Vicar of Christ Christ of the Lord and God of Pharao And thus spoke S. Bernard euen in those books where according to Caluins Caluin l. 4. c. 11. paragr 11. iudgment he spoke it so as truth it selfe semed to speake And albeit the Pope do not entitle him selfe King of Kings but Seruant of Gods seruants which is a more humble stile then any Prince vseth yet rightly might he because he hath twoe Kingdomes vz. Naples and Sicily Feudatary The Pope gaue IrlaÌ„d to the King of England Stovv ann â—â—71 and temporally subiect vnto him as he had also Ireland before he gaue it vnto the crowne of England in K. Henry 2. time 7. But because Bel is so hard aconstruer of some Catholiques words let vs heare not a parasite but a Protestant Prelat speaking not in absence but in presence of the King and realme Bilson in his late sermon Bilson at the Kings coronation saith Kings be Gods by office they haue the society of his name are in his place their very robes are sanctified euery thing belonging to them is sacred are pertakers with Christ in the power honour and iustice of his Kingdome on earth and partake with Gods homage Behould he calleth Kings Gods and partners with God in his name power honour and homage and yet no Catholique chardgeth Protestants that they attribute to the King or that he challengeth power proper to God alone 8. The third point reprehended by Bel in Gersons reporte is that ecclesiastical and temporal power is said to come from the Pope This saith Bel pag 16. is to make the Pope author of al power a thing proper to God 14. vntruth 15. vntruth This say I is for Bel to vtter two vntruthes at once for neither do they speake of al power but only of power in earth which they deuide into ecclesiastical temporal besides which there is power in heauen of God and Saints neither do they make the Pope author of al power in earth but only saie it commeth from the Pope which is not to make him author therof vnles Bel wil make euery officer author of what he doth in the Princes name euery instrument author of the effect it worketh by vertue of the cause And thus much touching this slaunder of Popes imposed by Bel. Now let vs come to others for no other stuffe we are like to hear hereafter in this article CHAP. VIII Certaine false steps of a ladder vvhich Bel imagineth the Pope had to climbe to his superiority disproued BEL hauing vpon the foresaid words of some nameles Catholiques taken occasion Bel pag. 17. to slaunder Popes goeth on in like sorte for many leaues together setting downe steppes in a ladder which as he imagineth the Popes had to climbe to their superiority The first steppe saith he was the departure of the Emperour Constantine from Rome to Constantinople but if he had better considered he should haue found that as the cittie of Rome decaied by Constantines departure and Constantinople increased So the Sea of Rome rather fel therby in external Euseb Hieron in chron Conc. Constant epist ad Damasc Gelas ad Episcop Dardaniae dignity and the Sea of Constantinople rose then otherwise For wheras before Constantines going to Constantinople which was about the yeare 330. that church was but new and a parish of another church as Gelasius witnesseth soone after in the yeare 381. it was made a Patriarchate Cone Constantin c. 5. Concil Calced act 16. next to Rome and in the yeare 451. the Grecians gaue it equal priuiledges with Rome And not content with this about the yeare 600. that Patriarch arrogated the title of Oecumenical that is ouer the whole worlde And finallie in the yeare 1054. claimed Sigebert in chron the place of the first Patriarch alleadging the Pope to haue lost his primacy by adding filióque to the Nicene Creed 2. But Constantine sayth Bel at his departure pag. 7. did as the Popes parasites tel vs giue lardge guifts to the Pope euen his whole power dominion and territories both in Rome Italy and al the west Behould a man as the Prouerbe is hauing a wolfe by the eare which he dare neither hould nor yet let goe For if he graunt that Constantine gaue the Pope his whole power and dominion ouer Rome Italy and al the west he must needs graunt that the Pope of right hath imperial power ouer al the west If he deny it he sheweth not how ConstaÌ„tins departure was a steppe for the Pope to climbe to higher authority Besides that not Constantins departure but his guifte should haue bene made the steppe Notwithstanding choosing rather to condemne him selfe of not shewing how Constantins departure was a steppe for the Pope to climbe then to graunt that the Pope hath so good right to imperial power ouer the west he inclineth to denial of the guift citeth Valla Volaterran Cathalan Cusan fowre late and obscure writers against it and tearmeth them Popishe parasites who affirme it 3. But against these foure late writers I oppose foure most auncient Isidor Photius or Balsamon Gratian Iuo many late writers besides two Iewes Rabby Abraham and Aben Esra who al auouch Constantins guift whereof Photius and the Iewes were professed enimies of the Pope and Bel him selfe confesseth that some Emperours haue giuen the Pope their soueraigne rights In which kinde no Emperour excelled Constantine yet Bellarmine saith Bellarmin lib. 5. de Roman Pont. â— 9. Bel seemeth to doubt of this and such like donations Wherein Sir In these words saith he there are extant at Rome the authentical euidences of these and the like donations and if there were not prescription of eight hundred yeares would aboundantlie suffice For Kingdomes vniustlie gotten are in proces of time made lawful as he proueth by the Romane Empier gotten Prescription of 30. yeares sufficeth by ciuil lavv by Cesar the Kingdome of England by Saxons and others What shew is in theis words of doubt or rather not of certainty For Bellarmin affirmeth that the Pope hath two iust titles to hould his estate The first is free guift of Princes whereof he can shew authentical euidences the other prescription of time 4. The second steppe saith Bel was the fal pag. 8. of the Empire in the west in the yeare 471. and vacancy therof for almost 330. yeares But how this fal and vacancy of the Empire was a steppe for Popes to climbe neither he sheweth nor any can imagin especially if as he writeth straight after in this vacancie of the Empire Rome was spoiled with fier sword and the verie walles throvvne dovvne to the ground and al Italie possessed of the Barbares vntil Carolus Magnus who was the first Emperour after the vacancie if in this vacancy Rome was destroied and al Italy possessed by Barbares who for the most part were heathens or heretiks how could it bee a steppe for the Pope to climbe and
they challenge the royal right of both swords throughout the Christian world and haue made thereof a flat decree But first I deny that the Pope as Pope challengeth royal right of either sword For his right to the spiritual sword is not royal but of a different nature as is euident shal be declared hereafter and his royal right to the material sword is neither ouer al christendome as Bel vntruelie auoucheth but only ouer the Popedome nor he challendgeth it by his Papacie yea as Pope Gelasius wrote Popes Gelasius de vincul anathematis Nicol. 1. dec 96. can cum ad vetum pag. 17. Bernard lib. 4. de consideratione haue not challendged royal soueraigntie but by the guifte of Princes who as Bel saith haue giuen their rights to them And albeit the decree doe after S. Bernard giue to the Pope right of the material sword yet neither hath it the word royal nor meaneth of Royal right as is euident because it teacheth that this sword is not to be drawne or vsed by the Popes hand as no doubt it might if he had royal right vnto it but by the hand of the souldier at the commaundement of the Emperour and becke of the Pope Whereby we see that the decree attributeth royal right of the material sword only to the Emperour who is to commaund the souldier to draw and vse it and to the Pope only authority to direct the Emperour in his commaund and vse of his sword 23. But suppose that Popes did challenge royal right of both swords throughout the christian world is this to climbe to the highest heauen and to Christes throne doth the christian world reach to the highest heauen or yet to the bounds of the earth doth Christes throne rule no more then the christian worlde or doth royal authority vnder him reach to his throne surelie Bel hath a base conceipt of Christes kingdome if he imagine that Popes or Princes by their authorities reach to his throne who as S. Paul saith is aboue al powers and princedomes Ad Ephes c. 1. v 21. Bel condemneth that in the Pope for blasphemie vvhich he iudgeth treason to deny to Princes thrones and dominations and aboue euerie name which is named either in this world or in the next but marke good reader how Bel condemneth that for horrible blasphemie in the Pope which him selfe accoumpteth as highe treason to deny to other Princes For what is supremacie in both ecclesiastical ciuil causes but as he speaketh royal right of both swords and to deny this to temporal Princes he deemeth no lesse then highe treason 24. Secondlie he proueth his foresaid pag. 14. Dist 22. can omnes slaunder out of Pope Nicholas 1. his words Christ committed to S. Peter the right both of heauenlie and earthlie empire which Bel seemeth to vnderstand of spiritual and temporal power Answer Suppose the words were meant of spiritual temporal power they make nothing for royal right but may be wel expounded according to the meanig of the foresaid decree That S. Peter had from Christ right to both empires vz. to gouerne the one and to direct the other but of royal right there is no word in P Nicholas Nicol. 1. ep ad Michael Imper. yea he prosesseth that Christ distinguished eclesiastical and imperial power by distinct acts and dignities that in spiritual matters the Emperour should need Bishops in temporal Bishops vse Emperourrs But indeed Pope Nicholas meaneth not of temporal power at al but only of spiritual giuen to S. Peter Which he calleth both earthlie and heauenlie dominion because according to our Sauiours Words Math 16. to which he alludeth what he looseth in earth is loosed in heauen 25. I omit a glose cited by Bel because it Glossa F. Câ—lestis only saith that the Pope hath both swords vz in the sense before explicated But what he bringeth out of an obscure appendix of P. Boniface his making a constitution Appendix Fuldeâ—â—s wherein he affimed him selfe to be spiritual and temporal Lorde in the whole worlde is vntrue as is euident by the constitution and words before cited out of it And Pope Clement 5. declared extrauag Clemens 5. meruit Charissimi de priuilegijâ— that Pope Boniface his constitution did nothing preiudice the kingdome of France But what the appendix saith of Boniface his sending to Phillip King of France to haue him acknowledge he helde the kingdome of him may wel be expounded by that Platina writeth Platin. in Bonifac. 8. vz. That Phillip hauing against the law of nations imprisoned a Bishop whom Boniface sent vnto him to perswade him to make ware against Infidels the Pope sent the Archedeacon of Narbo to procure the Bishops libertie and othervvise to denounce that the kingdome of France vvas fallen to the churches disposition for the offence of the Kinge 26. But let vs goe on with Bel. Since this â—el pag. 16. ladder saith he was thus framed Popes haue tiranized aboue measure deposed Kings and Kingdomes and taken vpon them authority pertaining to God alone Omitting Bels straunge phrase of deposing Kingdomes if to depose Kings for neuer so iust cause be to tiranize Protestants haue tiranized far more in the space of 70. years then the Pope hath in these 300. years since that decree was made For in al these 300. yeares besids one or two Kings of Naples who were his liege men I finde deposed by the Hovv many deposed by Popes in 300. years Clemens 5. extrauag ad Certitudinem Pope one Schismatical and heretical Emperour of Greece Andronicus Paleologus and one other doubtful Emperour Ludouick the Bauarian two French Kings Philip 4. and Ludouick 12. and one King of Bemeland George and one King of Nauarre besides King Henry 8. and Queene Elizabeth and these al for heynous crimes whereas Protestants in 70. years setting Hovvmany by Protestants in 70. years aside the iniustice of their quarrel haue as much as laie them deposed one Emperour six or seauen Kings two absolute Queenes slaine two Kings one Queene and one Queenes husband as before hath bene tolde c. 4. paragr 6. 27. And Bel who so much obserueth Sacerdotes nunquam tyranni fuerunt sed tyrannos saepe sunt passi Amb. ep 33. the deposition of Emperours and Kings by the Pope and omitteth both their iniuries to him and his benefits done to them sheweth him selfe to be no indifferent man For omitting almost 33. Popes put to death by heathen Emperours Christian Emperours vid. Platinam in vit Pont. Six Popes murdered Princes and others haue murdered six Popes vz. Felix 2. Iohannes 11. Iohannes 15. Benedictus 6. Clement 2. Victor 3. besides Gregory 2. and diuers other whome they haue attempted to murder They haue banished foure vz. Liberius Sieuerius Vigilius Martin I Foure banished besides many others whom for feare of their liues they droue into banishment they haue imprisoned six vz. Iohannes 1.
about the Pope to whom or time when this regality was first graunted Marke good reader him selfe before affirmed that King Pipin gaue vp the gouernement pag. 12. 13. of Italie into Pope Steeuens hands and that this truth is apparant by the testemony of many renowmed Bel denieth vvhat him selfe saieth cannot be denied Onuphr in chron Nauclerus general 25. An. 750. Claudius Parad. des alliances Genealogiques Ado Regino Sigebert in chron Blond Dec. 1 l. 10. Mag deburgens cent 8. c. 10. Leo Ostien lib. 1. chron c. 9. Onuph sup Cronographes and can not be denied and now in the next page denieth both the fact and contestation of historiographers What wil he not deny who denieth that which him selfe saith can not be denied 15. The truth is that Pipin gaue not the exarchate to Greg. 3 who died in the yeare 741 or as other write 740 fourteene yeares before Pipins entrance into Italie neither was Pipin then a King but made afterward by Zachary successor to Gregory as Bel testifieth page 19. but to Pope Steeuen 2. as is apparant to vse Bels words by the testimony of many renowmed Cronographers though some cal him Steeuen 3. because they reckon his predecessour whom others omit because he liued but foure daies likewise al writers agree that Lewes pius confirmed the donation of his grandfather Pipin Apud Gratian dist 63. can ego Ludouicus Leo Ostien lib. 3. chron c. 48. vnto Paschal 1. and his name is in the donation as also that Countesse Maud gaue Liguria and Tuscia vnto Gregory the seauenth 16. And Bels prouing the historiographers Bel pag. 13. to disagree because Blondus and Platina saith he write that Pipin gaue the exarchate to Gregory the third Regino referreth it to Steeuen and Sigebert saith Pipin had Italy in his owne possession in the yeare 801. is like the rest of his proceedings For that of Platina is a manifest vntruth for he saith Platina in Stephan 2. Naucler general 26. Palmerius in chronic Claud. Paradi in Pepin paragr 6. 7. 8. 9. Pipin gaue the exarchate in Pope Steeuen the second his time and Sigebert meaneth not of King Pipin the giuer of the exarchate who died 768 but of his grandchild sonne to Carolus Magnus and how his possession of Italy doth not preiudicate the Pope is before explicated Regino saith that which is truth for best authors agree that Pipin gaue the exarchate in the yeare 755. at What time Steeuen 2. al. 3. was Pope 17. But suppose writers did not agree about the Pope to whome and time when Pipin made his guift of the exarchate must we therefore needs deny the guift in which they al agree So wee might deny that Christ Was borne because writers agree not about the time is it not vsual for historiographers to agree in the substance of the narration and yet differ in some circumstance of the person or time 18. Last of al least we should thinke the Grecian Emperors acknowledged Charles made by the Pope to be true Emperour Bel pag. 14. Sigebert An. 805. he telleth vs out of Sigebert that they had indignation against Charles and therefore he with often Embassages procured their friendshipes yea Blandus and Platina saith he affirme constantlie that Charles agreed with Irene and afterward with Niccphoras that with their fauors the might rule ouer the west Behould the drift of Bel to make vs thinke that Charles became Emperour not by creation of the Pope but by graunt of Grecian Emperors so loath he is to confesse the Pope had so great authority aboue 800. years agoe Wherein the silly foole ouerthroweth what he before said For if the Pope did not translate the Empire then was it no steppe to his tiranny as he imagineth 19. But let vs heare how he proueth that the Grecian Emperours did not achnowledge Charles the great for true Emperour first forsooth because Sigebert saith they had indignation against Charles what then are neuer Emperours offended for any thing lawfullie done especiallie if they thinke it preiudice their estate dignity and albeit Sigebert affirme that some Grecian Emperours who them selues came vnlawfullie and by tiranny to the Empire and that after Charles was crowned Emperour had indignation against Charles yet none write that Irene who was the only lawful Empresse at that time when Charles was created was offended with his creation but rather content as may be gathered by hir purpose which as Zonoras and Cedrenus write she had to marry him Yea Nauclerus saith she was deposed for Naucler general 28. the fauor she bore to Charles besides the indignation of those Emperours vz. Nicephorus Michael and Leo was not so much for the Imperial dignity taken by Charles as because as writeth Eginhart Charles Eginhart in vita Caroli his secretary they greatlie suspected least he should take the Empire from them which they might iustlie feare because by tirany and deposition of their predecessors they had gotten it and yet notwithstanding their indignation of their owne accord they sent Embassadours to Charles and made league and friendshippe with him as the same Eginhart Ado and others testifie Yea the Magdeburgians adde that the Grecians in a manner consented to Charles his Empire 20. His other proofe out of Platina containeth an vntruth for Platina writeth that Platina in Ieone 3. Charles being made Emperour Irene sent Embassadours to make peace and league with him to deuide Italie betwixt them which league Nicephorus renued but he hath no word of Charles his ruling the west with their fouours more then of their ruling the East with his And the like saith Blondus Blond Dec. 2. l. 1. Bel pag. 14. 21. The seauenth steppe saith Bel was the constitution of the seauen Princes electors of the future Emperour by Pope Gregory 5. by the fauour and free graunt af Otho then Emperour But this was rather an act of superiority in the Pope ouer Emperours then a steppe vntil it And seing this constitution hath euer since bene inuiolablie obserued and the Emperours so elected accompted as true Emperours throughout al Christendome a signe it is that Christians thinke the Pope hath authority to appoint Electors who may choose what Emperour they please by the authority giuen them from the Pope Wherfore I would Bel answered me this dilemma The seauen Electors haue authority to choose an Emperour or not If they haue then the Pope who gaue them that authority had the same because none can giue what he hath not him selfe if not Bel deposeth at once more Emperours and Princes then al Popes haue done 22. The eight and highest steppe of this ladder Bel pag. 15. saith Bel dâ—d reach vp euen to the highest heauen and to the verie throne of our lord Iesus here is a great cry now let vs see quid dignum tanto fert hic promissor hiatâ— because saiâ—h he Extrauag Bonif. 8. vtiam sanctam de maioritate obedientia vntruth
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
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
because S. Paul the seed of God is in them neither sinne nor can sinne 1. Ioh. 3. vers 9. and consequently S. Iohn auoyd the foresaid curse Neither doe their venial sinns incurre the curse for it is pronounced only against heynous crimes namely Idolatry incest murder and the like as is euident by the 27. of Deuter. Deuâ—â— from whence the Apostle reciteth the curse But Bel who confesseth him selfe to incurre the crime accursed by the law must needs confesse him selfe to be vnder that curse or say that he is not bound to Gods lawes made against Idolatrie Incest murder and the like 3. The like text he bringeth out of S. pag. 144. Iames. 2 v. 10. whosoeuer shal keepe the whole law and offended in one is made guilty of al. This place also maketh rather against Bel. For it supposeth that al the law may be kept as wel one point as the whole and only teacheth that the keeping of the whole law wil not saue if one point thereof be deadly broken But this is nothing against Gods children who as long as his seed abideth in them sinne not Ioh. 3. v. 9. S. Ioh. nor offend deadly in one point but abide both in the whole law and euery pointe thereof 4. Diuers other places Bel alleadgeth to proue that al men are sinners and that the iust doe sinne which no Catholique denyeth as Bel might learne out of the Tridentine Councel But how followeth it Concil Trident sess 6. cap. 11. thereof that the Iust whiles they are Iust sinne deadly or cannot auoyd al deadly sinne This is the marque which Bel should pag. 143. shoot at and hoped in the beginning of this article to hit the naile on the head but as S. Hierom said to a Luciferian whiles he S. Hierom. dialog contra Lucifer followeth his vaine of gainsaying he hath mist the question as some rather praiers then speakers vse to doe who not knowing to dispute yet cease not to quarrel CHAP. IIII. Bels arguments out of Fathers against the possibility of keeping Gods commaundements ansvvered FIRST out of S. Austin he alleadgeth pag. 145. S. Augustin lib. 1. de doctrin Christ c. 22. to 3. that God commaunded vs to loue him with al our hart soule and mynde and thereby left no part of our life vacant to take fruition of any other thinge But S. Austin in these words meant nothing els but that wee must loue nothing as our end and for it selfe but Gods for so he vseth the worde fruition and therfore addeth which Bel left forth But what other thing commeth to our mynde to be loued let it be carried thither whither the whole current of loue runneth 2. Other words he citeth our of lib. de pag. 146. perfect iusti ratiocin 16. but they are in 17. cap. 8. where S. Austin writeth That as long as there is any thing of carnal concupiscence which may be bridled by refrayning God is not loued omnimodo altogether with al the soule And yet though none in this life haue that perfection it is commaunded because it is not wel runne if it be not knowne whither to runne Answer What S. Austins meaning is herein himselfe explicateth saying that the precept of louing God withal our soule is not omnimodo altogether fulfilled whilst we haue inordinate motions He denyeth not substantial fulfilling which auoideth sinne yea lib. de spir liter cap. vlt. affirmeth S. Augustin tom 3. that though wee did not loue God withal our harts and soule so as we had no motions of lust yet if wee did not obey them we need not to aske God forgiuenes but only denyeth omnimodam impletionem which in the place cited he called most supereminent perfection of louing God and saith not it belongeth to this but to the next life vz. to bee perfectly perfourmed Wherfore when he saith such perfection is commaunded in this life he meaneth not that it is commaunded as a thing which we are bound to perfourme but only as an end to which we should runne For though saith De perfect instit loc cit he no man perfourme it yet we runne not wel if we knovv not vvhither to runne and hovv should we knovv if it vvere shevved by no precept 3. Next he citeth S. Thomas only because pag. 147. S. Thomas â— 2 q. 44. art he vseth the words perfectly and imfectly But how coutrary to Bels meaning hath bene before explicated which reproueth his vntruth in affirming himselfe to teach the selfe same doctrine with Aquinas What hath bene said to S. Austin and S. Thomas is to be applied to S. Bernarde S. Bernard hom 50. iâ— Cant. when he saith in the like sort that the precept of louing God can not be fulfilled in this life And that God in commaunding impossible things made not men preuaricators but humble For beside that S. Bernard as himselfe speaketh this only if the precept of loue be vnderstood of affectual charity or charity in worke and graunteth that so it is fulfilled if it be perfectly obserued as said he a litle before it may be in this life by Gods grace Besides this I say immediatly before the words which Bel cyteth he graunteth that initium perfectumque the beginning and perfection of charity may be experienced by Gods grace in this life If perfection be had surely the precept is fulfilled For as himselfe saith sone after doest thou not thincke is sufficient to the fulfilling the precept of louing thie neighbour if thou obserue it perfectly And Bel pag. 151. graunteth that who perfectly obserueth the law shal be iustifyed 4. And though he differ or as he speaketh defend the consummation of charity to the next life and therefore accoumpt the precept of charity impossible as far forth as it imbraceth the consummation yet he meaneth not that it imbraceth consummation as a thinge needful to be perfourmed which he saith shal be our reward in heauen but as the end to which men ought to endeuour vt scirent saith he ad quem iustitiae finem pro viribus niti oporteret that they might know to what end of iustice they ought to endeuour withal their power Behoulde he saith not that we ought to attaine to the said end but to endeuour al that we can and therefore God in commaunding that end in such sort as he doth maketh men no finners though they attaine not to it 5. After these fathers he bringeth two pag. 150. reasons The one out of our Lords prayer where we are taught to aske forgiuenes But where pardon is demaunded ths law is not exactly obserued The other is out of our daily confessions where we acknowledge our fault and most great fault Answer As the petition of forgiuing our sinns doth euidently conuince that we doe not so exactly keep the law as we neuer swarue from it So the other petition of doing Gods wil in earth as it is in heauen euidently