also for the euil vve suffer And hom 1. de Resur tom 3. VVhat care saith he vvil he haue of vertue vvho expects no retribution of labours And hom 15. in Math. that we haue God our debtor when we do any good and may exact vsury of him And the like speeches he hath hom 3. and 36. in Math. and 42. in Gen. and in Philog and other where which alone might assure vs that he meaneth not to deny eternal life to be a true reward of our supernatural labors But ether by labors he vnderstandeth natural labors done as he speaketh there by our ovvne streÌ„gth of which labors doubtles eternal life is is no reward debt or retribution Or rather by eternal life he there vnderstood not heauenly glory but only iustificatioÌ„ which he may cal eternal life because it causeth eternal life as our Sauiour for the same cause calleth faith so Iohn 17. v. 3. and for S. Ihon. the contrary sinne is called death and this doubtles is no reward debt or retribution of any labour at al of ours That this is his meaning I proue it I because he saith eternal life was called grace to shew that they were not deliuered c. Therfore by eternal life he vnderstandeth some thing which had deliuered the Romans already from some thing vz. from sinne 2. because he saith that they to whom S. Paul wrote had receaued that eternal life wherof he speaketh but they being yet aliue had not receaued eternal glory but only iustification And S. Chrisostom being thus expounded speaketh not against him selfe other where nor against Scripture and truth 7. Thirdly he cyteth Origen saying Bel pag. 63. Origen in c. 6. ad Rom. Deum vero non erat dignum militibus suis stipendium quasi debitum aliquod dare sed donum gratiam quae est vita aeterna which Bel thus englisheth But it was not a thing worthy beseeming God to giue stipends to his soldiers as a due debt or wage but to bestow on them a gift or free grace which is eternal life Here Bel translateth donum a gift and False translat A. 5. gratiam free grace albeit before he preferred the word donatio which is al one in this matter with donum before gratia because it better insinuateth the freenes of the gift But if you aske him wherfore he translateth gratia free grace he can giue no better reason then his Grandsier Luther did when he translated fides iustificat faith alone iustifyeth vz Sic volo sic iubeo stat pro ratione Surius Ann. â—530 voluntas As for Origen he meaneth nothing els but that it beseemed not God to giue a stipend so due to good works as saith he the king of sinne payeth stipends due to them that obey his tyranny which is most true For although S. Austin ep 105. to 2. S. Anselm Rom. 6. the iust by good works deserue life yet not so iustly as the wicked by sinne deserue death nether is life so due to them as death to these as is euident by what hath bene said before and Willet in affirming vs VVillet controu 17. q. 3. art 3. p. 587. to teach the contrary sheweth a trick of his Ministery 8. S. Ambrose he also alleadgeth but pag. 63. S. Ambros Rom. 6. his words are rather against him for he saith As the followers of sinne get death so the followers of Gods grace that is the faith of Christ which forgiueth sinnes shal haue eternal life What is here for Bel or rather not against him But most clearly doth S. Ambrose S. Ambros confound Bel immediatly before the words cyted VVho from hence forth saith he absteine from sinne receaue a stipend eternal life And serm 7. in psal 118. affirmeth that Dauid could say to God I am a souldier I exact a stipend of my captaine 9. He citeth also Theophilact because Theophilact Rom. 6. he saith S. Paul called erernal life grace and not a revvard as if he should say for ye receaue not revvards of labours but al these things are done by grace in Christ Iesus who worketh and doth them But this is nothing against vs who willingly acknowledge eternal life to be grace and not to proceed of our owne labours done by our selfs but done and wrought also by the grace of Christ After this he citeth Anselme and Photius but alleadgeth not their words yet confesseth that in effect they are the same with others and therfore seeing S. Anselme vpon this place S. Anselme of S. Paul teacheth plainly that eternal life is a stipend of iustice and that S. Paul might haue called it so we may be assured that in effect other Fathers do cal it so as he after S. Ambros and S. Austin doth in expresse S. Austin ep 105. S. Ambros Rom. 6. Bel pag. 64. vntruth 60 words Wherfore vainly doth Bel boast that it is manifest by the foresaid testimonies of holy Fathers that eternal life is the free gift of God for rather the quite contrary is manifest because none of them say it is a free gift or any thing whereof it may be iustly inferred and some of them expresly say it is a Vt Retributionem non vt gratiam sed plane debitum occupas S. Greg. Nazianz orat â— in sanctum lauacrum Burgens addit 2. in c. 6. Rom. stipend and such a one as a souldier may exact of his captaine such as death is to sinne which are euidently no free gifts Wherfore to helpe vp this matter he addeth these wordes of Paulus Burgens He would not therfore say eternal life is the stipend of iustice because the same merits to which it is rendred are not of our selfs but wrought in vs by God through grace These words make not any thing for him but rather against him For in that he saith eternal life is rendred to merits he insinuateth it to be no free grace and in saying S. Paul chose rather to cal it grace then stipend insinuateth that he might haue called it a stipend and in saying it is grace because it is repaid to merits which we do by grace he affirmeth it to be partly grace which no Catholique denyeth 10. The second text of Scripture Bel bringeth out of Rom. 8. v. 18. and translateth â—hus I account that the afflictions of this False translat 6. present tyme are not worthy of the future glory Answer Here is euil translation for where the Apostle saith afflictions are Non condignae ad futuram gloriam ouâ— axia pros ten mellousan doxan are not condigne to the future glory Bel translateth are not worthy of the future glory And the Apostles meaning is not to tel there whether sufferances of this life be condignely meritorious of future glory or no but intendeth to say that they are not comparable to future glory ether in greatnes or in continuance which hindereth not their condigne merit as is euident in Christs sufferances For hauing
of Berengarius Berengarius first publike enemy of this Sacrament Malmesburienses an English Chronicler Malmesbut lib. 3. in Guilielmo 1. p. 114. of his tyme writeth that when he came to visit S. Fulbert B of Charters lying on his death bed the holy Bishop commanded him to be put forth protesting that he did see a huge diuil standing by him and corrupting many to follow him by his flattering hand and alluring breath 2. Luther him selfe confesseth l. de Luther Sainctes repetit de Euchar c. 10. Bellarm. l. 1. de Missa c. 5. Surius in comment 1534. Genebrard in chron Erasm cont epist non sobriam Lutheri Carolstadius Zuinglius Lindan ep dissuasor p. 114. Occolampadius Brent in Recognit Iezlerus lib. de diuturn belli eucharist Missa Angul to 7 fol 228. to haue disputed visibly with the diuil and bene perswaded by him to abrogate Masse And of this his conference with the diuil besides others Erasmus a ioly confesser in Fox his calender is a most sufficient witnes To Carolstadius a great frend at the first of Luther appeared a diuil as he was preaching as testifieth Erasmus Alberus Zwinglius an eger enimy of the real presence testifieth of him selfe l. de subsid Euchar That about the Eucharist he was instructed of a spirit which saith he I know not whether it was black or white And Luther l. cit writeth that he thinketh Occolampadius others to haue bene choked by the diuil And the Lutherans cal the Zinglians diuilish heretiks possessed and obsessed of diuils and their opinions diabolical 3. Finally Caluin epist ad Bucer confesseth Caluin that he had a familier to which he Genium imputeth his vaine of cursing Thus we see the very Fathers of Protestantisme to haue bene haunted and instructed of diuils Who therefore can doubt but their doctrin is the doctrin of diuils and they such as hauing departed from the Catholique faith wherein they were christend and bred did harken to the spirits of errors and teach the doctrin which they had learnd of the diuil appearinge in visible forme Now let vs see how Bel like a good scholer defendeth his black maisters and oppugneth the Catholique doctrin 4. He begineth his second Article as he Bel pag. 19. did the first with a syllogisme with dissimulation and vntruth Aquinas saith he 31. vntruth Bellarm the Councel of Trent and the rest of the Conc. Trid. sess 13 can 1. Aquinas 3. p. 76. art 1. Bellarm. l 1. de Euchar. c. 2. Romish brood hold constantly as an article of their Christian faith that the true organical and natural body of Christ which is localy in hauen is also truly and really vnder the forme af bred and wine in the sacrifice of the masse but this saitâ— he is impossible as which implyâ—th flat contradiction ergo c. I accept Bels confession of the Catholiques constancy in their faith which is Catholiques constant in their faith a vertue far from him selfe who hath twise altered lis religion 5. Bels dissimulation is euident for he 3. dissimulation could not be ignorant that Luther and his Lutherish brood hold the real presence of Christs body and blood in the Eucharist no les then Catholiques though otherwise then they doe For Luther accurseth them Luther in praefat lib. Sueuarum In postrema confes fidei de caena Domini Et thesti 15. 27. and accounteth them blasphemers and damned foreuer and in plaine teatmes defineth them to be heretiques and out of Gods church who denie the body and bloud of Christ to be receaued with carnal mouth in the venerable Eucharist This was Luthers sentence iudgemeÌ„t vpoÌ„ them that deny the real presence Ioan. Lauatherus Ioan. Ieclerus which his brood defend with tooth and nayle as is euident by their endlesse and mortal warres against the Zuinglians and Caluinists whereof two Protestants haue written two bookes 6. Bells want of fidelitie appeareth in this proposition whereof he maketh no doubt For albeit al Catholiques beleue as a point of their faith that Christs true and natural body and the very selfe same which in heauen is organical is in the B Sacrament yet nether the Councel of Trent S. Conc. Trid. sess 13. can 1. S. Thom. 3. p. q. 76. art 1. Bellarm. lib. 1. de Euchar. c. 2. Thomas nor Bellarmin in the places quoted by Bel affirme as a point and much lesse as an Article of their faith that it is there organical For organization being an accident of the body depending of quantity they hold no otherwise his organization then they do his quantity to be in the Sacrament The Councel onely defineth whole Christ that is euery substantial part of him to be in the Eucharist without any mention of his quaÌ„tity or other accidents as appeareth by the words of the Canon If any shal deny the body and blood together with the soul Diuinity of our Lord Iesus Christ and consequently whole Christ to be in the Eucharist c. be he accursed And in the same sense sayd S. Thom 3 p q. 76 ar 1. that according to the Catholique faith whole Christ is in the Sacrament And though art 4. he teach that Christs quantity is also in the Sacrament yet affirmeth he it not as a point of faith In like sorte Bellarm in the place which Bel citeth teacheth and truly that Christs quantity is in the Sacrament but not with Bels addition as a point of faith And though l 3. de Euchar c. 5. he cal it the common sentence of the Schooles and Church yet condemneth he not the contrary as heretical but onely as false and erroneous And as for Durand accom Gabriel Durand 4. d. 10. q. 2. Occam 4. q. 4. tract de Eucharist c. 29. maior q. 2. Gabr. art 2. concl 2. lect 43. in Can. Maior and Satus also as Sainctes reporteth whome Bel can not deny to be of the Romish brood as he scornefully speaketh they thought that Christs body had not his quaÌ„tity in the Sacrament and consequently must needs thinke that it was not there organical And to disproue Bel Iuel in his apologie writeth that some Papists affirme Christs quantity to be in the Eucharist others deny it For some being perswaded in Philosophy that quantity essentially requireth aptitudinal commensuration to place so that if it be put in a place it must needs be coextended to the place thinking that they cold sufficiently verifie Christs words by teaching the substance of his body to be in the Sacrament denied his quantity to be there saying that God supplieth the effest therof so far forth as is necessary for the soule to informe the body as in al Deuines opinion he supplieth the effect of coextension to place which also is a natural disposition required to life and information of a body or matter But other Deuines of greater learning and grauity iudging it an inconuenient thing to graunt Christs
when consent is not giuen vnto it to vnlawful acts And soone after But in a certain kind of speech it is called sinne and he giueth there two reasons of this figuratiue speech because saith he it was made of sinne and maketh sinne if it ouercome Again So is Concupiscence called sinne because it was made by sinne vvheras novv in the regenerate it selfe is no sinne mark again as speech which the tong maketh is called a tong writing a hand vvhich a hand maketh So also it is called a sinne because it maketh sinne if it ouercome as cold is called sluggish because it maketh sluggards Can any Catholique now speak more plainly In these few words al in one chapter he twise denyeth concupiscence in the regenerate to be sinne once affirmeth it to be improperly so called and giueth two reasons and two examples of such figuratiue speech The S. Augustin to 7. Bellarm. l. 5. de amiss Grat. stat peccati c. 8. same doctrin he teacheth l. 1. contr duas epist Pelag. c. 13. and l. 2. cont Iulian in al his tomes as Bellarmin sheweth So that whatsoeuer Bel hereafter shal obiect out of S. Paul S. Austin or others calling concupiscence S. Austin hath preuented al Bels obiections sinne I need not answer my selfe but referre the Reader to these words of S. Austin wherin he explicateth both why and how S. Paul him selfe and others meane not properly but improperly and figuratiuely when they cal concupiscence sinne Yet because Bels arguments containe diuers vntruths requisite to be taxed I wil answer them al in such order as he proposeth them CHAP. II. Diuers vntruthes of Bel disproued his arguments out of S. Paul against the doctrin in the former chapter ansvvered BEL beginneth this Article as he did Bel pag. 41. the rest with vntruths 1. That S. Paul in vntruth 47 the whole 7. chapter to the Romans proueth original concupiscence in the regenerate to be sinne This is not so for he doth not proue it to be any sinne at al but supposing it to prouoke to sinne calleth it sinne 2. That Papists vntruth 48 can not abide the Apostles doctrin Forsooth because we can not abide Bels exposition 3. That the cause of our denying Concupiscence to vntruth 49 be sinne is because it ouerthroweth our holy so supposed iustification thus blasphemously he denyeth Bel blaspbemeth iustification iustification to be holy our inherent purities condigne merits works of supererogation This is vntrue for it might be such sinne as Bel wold haue it to wit venial and destroy Bel art 6. p. 81. none of al these But the true causes are Scriptures Fathers reason before alleadged and Bel confesseth that the reason pag. 50. which we euer haue in our mouth is the inuoluntarines of concupiscence 4. That the Maister of Sentences vtterly condemneth vs in calling vntruth 50 3. sent d. 19. concupiscence culpam But he meaneth improperly as is euident by his owne words 2. dist 32. Concupiscence after baptisme saith he is only mark Bel punishment of sinne but before baptisme both punishment and fault 2. Thus hauing made his way with vntruths Bel pag. 42. he proueth cōcupiscence to be sinne out of S. Paul Rom. 7. v. 25. saying I my selfe with the mynd serue the law of God but with the flesh the law of sinne And hence noteth that the regenerate do serue the law of sinne But he forgot to note that it is but with the flesh and that with the mynd without which Ibid. there is no formal sinne they serue the law of God He also noteth That the best liuers can not merit grace and glory ex condigno because by sinne they deserue death VVhich because S. Austin saith he at the first could not disgest he vnderstood S. Paul in the 7. chapter to the Romans only 51. vntruth of the vvicked not of the godly But remitting Bel forgetteth his matter the matter of merit and desert of sinne to their proper places art 5. and 6. false it is that S. Austin changed his opinion about the vnderstanding of those words of S. Paul Rom. 7. I am a carnal man solde vnder sinne and the like because he saw that iust men sinned For as him selfe testifyeth 1. Retract S. Austin c. 23. and Bel wrongly cited 22. he reading other expositors found that the foresaid words might be vnderstood of the Apostle him selfe as the word carnal may be verifyed of him in respect of his body not yet spiritual and the word sinne in respect of concupiscence which is sinne vz improperly as the same S. Austin explicateth Lib. 1. de nupt concupis c. 23. l. 1. cont duas epist Pelag. c. 13. in the books to which he referreth vs and we cited them before Wherby we see that S. Austins error was in vnderstanding the foresaid words of formal and proper sinne as Bel doth and corrected it by vnderstanding them of improper sinne And yet euen when he was in that error he was so far from thinking as Bel doth that the best liuers in rigor deserue eternel death that then he wold in no wise thinke the Apostle to speak of a mā in grace assuring him selfe that no such man is solde vnder sinne that deserueth eternal death 3. His second proofe is out of the 23. Bel pag. 42. verse of the same chapter where S. Paul writeth I see a lavv in my members subduing me to the lavv of sinne VVhat saith Bel can he Bel forgetteth vvhat he is to proue merit who is prisoner to the law of sinne But beside that Bel for got what he was to proue vz. Concupiscence in the iust to be sinne not their merit to be none S. Paul by the word me vnderstandeth only his flesh as he had expounded him selfe before v. 18. when he said There dvvelleth not in me that is in my flesh good And S. Austin interpreteth 1. de nupt concupis c. 30. and 31. And v. 23. saith that he vvas prisoner to the lavv of sinne in his flesh and in his mynd serued the lavv of God what maruel then that one prisoner in flesh but free in mynd from which al our merit or sinne proceedeth may by seruing Gods law merit 4. His third proofe is out of the 19. verse Bel pag. 43. where as he citeth S. Paul saith The euil vvhich I vvold not that I do Omitting the false False translat 3. translating of on thelo and Nolo I vvold not as though S. Paul had not had a present and absolute wil not to lust but an imperfect velleity which euen the wicked haue and in english we signify by vvold and vvold not I answer that S. Paul improperly saith He doth that which he wil not and therfore in the very next verse as it were correcting that speech saith If I do that I vvil not I vvorke v. 20. it not wherin he both
beleeue he hath great skil in that tongue though the wordes be in his booke neither accented nor printed right but remitting this fault to the printer the text he englisheth thus But the gift of God is life euerlasting in Christ Iesus our lorde and then argueth in this manner Eternal life is the free gift of God therfore it can be no way due to the merit of mans workes 2. Answer First the consequent seemeth opposite to this other proposition of his pag. 77. Eternal life is due to the workes of Gods elect Secondly the Antecedent is false Foure reasons vvhy eternal life is grace and neither here nor any where els taught by S. Paul He calleth here eternal life grace as it may be called for diuers causes 1. because God gratiously couenanted with vs to giue it as a rewarde of our good workes which we being his slaues by creation he might haue exacted of vs without any rewarde at al. This is S. Thomas his reason S. Thomas 1. 2. q. 114. art 2. 2. because the workes them selues for which God giueth vs life eternal were freely giuen vnto vs by Gods grace This is S. Austins reason epist 105. 5. Austin 3. because the workes haue no perfect actual equality to eternal life but only virtual and proportionate and this reason giueth Theodoret. in cap. 6. Rom. where he Theodoret. saith that temporal paines and eternal ioyes in aequilibrio non respondent and Bel falsly translateth Bel pag. 63. Fals translation 4. are nothing answerable 4. because as workes are rewarded euen aboue their virtual and proportionate equality as Deuines say vltra condignum No maruel if S. Paul called eternal life rather grace or gift then a stipend seeing it hath much more of grace then it hath of iustice yet notwithstanding he no where called it meere grace yea in 1. Cor. 3. Philip 3. v. 14. 2. Timoth. 4. v. 8. S. Paul might haue called glory a stipend S. Austin calling it a rewarde a goale and crowne of iustice he clearly declareth that it is no meere grace nor free gift beside that as S. Austin writeth epist 105. he might haue called it a stipende as he calleth death in respect of sinne but forbore lest we should thinke it were so iustly deserued by good workes as death is by euil And perhaps he called it so in the next verse before where he calleth eternal life in greeke telos which as Beza Beza Rom. 6. confesseth may there signify vectigal or mercedem and is equiualent to stipend 3. Notwithstanding this Bel exclaimeth pag. 62. against the Rhemists that they translated Charisma grace in steed of gift for to extenuate the clearnes of this text wherin he sheweth his malice and folly For malice it is to accuse men to corrupt Scriptures of set purpose and to bring no proofe therof yea to confesse as he doth that they follow the auncient vulgar edition of which S. Hierom was either Author or amender And folly it is to condemne that translation as done for to extenuate the clearnes of Scripture and withal to confesse as he doth that it is according to the olde vulgar edition and that it may be here admitted and to approue an other translation of Donation or Gift which maketh no more for his purpose then Grace which him selfe in the next page englisheth Free grace and finally to alleadge in his owne behalfe Theodoret. S. Chrisostom Origen Ambros Theophilact In cap. 6. ad Rom. and Paul of Burges whoe al in the very places which he citeth for him selfe read as the Rhemists translate grace though some of them explicate it by Gift as it is indeed though no free gift 4. But let vs heare why the Rhemists did not wel translate the worde Charisma by Bel sup Perkins refor Cathol p. 107. Grace Because saith he it signifieth a gift freely bestowed If so Syr why did not you your mates and your Bibles so translate it but Bibles printed by Barker 1584. absolutly by gift So you condemne other and commit your selfe the like fault Remember what S. Paul saith to such Rom. 2. But how proueth he Charisma to signify a Gift freely giuen Forsooth autos ephe This Lexicon Grynaei Basileae 1539. vvho citeth Budaeus Lexicon Gesneri auctū per Arlemium Iunium Hartengum Basileae great Grecian hath said it contrary to the Lexicons made and printed by Protestants who make Charisma al one with Charis and to signify Grace or gift without mention of Free gift contrary to the old vulgar translation contrary to the vniforme reading of Fathers contrary to his owne and his fellows translations Are these your cleare and euident demonstracions which shal be able to put al Papists as you promise to silence for euer in this behalfe pag. 62. 5. Novv saith he let vs vievve the iudgement of holy Fathers vpon this text With a good wil Syr But marke good Readers how the Fathers are holy their wordes are golden See Bel p. 62. 64. 65. 71. 75. 67. 59. 104. 132. their mouthes golden and them selfes glistering beames and strong pillers of Gods Church when they seeme to make for Bel who otherwise amongst Protestants are but plaine Austin and Hierom and their doctrine stubble errors spottes blemishes Likewise when Popish writers seeme to fauour Bel they are with him famous renowned zealous great schoole doctors great Clerks indeed whoe other whiles are but parasites and dunces 6. First he produceth out of Theodoret pag. 62. Theodoret. in c. 6. Rom. that S. Paul did not cal here eternal life a revvarde but grace because it is the gift of God and al our labours are not of equal poise vnto it This is nothing against vs who neither say that S. Paul did in this verse cal eternal life a rewarde nor deny that it is the gift of God nor affirme that our labours are of equal poise vnto it Next he produceth S. Chrisostom in c. 6. Rom. writing S. Chrysost p. 63. that The Apostle called not eternal life a revvarde but grace as Brixius translateth or gift as Bel hath to shevv that they vvere deliuered not by their ovvne strength nor that there is debt revvarde or retribution of labour but that al those things came by Gods grace or as Bel hath they receaued them freely by Gods gift Here S. Chrisostom at the first sight seemeth to deny Genes v 1. Prouerb v. 18. 2. Paralip v. 7. Sap. v. 16. Eccl. v. 22. Isai v. 10. Math. v. 12. 1. Corinth v. 8. S. Chrysost eternal life to be a rewarde or retribution of good workes which is not only contrary to Scripture Gen. 15. 2. paralip 15. prouerb 11. psal 118. Sapient 5. Eccles 18. Isai 40. Math. 5. 1. Corinth 3. Apoca. vlt. v. 12. but euen to him selfe hom 43. in 1. Corinth saying that VVe shal haue perfect revvarde and most ful retribution not only for the good vve do but
chron 96. Euseb chronic 97. he maketh the 14. yeare of Domitian to be about 100. years after Christs ascension which was but about the 97. yeare after Christs natiuity as is euident by al Chronicles or supputators of tymes and so wanted almost 40. of an 100. after his ascension Omitting also an other manifest error in affirming S. Ihon to haue written his Ghospel almost an 100. years after Christs ascension who dyed the 68. yeare after his passion See Baron An. 101. Eusebius in chron S. Hieron in Scriptur Ecclesiast in Ioanne in chron as Eusebius and S. Hierom testify and therfore could not write almost an 110. years after Christs ascension vnles he wrote many years after his owne death 3. But omitting these errors as testimonies of Bels ignorance in histories which I regard not To his argument I answer That See S. Cyril l. 12. in Ioan. c. 61. those words These are written are meant only of signa miracles done by Christ and written by S. Ihon to moue vs to beleeue that Christ was God Reinold thes 1. Reinolds pag. 60. confesseth That they are referred properly to signa myracles yet wil haue them also meant of precepts doctrine written by S. Ihon because myracles are to confirme and persvvade doctrine and precepts But I proue that they are meant only of miracles Because S Ihon hauing recorded diuers miracles of Christ afterward immediatly before those sayd words saith Many other miracles did Iesus in the sight of his disciples vvhich v. 30. are not vvritten in this booke And then addeth but These are written that you may beeleue that Iesus v. 31. is Christ the sonne of God c. Who seeth not here that the demonstratiue pronowne These is referred only to miracles For S. Ihon hauing said that many miracles were vnwritten streight after with the aduersatiue or exceptiue particle But which Bel guilefully leaft out excepteth these which he had written from the condition of others which he had not written saying But these are written c And Reinolds reason is so far from prouing his purpose as it proueth the quite contrary For because Reinolds proof against him self Christs doctrine and faith was the end of S. Ihons writing and myracles the meanes and motiues to bring men to Christs faith as him selfe professeth in the forsaid words euideÌ„t it is that he meaneth both of Christs doctrine and miracles in the foresaid verse but differently and vnder different words For of myracles he meaneth as motiues and meanes vnder the words These are written c. And of doctrine he meaneth as the end of his writing the myracles vnder the other words That you may beleeue c. 4. But suppose that S. Ihon by These vnderstood both myracles doctrine can Bel therfore infer that S. Ihon meant of thâ— whole canon of Scriptures Surely no because he hauing before said That many other myracles of Christ were not written in this booke and immediatly adding But these are written c. can not be vnderstood but of his owne writing and in his owne Ghospel wheruppon if Bel inferre any thing he must inferre that S. Ihons Ghospel alone is absolutly sufficient and conteineth al things necessary Which I hope he wil not doe Reinolds graunteth Io. Reinolds apol p. 216. that S. Ihons Ghospel is sufficient supposing that we heare of no other But this is nothing to the purpose For they out of this place inferre the Scripture to be absolutly sufficieÌ„t so as we may reiect al other things though we heare of them And therfore seeing S. Ihon in this place can not be vnderstood but of his owne Ghospel if hence they proue absolute sufficiency of Scripture against Traditions they must inferre absolute sufficiency of S. Ihons Ghospel against al other what soeuer I omit a place Bel alleadgeth out of S. Cyril with an other S. Cyril lib. 12 in Io. cap. vlt. S. Augustin tract 49. in Ioan. Sup. c. 1. parag 2. Bel pag. 91. out of S. Austin which I cited in the first conclusion For they proue no more then is there affirmed 5. His second place out of the new testament is act 20. v. 27. I haue not spared to shew vnto you the whole counsel of God Therfore saith he the whole counsel of God touching our saluation is conteined in holy Scripture Omitting his needles proofs out of Lâ—â—a and Carthu that S. Paul meaneth of al counsâ—l touching our saluation I answer that this place ether maketh directly against Protestants or not at al against Catholiques For seeing S. Paul speaketh of his owne shewing vnto the Ephesians if he be vnderstood of shewing only by writing it followeth that his epistle to the Ephesians conteineth al Gods counsel and is absolutly sufficient which is against Protestants But if he be vnderstood as he should be of shewing in general ether by worde or writing nothing followeth to Bels purpose or against Catholiques 6. But saith Bel it wil not suffice to ansvver pag. 91. That al Gods counsel was preached but not written because S. Paul was an Apostle of that Rom. 1. Act. 26. Ghospel vvhich was promised by the Prophets taught no other thing then that the Prophets had foretolde But this proueth no more of S. Paul then of al the Apostles For they were al Apostles of the same Gospel and taught the same doctrine which he did and yet some of them wrote neuer a worde Some shew it hath to proue that al which S. Paul preached was written by the Prophets Sup. c. 1. parag 7. 8. which how it is to be vnderstood hath bene before explicated 7. And because Bellarmin saith That the Bellarm. lib. 1. de verbo Dei cap. 1. 2. Scripture is an infallible and most secure rule of faith And That he is mad who reiecting Scripture followeth inward inspirations Bel chargeth Bel pag. 93. vntruth 77 him to contradict him selfe teaching els vvhere the contrary but cyteth no place because none is to be found and to confound vntruth 78 himselfe because he wil not rely vpon Gods vvritten testimonies but seeke after vnvvritten vanities and ground his faith vpon them Here Bel slandereth Bellarmin For when did euer he or any Catholique refuse to rely vpon Gods written testimony when did they not account it a most infallible rule of faith vpon what vanities do they ground their faith we confesse Scripture to be an infallible rule but not the total rule but as Bellarmin Bellarmin saith lib. 4. de verb. dei c. 12. the partial rule Let Bel improue this Hic Rhodus hic Saltus 8. Moreouer he alleadgeth S. Austin Bel pag. 93. S. Augustin cont Adimant cap. 3. to 6. writing That there are no precepts or promises in the doctrine of the Ghospel and Apostles which are not in the old Testament True But as S. Austin afterward in expresse words recalled S. Augustin lib. 1. Retrac c. 22.
desire of knowledge and by obscurer wipe away loathsomnes For here he plainly teacheth Scripture to be obscure in some places But perhaps it is because S. Austin addeth Almost nothing is in the obscure places which is not most plainly vttered otherwhere But this helpeth Bel nothing For nether saith he that al obscurities are plainly other where explicated Nor that it is plaine in what places they are explicated And so S. Austin admitting some obscure places of Scripture to be no where explicated in Scripture and supposing it not to be plaine in what places such obscure places as are explicated be explicated admitteth Scripture to be obscure An other place he citeth Bel p. 111. 112. 113. out of S. Austin as also S. Hierom and Theodoret concerning reading of Scripturs which shal be answered in the next chapter CHAP. VII Of the vulgar peoples reading Scripture FIRST conclusion it is not necessary to al sorts of people that desire to attaine to eternal life to read Scripturs The contrary auoucheth Bel pag. 103. 109. wherin he exceedeth the heretike Pelagius who required not reading but only knowledge of Scripture for to be without sinne therby condemned a great part of Christians as S. Hierom writeth dialog 1. cont Pelag. But S. Hierom. it is so manifest as it needeth no proofe For how should they doe that can not read Doth Bel thinke Scripture to be like a neck verse that who can not read it shal be hanged where doth God command euery one vpon paine of death to read Scripturs whence came this new law which Bel proclaimeth But marke Reader Protestants taught at first that no works were necessary to saluation And now Bel auoucheth one more vz. reading of Scripturs then euer Catholiques dreamed on 2. Second conclusion It is not expedient See S. Gregor Nazianzen in Apologet orat 1. de Theolog. for euery one of the vulgar sort to read Scripturs This I proue because vnlearned and vnstable persons depraue the Scripture to their owne perdition Many of the vulgar sort are vnlearned and vnstable Therfore many of them ought not to read Scripture The Minor is euident The Maior is auerred by S. Peter 2. c. 3. v. 16. and proued by Hacket More Ket Hammont See Stovv Ann. 1561. 1579. daily experience of new Christs new Iewes new heresyes daily gathered out of Scripture And in truth the Protestants counselling of common people to read Scripturs is much like to the Diuels perswading of Eue to eat the Apple He asked Eue why God forbad her to eat they aske why the Church forbiddeth vs to read And both answering alike He replyeth you shal not die but become like Gods They say you shal not fal into errors but become like Deuines And the euent is like in both Eue by eating fel out of Paradise and incurred death simple people by reading dye in soule fal out of the Church 3. But saith Bel. A good should not be Bel p. 107. taken wholy from the godly for fault of the bad Answere The godly are not debarred from reading Scripture if they be desyrous and iudged by their Pastors to be such as wil reape good therby Neuertheles they ought not without lycence lest as S. Austin S. Augustin lib. de vtilit credend c. 10. tom 6. writeth in the like case Though they hurt not them selfs by reading they may hurt others by example As he that could fly be made to go lest his example prouoke others to so perilous attempt This saith he is the prouidence of true religion and deliuered from our Auncestors and to alter this course were nothing els then to seeke a sacriledgious way to true religion Moreouer though a thing be good in it selfe yet it is not good but to such as know how to vse it But euery one of the common people knoweth not how to vse Scripture For as Gregory Nazianzen S. Nazianz. orat Quod non liceat semper publice de Deo contēdere In Apologetico S. Hierom. epistol ad Paulin. writeth The vvord of holy vvritt is not so base that it is open to the vnlearned common sort and seely men creeping as yet vpon the ground And againe To some it is better to be taught by others And S. Hierom complaineth that euery one challengeth the knowledge of Scripture and that the chatting old vvife the doating old men and the prating Sophister take it in hand See Theodoret lib. 4. c. 17. What wold he say now if he saw Protestants children reading Scripture and taught to read english by the Byble Now let vs see Bels obiections 4. Bel alleadgeth S. Chrisostom as affirming Bel p. 103. 104. S. Chrysost proaem ep ad Rom. 1. That if we read Scripture seriously vve shal need no other thing ◠That it is a great shame for men charged with wife and children only to heare sermons and not withal to study Scripturs 3. That many euils come of ignorance of Scripture as heresies and dissolute life Answer The first point is not against vs who graunt that in reading Scripture we may find al things necessary But the question now is whither it be better for euery one to find such things him selfe out of Scripture or no. As for the second point S. Chrisostom only saith that it is a shame not to exact more diligence of men in hearing sermons then in gathering mony At lest saith he be ready to heare what others haue gathered and bestovv so much diligence in hearing vvhat is said as in gathering mony For though it be a shame to exact but so much of you yet wil we be content if you performe so much The third point is easely answered because he saith Innumera mala nata sunt quod scripturae ignorantur Christ sup vntruth 84 not That much mischeef commeth of not reading as Bel falsly affirmeth pag. 105 but of not knowing the Scripture vz if men wil nether read it them selfs nor heare it readd and expounded by preachers Nether could he thinke that much mischeef can come of not reading Scripture if so be it be heard seeing he promiseth to be content if men wil heare it 5. An other place he citeth out of S. Bel p. 105. S. Chrysost hom 29. in 9. c. Genes tom 1. Chrisostom where he exhorteth men auscultare lectionem scripturae to harken to the reading of Scripture And againe At home to apply them selfes to read Scripturs Answer The first part maketh nothing for reading Differences betvvixt S. Chrysost and Protestants but only for hearing Scripture as is euident The second exhorteth to reading but 1. not euery man woman child as Protestants do but men and namely such who as he saith proem epist ad Rom. haue wiues charge of children and family And hom 9. Colos Hear you saith he who liue in the vvorld haue care of vviues and children who as he writeth conc 3. de Lazaro haue publicke offices
absolutly for the vulgar sort to read Scripture it is not expedient that it be common in vulgar tongues lest some like foolish Eue be tempted by the sight thereof curiously and against command to read it Secondly because nether the Iewes after their language was corrupted by their captiuity translated the Scripture into their vulgar language Nor the Church euer commanded the Scriptures to be translated into euery vulgar tongue but generally vsed them in Hebrew greeke and latine in which tongs they were written As for the English Bybles translated by Protestants See Conference at Hampton Court pag. 45. 46. 47. they al hitherto haue bene naught as them selfs confesse and are now about a new translation which hereafter perhaps wil be found as faulty as the former Whereby we see that the English faith hitherto hath bene false as builded vpon the English Bible which was false and consequently The good vvhich Protestants haue gotten by English Bibles who dyed in it dyed in a false faith and relyed vpon mans worde in steed of Gods And this is the true death which common people haue incurred and al the good they haue reaped by reading Scriptures in English according to the serpentine counsel of Ministers For where before they knew so much of Gods worde as was sufficient to saluation by reading English Bibles they haue read a lying worde as now after 46. years experience they both see and confesse and because they would not content them selfs with knowledge sufficient to sobriety and saluation but as the Apostle S. Paul writeth Rom. 12. v. 3. be more wise then behooued them God hath sent them as the same Apostle saith 2. Thess 2. v. 11. the operation of error to beleeue lying 2. Against this Bel obiecteth That the Bel p. 106. Apostle calleth them madde who read the Ghospel 1. Cor. 14. v. 24. to people in a language vnknovvne to them and the people also that listen therto as Catholiques doe Answer The Apostle is so far from condemning seruice of God in a tongue vnknowne to the hearers as he saith to such a one Thou doest vvel 1. Corinth 14. v. 17. But indeed he saith That if Ideots and infidels hard vs so doing they wold say we were madde If al the Church meet together saith he Only Idiots and infidels condēne seruice in an vnknovvne tonge and al speake vvith tongues and Ideots or infidels enter vvil they not say that you are madde 1. Corinth 14. v. 23. Wherfore not S. Paul but onely Ideots or infidels cōdemne the Churches seruice in an vnknowne tongue 3. And if the sacrifice and prayer of Zachary Luc. 1. v. 10. 11. which the people did not so much as heare or see did greatly profit them why may not the sacrifice and prayers of Priests which the people both see and heare greatly profit them though they vnderstand them not And if Bel wil excuse Zachary and the Iewes yea God who commanded it Leuit. 16. from madnes though they stood without dores and could nether heare nor see and much les vnderstand the sacrifice and prayers Much better if he please may he excuse Catholiques who both see and heare and parrly vnderstand the Catholique seruice And though Bel scoffe at Catholiques listening to the Ghospel tedde in latine Yet Origen Origen hom 20. in Iosue writeth That with only hearing Scripture though we doe not vnderstand The Diuels vvords not vnderstood vvorke euil Ergo Gods vvords not vnderstood do good it the poison of naughty spirits which besiege vs is driuen away as it were with a prayer and holy spirits are inuited to helpe vs. For saith he If words of coniuration pronounced though not vnderstood worke inchantments how much more vertue thinke we haue the words of holy Scripture And if S. Chrysostom hom 3. de Lazar S. Chrysost might say That though we vnderstand not Scripture yet ex ipsa lectione multa nascitur sanctimonia much holines riseth by very reading Why may we not say the like of very hearing And because Bel vrgeth this obiection no father I answer it no fuller who list see more of it let him read Rhemist 1. Corinth 14. D. Stapleton vpon the same place and Bellar. l. 2. de verb. Dei c. 16. 4. Bel obiecteth out of Theodoret That pag. 113. Theodoret. lib. 5. de Graecan affection the Hebrew books were translated into al languages This is nothing against vs who deny not but Scripture hath bene and may be vpon iust and vrgent causes translated into vulgar languages so it be not vulgarly vsed and common to al kinde of vulgar people Bel p. 106. vntruth 88 Vid. Indic libror. prohibit And here by the way I must aduertise the Reader of dyuers vntruths vttered by Bel concerning this matter 1. That the Pope burneth Scriptures in vulgar tongue This is not so For he burneth only heretical translations and al England knoweth how currant the Rhemists testament is amongst Catholiques 2. That the Pope excommunicateth al lay vntruth 89 vntruth 90 men that reason of matter of faith or dispute of his power citeth 6. decret lib. 5. cap. Quicunque Here be two vntruths For nether is there any worde of reasoning of the Popes power but only of disputing of the Catholique faith without touching whereof we may reason of the Popes power in diuers waies as is shewed art 1. cap. 1. Nether forbiddeth he lay men to reason or At vvhat tyme lay men are for bidden to dispute of faith dispute of faith with whom-soeuer or in what case soeuer but only with Heretiks as is euident out of the whole chapter which instructeth Catholiques how they ought to behaue them selfs towards Heretiks and when Cleargy men may dispute as when that Canon was made they might in al Christendome And in this case it is vnlawful for lay men to dispute of faith both because generally they are not sufficiently S. Greg. Nazianz orat 1. de Theol. in Apologet. orat Quod◠non liceat semper publice de Deo contédere learned to defend the faith against Heretiks as also because disputing of faith is proper them to whome preaching belongeth who are not lay but Cleargy men Whereupon said S. Gregory Nazianz. It is not euery ones part to dispute of God This is not so base matter or pertaining to them vvho as yet creeping on the ground are busyed with earthly study Euery one may thinke of God but not dispute of God Thus S. Gregory for his great knowledge surnamed the Deuine whose counsel I suppose euery wise man wil sooner follow then Babling Bel. And the ciuil Cod. de Sum. Trin. law punisheth al lay men that publikly dispute of faith 3. That Priests oftentymes vnderst and vntruth 91 not the latin vvords of absolution This he might better obiect to his fellow ministers See Bels lacke of latin art 5 c. 4. paragr 10. art 2. c. 4.