said of Manues wife Iud. 13. and perhaps of Manue him selfe For though in his prayer he professe that God had sent the Angel whom he tooke to be a man yet doth he not professe that God had sent him especially and perticulerly to do that message and seeing he knew not that it was an Angel vntil he ascended in the flame of the sacrifice yea seemed to doubt whether his words would proue true when he sayd If thy speech be fulfilled likely it is that he was not certaine that it was Gods worde before he was certaine that it was his Angel Likewise S. Peter was faithful and yet at Act. 12. first he knew not that it was an Angel that spake and deliuered him act 12. 14. Secondly the true sense and meaning of Gods worde is not so euident to the faithful for to discerne it from the false sense as light is discerned from darknes Ergo nether Gods true worde is so euidently discerned by them from the false worde The consequence I proue because Gods worde consisteth more in his meaning then in letters Let vs not thincke saith S. Hierom S. Hierom. in Calat 1. dialog con Lucif that the Ghospel is in the words of Scripturs but in the sence Againe Scripturs consist not in reading but in vnderstāding And therfore if it be discerned by it selfe it is rather discerned by the sense then by the letters or words The antecedent I shal proue hereafter and it is euident by the example of the Apostles who though they were faithful oftentymes vnderstood not Christs meaning especially when he spake in parables or of his passion by the example of the faithful Eunuch and by the testimony of S. Peter 2. Pet. 3. v. 16. 15. Thirdly the distinction of Scripturs from not Scriptures is not so euident as the distinction of light from darknes is Ergo they are not so easely discerned The consequence is euident The Antecedent I proue because then no man could erre in it as none can erre in the distinction of light from darknes Bel saith That only faithful can discerne Scriptures But this conuinceth that their distinction is not so euident as that of light from darknes for this al men yea beasts of sight can discerne Nether can Faith can not discerne any thing clearly faith be needful to discerne light or any thing which is so euident because as S. Paul saith Hebr. 11. v. 1. It is an argument of things not appearing and it breadeth certainty not euidency in the beleeuer 16. Beside if faithful could as clearly discerne Scriptures as they can light they should no sooner here a sentence of Scripture then they should discerne it to be Scripture as they no sooner see light then they discerne it from darknes which experience teacheth to be false yea Luther a faithful man in Bels opinion could not discerne yea could not beleeue S. Iames epistle Luther edit Iennen Surius Ann. 1522. to be canonical but called it absolutly a strawish thing as his books first printed and diuers others testify and Whitaker VVhitaker lib. 1. contr Duraeum p. 22. dare not deny yea confesseth that he calleth it strawish in respect of other epistles which is more then to deny it to be Gods worde Wherfore let Bel make his choyse whether Luther was not faithful or S. Iames epistle not so euidently discerned by the faithful to be Gods worde as light is Finally Protestants admit one Tradition as necessary to discerne Scriptures or Bel lyeth pag. 135. Ergo Scriptures are not so euidently discerned by them selues as light is For what neede is there of an other thing to discerne light or any thing so euident 17. Nether haue Bels arguments any difficulty to answer For Gods worde is called a lantherne or light not because it is so euident as light is but because being once beleeued to be Gods worde it sheweth vs the way to heauen as light doth to earthly places and thereupon it is called of the Psalmist a lantherne to our feete And for the Psalm 118. same cause faith is called light though it be an obscure knowledge Hebr. 11. v. 1. and by it we see God only in aenigmate 1. Cor. 13. v. 12. and not clearly And in like sort S. Paul 2. Corinth 4. v. 4. where Bel citeth 2. Corinth 4. v. 4. amisse c. 5. saith the Ghospel shineth not because it is euident and cleare but because it expelleth the ignorance of infidelity which metaphorically is called darknes That of the spiritual man 1. Corinth 2. v. 15. is nothing to the purpose both because al faithful are not spiritual but some carnal 1. Corinth 3. v. 1. 2. 3. and Galath 6. v. 1. and therfore may we better infer that the Ghospel is not euident to al faithful As also because S. Paul explicateth not by what means the spiritual man iudgeth al things whether by the euidency of the things as Bel wold haue him to iudge Scripture or by some outward testimony Moreouer S. Ihon saith the vnction teacheth 3. Ioan. 2. v. 27. vs al things which we deny not but no where that it alone teacheth vs without the testimony of the Church which is that we deny Bel should proue Finally Christs sheep heare and know his voice Ioan. 10. Ioan. 10. v. 3. 4. v. 3 4 which no man doubteth of but the question is whether they heare it of him selfe alone or of the Church and whether they know it by it selfe or by testimony of the Church to which purpose
this place serueth nothing 18. Bels sixt solution is That we beleeue Bel p. 136. not the Scripture to be Gods worde because the Church teacheth vs so but because it is of it selfe axiopistos worthy of credit and God inwardly moueth vs to beleeue it That we beleeue it not for the Churches authority he proueth Because els the formal obiect of our beleefe and last resolution therein should not be the first verity God him selfe but man which is contrary to S. Dionis and S. Thomas S. Dionis de diuin nom c. 7. S. Thom. 2. 2. q. 1. art 1. Aquinas who teach That the formal obiect of our faith is the first verity and S. Thom. addeth That faith beleeueth nothing but because it is reuealed of God Also because S. Austin saith That man learneth S. Augustin tractat 3. in Ioan. to 9. not of man that outward teachings are some helps and admonitions but who teacheth the hart hath his chayre in heauen That the Scripture is of it selfe axiopistos or worthy of credit we deny not only we deny that by it selfe without testimony of the Church we can knowe that it is so worthy Nether deny we that God inwardly moueth our harts to beleeue it only we say that therto he vseth also the testimony of the holy Church nor ordinarily moueth any therto without the external testimony of the Church wherfore albeit it be most true that we beleeue the Scripture to be Gods worde because God moueth vs therto yet false it is to deny that we beleeue it not also because the Church doth teach it Because Gods inward motion and the Churches outward testimony are no opposit causes and impossible to concurre to one and the same effect but the second is subordinate to the first and can not worke without it as the first though it can doth not worke this effect without the second Wherfore wel said S. Austin Non crederem Euangelio nisi Cont. epist fundam c. 4. to 6. me Ecclesiae authoritas commoueret I wold not beleeue the Ghospel vnles the authority of the Church did commoue me therto 19. This place of S. Austin so stingeth pag. 137. Bel as he wyndeth euery way to auoid it First he telleth vs that there is a great difference Bels lacke of latin betweene mouere and commouere because mouere is to moue apart by it selfe commouere to moue together with an other This difference is false For nether is mouere to moue apart but absolutly as it is cōmon to mouing apart or with an other Nether though commouere do more properly signify mouing with an other is it alwaies so taken as infinit places both of holy and prophane writers can testify yea Bel him selfe with in 8. lynes pag. 138. after englisheth it absolutly mouing But suppose it were what inferreth Bel thereupon Forsooth that S. Austins meaning is nothing els but that the authority of the Church did outwardly concurre with the inward motion of God to bring him to beleeue the Ghospel That the Church did ioyntly concurre to S. Austins faith of the Ghospel is certaine and so Bel translating commouere for iointly mouing I refuse not But false it is that the Church did iointly concurre with God only to the bringing of S. Austin to the faith of the Ghospel and not to the conseruing him in the same faith Because c. 4. he saith That if thou percase canst finde any manifest S. Austin thing in the Ghospel of Maniches Apostleship thou shalt weaken the authority of Catholiques with me who bid me beleeue not thee which authority being weakned now nether can I beleeue the Ghospel Behold the authority of Catholiques conserued S. Austin in the faith of the Ghospel without which he professeth that he could beleeue the Ghospel no longer And againe Amongst other things which most iustly as he saith holde him in the Church he reckoneth authority and succession in the Church 20. But do you thinke that Bel wil stand to his expounding of commouere and graunting the Church to concurre with the inward motion of the holy Ghost to bring a man to beleeue the Ghospel No surely For in the next page he telleth vs. That the pag. 138. authority of the Church did moue beholde iointly mouing forgotten S. Austin to heare the Ghospel preached and to giue some humane credit vnto it For deuine faith proceedeth not from the outward teachings of man as I haue proued saith he already out of S. Austin This denyal of deuine faith to proceed from outward teaching of man is directly against Scripture and S. Austin For Rom. 10. v. S Paul Roman 10. 17. Faith commeth of hearing the preacher The Colossians learnt the grace of Christ of Epaphoras Coloss 1. v. 7. The Thessalonians Coloss 1. learnt the Traditions which they should keep by speech and letter 2. Thess 2. Thessalon 2. 1. Corinth 4. Philemon 2. v. 15 S. Paul begate the Corinthians in the Ghospel 1. Corinth 4. v. 15. He begate Onesimus Philem. v. 11. He and Apollo were Gods helpers in bringing the Corinthians to Christs faith 1. Corinth 3. v. 9. They that succour preachers are called cooperators of the truth 3. Ioan. v. 8. and therfore 3. Ioan. 8. much more the preachers them selfs And if deuine faith proceede not at al from outwarde teaching of men why did Christ send his Apostles to teach al nations Math. Math. 28. 28. v. 19. why appointed he in his Church some teachers for consummating of Saints Ephes Ephes 4. 4. v. 11 Why was S Paul a teacher of Gentils 1. Timoth. 2. v. 7. others act 13 v. 4. How 2. Timoth. could S. Paul bestovv some spiritual grace vpon Act. 13. the Romans Rom. 1. v. 11. Did Christ send these Apostles to teach humaine faith was Rom. 1. S. Ihon Baptist sent before Christ to giue humane knowledge of saluation to his people Luc. 1. v. 77. Lastly nothing is more Luc. 1. frequent in Scripture then that one man teacheth an other and surely it meaneth not of humane learning or beleefe For what careth the Sctipture for that but of deuine and such as bringeth to heauen saluation such as made Iewes compunct in hart act 2. v. 37. such as disposed Gentils Act. 2. 10. to receaue the holy Ghost act 10. v. 44. 21. Likewise it is against S. Austin First he thinketh as Bel confesseth the Church to concurre with the inward motion of the holy Ghost to the faith of the Ghospel But faith of the Ghospel to which the holy Ghost inwardly concurreth is deuine Ergo to this the Church concurreth Besids S. Austin affirmeth that authority holdeth Cont. epist fundam c. 4. tom 6. him in the Catholique Church And that if the authority of Catholiques were weakned he wold not beleeue the Ghospel which he would neuer say if his deuine faith did not depend vpon the Catholiques authority Moreouer what more
neede no more to assure thy selfe of the truth of Romane religion His conclusion is That traditions are so vncertaine as the learnedest Papists contend about them This he proueth because S. Victor P. contended with the Bishops of Asia S. Policarpe with S. Anicetus P. Surely he meaneth that these men were Papists or els his conclusion is vnproued And consequently Papists and Popery were 1400. years agoe within 200. Popery confessed to be vvish in 200. years after Christ Great Britany conuerted first to Popery years after Christ when the Church as he saith was in good estate And if P. Victor were a Papist then was also his immediat predecessor S. Eleutherius who sent S. Fugatius and Damian to conuert Britany and consequently this Iland was first conuerted from Paganisme to Popery Moreouer both sides earnestly alleadged Apostolical tradition and stowtly defended the same saith Bel Ergo nether side was Protestant and Bel against al Gods Church vvhich liued vvithin 200. years after Christ both agreed against him thar there are Apostolical traditiōs that they are of great weight seeing such great Saints so long agoe did so stowtly defend them on what side now is Bel who stowtly oppugneth what Saints with al Gods Church so long agoe defended what need more proofe of traditions or of Papistry Surely Bel quasi sorex suo iudicio periit Here he hath bewraied him selfe to be against al Saints that were within 200 years after Christ and against the Church when she was in good estate 3. But now to Bels argument The tradition of keeping Easter was vncertaine 200 years after Christ Ergo it is now Answer Euseb lib. 5. c. 23. 25. l. 3. de vit Constan c. 18. 19. Nicephor l. 4. c. 36. Theodoret. l. 2. hist c. 9. Epiphan haer 70. Tripart lib. 9. c. 38. Epist 2. Petri 2. 3. Ioan. Epist Iudae ad Hebraeos Apocalipsis See S. Hierom. in Script ecclesiasticis Et Euseb l. 5. c. 3. This tradition was then vncertaine only in Asia and certaine in the rest of Christendome as is euident by the Councels then helde in Rome Palestine Pontus France Achaia who al accepted this tradition as did after the first general Councel in Nice And though it had bene then vncertaine Bel could no more infer it to be so now then he can infer the same of many parts of the Bible which both then and long after were doubted of and yet accepted now of Protestants But wel may I infer if S. Policarpe and his fellowes erred in not accepting one popish tradition much more Bel in accepting none 4. But saith Bel S. Policarpe Policrates pag. 129. and other Bishops did in those daies make no more account of the Popes opinion then of an other mans did thinke them selfs his equals in gouernment that he defended an error and withstood his proceedings Here is false conueiance to ioyne S. Policarp who liued and dyed in vnion Euseb lib. ◠c. 24. Iren. apud ipsum and communion of the Pope and before this controuersy was defyned with Policrates and his fellows who were excommunicated as declining saith Eusebius into Loc. cit heresy for their obstinacy in error after the whole Church had defyned the contrary These indeed as heretiks vse to do made no account of the Popes opinion or iudgement but condemned him of error and withstood his proceedings though they neuer thought them selfs his equals as Bel without al truth or proofe affirmeth yea Polecrates when he saith I wil not feare S. Hierom. de script eccles in Papia Nicephor l. 4. c. 37. them who threaten me and I must obey God more then men sheweth him selfe to be vnder the Popes obedience but supposing him selfe to defend truth feared not his excommunication But how much al Christendom at that tyme and euer since made account of the Popes sentence appeareth by that as Eusebius and others write they al followed Euseb sup it and condemned them as Heretiks who withstood it And S. Policarp so esteemed Euseb lib. 5. cap. 24. 5. Ireney apud ipsum Nicephor l. 3. c. 30. it as that he came to Rome to confer with the Pope about that matter doubtles wold haue subscribed to his sentence if it had bene pronounced in his daies as his scholler S. Ireney did by whom we may gather his maisters account of the Church of Rome He therfore lib. 3. cap. 3. S. Iren. calleth Rome the greatest and antientest Church founded by S. Peter and Paul and that by Tradition which it hath from the Apostles and alwaies keapeth by succession of Bishops we confound saith he al them that gather otherwise then they should and that al Churches must recur to Rome for her more potent principality 5. The second Tradition is that of keeping Bel p. 130. lent which saith Bel is not Apostolical because S. Chrisostom writeth That Christ S. Chrysost hom 47. in Math. to 2. Euseb lib. 5. c. 24. bid vs not imitat his fast but be humble Nor certain because Eusebius out of Ireney writeth That in his tyme some thought we ought to fast one day others two others more and non nulli forty which variety of fasting began not now first or in our daies but long before I thinke by them who keeping not simply what was traditum deliuered from the beginning did afterward fal into an other custome ether of negligence or of ignorance Here Bel sheweth his lacke of iudgement in citing a place clearly against him selfe For here S Ireney and Eusebius after him clearly affirme That at the beginning there was one manner of fasting lent appointed though some afterward ether of ignorance or negligence did breake it which proueth not the said Tradition to be vncertain in the whole Church vnles Bel wil impute the fault of some few to the whole And of the Roman Church she saith Ireney lib 3. cap. 3. alwaies keapt the S. Ireney Ex histor tripart lib. 9. c. 38. Apostles Tradition And by this is answered what he bringeth out of Socrates touching the diuersity of tyme and meat vsed in fasting lent Albeit what Socrates saith of the Roman Church fasting but three weeks before Easter and not on Saterday is an vntruth For they fasted 40. daies as witnes S. Leo. serm 12. de Quadrag and S. Gregory S. Leo. S. Gregory S. Innocent S. Augustin hom 16. in Euang. And likewise Saterdaies as testify S. Innocent epist ad Decent and S. Austin epist 86. and 118. where also he alleadgeth S. Ambrose 6. And that lent is an Apostolical Tradition not only S. Hierom epist ad Marcel S. Hierom. S. Ambros. witnesseth and S. Ambrose serm 25. 34. and 36. saith it was cōmanded by Christ and S Austin haer 53. accounted the Aërians S. Augustin S. Epiphan haer 75. heretiks for denying the set fast of lent and others to be solemnely kept But it is euident also because
shold that font be conserued so long but as a monument of so memorable a christning How can Constantin be worthely surnamed great of Christians if at his death he communicated with Arians and was baptized of them at Nicomedia as their fellow heretik Eusebius first reported to purchase credit to his heresy If this had bene so he shold rather haue bene syrnamed of Catholiques the Apostata or Heretike 11. The last tradition of honoring Saints Bel p. 133. Bel saith made some to honor Heretiks for Saints as Platina saith he writeth of the Platina in Bonif. 8. corps of Herman an heretike honored as Saints reliques at Ferrara for 20. years together Answer vntruth 97 How Apostolical a thing the honoring of Saints is Bellarmin sheweth lib. de Sanct. beatit c. 19. Where besids Scripturs and Councels he proueth it by the testimony of 30. Fathers wherof 25 liued aboue a thowsand years ago But is not this a strange metamorphosis to make the error of common people a popish Tradition Beside Platina affirmeth no such thing him selfe but only that some others write so But nether he nor any other write that it rose of popish Tradition That is Bels accustomed vse of addition And therfore where he noteth danger in beleeuing Tradition he might haue noted danger in crediting his owne relation Yea what danger is in not beleeuing Roman Tradition appeareth both by the testimony of Fathers before cited and by the example of Policrates and his fellows the Quartadecimans and by S. Cyprian Quartadecimans are Heretiks ex Epiphan haer 50. 70. Nicephor l. 4. c. 39. August haer 29. Socrates lib. 5. c. 22. Tripartita hist Vincent Lytin and his followers the Donatists reproued only by Roman Tradition As testifyeth Tripartit lib. 9. c. 38. and Vincent Lyrinen But suppose that they of Ferrara had vpon Tradition taken occasion to commit Idolatry Shal we reiect al things wherof men take occasion to offend So we might reiect Christ who was set vnto the ruine of many Luc. 2. v. 34. and by whom the Iewes took occasion of scandal So we might reiect Scripturs by which heretiks haue taken occasion he heresy Sunne and Moone because Gentils haue by them fallen into Idolatry Cannot Bel distinguish between vse abuse of Traditions betwixt scandal giuen taken Thus much of the certainty of Tradtions Now let vs come to the examination of them CHAP. XI Of the examination of Traditions APostolical Traditions are not to be examined by Scripture This is against Bel pag. 117. but euident Because Apostolical â—el p. 117 Tradition is the Apostles word their S. Paul â— Luke word is Gods word 1. Thess 2. v. 16. But Gods word is not to be examined at al Ergo nether is Apostolical Tradition Wel might the Church at first examine a Tradition whether it were Apostolical or no as she did examine diuers parts of the Bible whither they were Scripture or no but finding it to be Apostolical she could no more examine it by the Bible then she can examin one part of the Bible by an other And Bel in saying That the new testament may Bel p. 135. al. 117. be examined by the old sheweth him selfe rather to be a Iew then a Christian For how dare he examin that which is certaine to be deuine truth Or how can he examin the new testament by the old if he be not more certain of the old then of the new But how Traditions ought to be proued heare Tertullian Tertullian lib. de Corona It can not seeme none or a doubtful fault against Custome which is to be defended for it name sake and is sufficiently authorized by protection of consent Plainly reason is to be enquired but so as the Custome be reteined not to destroy it but to vphold it That thou maist obserue it more when thou art sure of the reason of it But what a thing is it that one shal cal Custome in question when he hath fallen from it 2. But saith Bel Scriptures are called canonical Bel p. 117. because they be the rule of faith Therfore al things are to be examined by them And for this cause saith he Esay sent vs to the Law and testimony Esaiae 8. to try the truth Malachias bid vs be myndful Malach. 4. Psalm 119. 2. Pet. 1. Ioan. 5. Math. 22. Act. 17. 1. Ioan. 4. Gal. 1. of Moises lavv Dauid said Gods word is a lathern S. Peter a shyning light For this cause Christ exhorted the Iewes to read Scripturs and said the Pharises erred because they knew not the Scripturs The Berheans examined S. Paules doctrin S. Ihon bid try the spirits S. Paul pronounced him accursed That preached any doctrin not conteined in Scripture as S. Austin and S. Basil expound him S. August l. 3. cont Petil. c. 6. S. Basil sum 72 c. 1. Bible onely Canonical Scripture but not it alone Canonical Sup. c. 2. parag 1. 7. c. 9. paragr 17. 3. Answer The Bible alone is called Canonical Scripture because it alone of al Scripturs the Church followeth as an infallible rule in beleeuing or defyning any thing But it nether is nor is called the only Canon of faith In the rest Bel affirmeth but proueth not that that was the cause why the Scripture said so As for the places of Esay Malachy Dauid and S. Peter they haue bene answered before As for exhortation of Christ I might deny that he there exhorted the Iewes to read Scripture but Scrutamini Scripturas See S. Gyrill l. 3. in Ioan. c. 4. affirmed that they did read them because they thought they conteined life But suppose he did exhort them to read Scripturs for to finde whether he were the Messias or no wheroâ— as he saith there they giue testimony what is this for trying of al matters by them Can Bel inferre an vniuersal propositioÌ„ of one singuler That of the Pharises Corrupt of Script conteineth two corruptions of Scripturs For neither did Christ say The Pharases but the Saduces erred about the resurrection nether doth he say the cause of their error therin was only ignorance of Scripture as Bel insinuateth leauing out the words povvre of God but ignorance both Math. 22. v. 29. of Scripture and of Gods powre you erre saith he knovving nether Scripturs nor the powre of God So if they had known Gods powre though it had not bene by Scripture but by Tradition or reuelation as Iob and Iob 19. v. 25. the faithful vncircumcised did they had not erred about the resurrection Beside the resurrection is a perticuler matter and euidently testifyed in Scripture what proueth this concerning al points of faith 4. As for the Berhaeans whom Bel wil haue to haue examined the truth of S. Pauls Act. 17. doctrin I ask of him whither they were faithful whilst they examined it or faithles If faithles why proposeth he them to vs as an example to imitat
c. 8. See epist ad Epictetum l. cit Apud Athanas Theodoret l. cit S. Grego Nazianz orat 2. de Theolog Councel did not inuent that word but set it downe testimonio patrum by testimony of their Fathers and Eusebius though an Arian confesseth the same And S. Gregory Nazian writing against the Arians saith that it should suffice vs that our Fathers thought not as they do and the same argumeÌ„t vseth also S. Athanasius writing against the Apollinarists And how vntruly he affirmeth that the Fathers did not say many vnwritten things are to be beleeued I refer my selfe to their testimonies alleadged aboue cap. 4. But saith Bel S. Athanasius proued homousion because though the word was not in Scripture the sense was A goodly reason He proued it out of Scripture therfore not out of Tradition as if one should say He proued it out of S. Ihon therfore not out of S. Paul 3. Origen saith Bel hom 25. in Math. Bel p. 118. and hom 1. in 1. Hierem counselleth vs to try al doctrins by Scripture This is vntrue vntruth 101. Origen For Origen speaketh not of al but only of our opinions and doctrins Our opinions and expositions saith he haue no credit without their testimonies Againe VVe must alleadge the sense of Scripture for testimony of al the words we vtter Terrullian calling that truth which is first and false which is after maketh nothing to his purpose Next he alleadgeth S. Austin saying That we must not consent euen S. Augustin lib. de vnit eccles c. 10. to 7. to Catholique Bishops error or priuat opinion against Scripture Error against Scripture is not to be followed Ergo nether Apostolical Traditions contested by the whole Church Surely Bel hath great facility in inferring quodlibet ex quolibet He bringeth also S. Chrisostom calling Gods lawes a S. Chrysost hom 13. in 2. Cor. to 4. most exact rule and bidding vs learn not what this or that man thinks and of these things enquire these points also out of Scripture Answer S. Chrysostoms meaning is that Gods word is most exact in the matter whereof he talked vz. whither pouerty be to be preferred before riches in which matter we ought saith he to leaue the opinions of this or that worldly man who prefer riches but seek what the Scripture saith of it And Bel to make him False translat 13. seeme to say That al truth is to be sought out of Scripture translated these words Deque his à Scripturis haec etiam inquirite thus Search the truth out of the Scriptures Englishing nether de his nor haec 4. After S. Chrysostom he citeth two pag. 120. Chap 5. parag 5. sentences out of Victoria cited by him and answered by vs before To whome he adioyneth Canus teaching That Priests are not Canus l. 3. de loc c. vlt. to be heard vnles they teach according to Gods law Certain And then inferreth That Papists teach plainly that no doctrine is to be receaued which is not tryed by Gods word True also if it be rightly vnderstood vz. of such doctrine as may be tryed not of deuine as Apostolical Traditions be which may not be tryed And of Gods whole word not of a part thereof as the Scripture is And that expounded not according to the humor of priuat spirits but according to the vniforme consent of Fathers Councels This most iust and reasonable rule of trying al matters in controuersy the Councel of Concil Trident sess 18. in saluo coductu dato Protestantibus Trent prescribed to the Protestants But they wil try deuine truth conteined not only in Traditions but also in Scripture that part by which they wil try the rest they wil expound according to their owne priuat spirits which is to make them selfs rule and iudges of al wherfore vainly doth Bel professe to agree with the Pope in al coÌ„trouersies pag. 120. if he wil be tryed by Gods word For vnles Bel be made iudge and tryer both of Gods word and of his meaning or as Protestants speake vnles he may iudge which is Scripture and which is the true sense there must nether tryal nor iudgement passe For vnles Protestants may haue al the law in their owne hands they wil accept no iudgement 5. But because Bellarmin graunteth that Bellarm. lib. 2. de Concil c. 52. singuli Episcopi al Bishops seuerally may erre and somtyme do erre and dissent one from an other so that we know not which of them is to be followed Bel thinketh pag. 121. that he hath a great catch yet remembring him self better that though Catholiques graunt that euery Bishop seuerally may erre yet deny that they can erre al when they are gathered in a Synode confirmed by the Pope he taketh occasion to make a long digression about Councels CHAP. XIII Of the authority of late general Councels GENERAL Councels in these our dayes are as certaine as before tymes This is against Bel pag. 123. saying that in our dayes they are like a nose of waxe and as vncertaine as the winde And because he denyeth not but that general Councels in some times haue bene certaine forsooth such as defyned nothing contrary to Protestantisme I wil only proue that they are now as certaine as euer First because Christ promyseth that he would be in the midst of them that are gathered in his name Math. 18. v. 20. S. Math. That the holy Ghost should teach vs al truth Iohn 16. That the gates of hel should not preuaile S. Iohn v. â—3 S. Math. against his Church Math. 16. v. 18. which promises are limited to no certaine tyme but are extended as he saith Math. vlt. euen to the end of the worlde Likewise Christs commaund of hearing his Church Math. S. Math. v. 17. S. Luc. 18. of hearing preachers sent by him Luc. 10. of obeying our Prelates and being subiect to them Hebr. 13. v. 17. bindeth as wel S. Paul in our dayes as before tymes wherfore either the Church Preachers and Prelates teaching in a general Councel in our dayes can not erre or Christ in our daies commaundeth vs to beleeue heresy and lyes 2. Secondly the present Church of our daies hath authority to decyde controuersies in faith Ergo we be bound to obey her decision Ergo it is no lye The Antecedent is an article of Protestants faith Article 39. Art 20. The first consequence I proue because who resisteth power in matters belonging to the power refisteth Gods ordinance and purchaseth damnation to him selfe Roman 13. vers 2. 3. which being true of temporal power and concerning wordly matters much more true it is of spiritual power and in matters of faith and saluation The second consequence is euident For God who is truth it selfe and can not lye can not binde vs especially See S. Gregory lib. 1. epist 24. vnder paine of damnation to beleeue and follow lyes Thirdly as Protestants except