parag 4. c. 6. par 3. 4. 7. 8. art 7. c. 1. parag 2. c. 9. parag 22. c. 12. parag 3. Bel a foolish phisitian art 7. c. 7. parag 17. Bels godly sense an vngodly shift art 5. c. 3. parag 2. Bels godly keeping Gods commaundements an vngodly breaking of them art 8. c. 1. parag 1. Bel keepeth Gods commaundements or knoweth him not art 8. c. 1. parag 9. Bels ignorance in history art 1. c. 9. par 2. Bels ignorance in latin art 5. c. 4. parag 10. art 7. c. 9. par 19. art 2. c. 4 parag 13. Bels ignorance in logik art 2. c. 6 par 2. 4. Bels ignorance in preaching a. 7. c. 7. par 10. Bel impugneth errors histories opinions in steed of Traditions a. 7. c. 10. par 7. 10. Bel impugneth an opinion of Protestants and Canonists as a point of Popery art 3. c. 1. parag 2. Bel impugneth his owne slanders as a point of Popery art 1. c. 1. parag 5. Bel impugneth a school point as a point of Popery a. 2. c. 1. parag 6. a. 5. c. 2. parag 4. Bels ladder of lying art 2. c. 5. parag 7. Bel maketh Srripture like a neck verse art 7. c. 7. parag 1. Bels malice and folly in reprehending the Rhemists art 5. c. 4. parag 3. Bel noteth S. Austin what is quite against him self art 2. c. 5. parag 6. Bel ouerthroweth at once what he inteÌ„ded to proue in al the Article a. 4. c. 3. parag 8. Bel preferreth reason in matter of faith before authority art 2. c. 1. parag 9. Bels question like to that of the Capharnaits art 2. c. 1. parag 11. Bel recanting art 5. c. 6. parag 8. Bel seemeth a Libertin art 8. c. 1. parag 10. Bels shifts to auoid authority a. 8. c. 2. par 2. Bels vain boast art 5. c. 4. parag 9. Bels vain protestation art 7. c. 12. parag 4. Bel cursed by the law or keeperh it art 8. c. 3. parag 2. Bels vntruths whereof diuers are slaunderous a. 1. c. 1. parag 1. c. 7. par 4. c. 9. parag 28. 33. a. 2. c. 4. par 14. c. 6. par 8. a. 3. c. 1. par 1. 10. 13. a. 4. c. 1. parag 9. c. 2. par 1. 4. 5. 6. a. 5. c. 5. par 7. 9. 10. c. 6. par 1. 2. 4. 5. 9. a. 6. c. 2. par 9. a. 7. c. 3. par 7. c. 4. parag 6. 8. c. 5. par 1. 4. 5. 8. c. 7. par 4. 18. 19. c. 9. parag 22. c. 10. parag 6. 11. c. 12. parag 1. 2. 3. c. 13. par 8. c. 14. par 1. 4. a. 8. c. 2. par 2. Bel wil not haue vs heare Scripture read in Churches art 7. c. 7. parag 16. Bel wil examin Scripturs art 7. c. 9. par 12. Bel wresteth Scripture art 8. c. 1. parag 6. Berengarius dyed a Catholik a. 2. c. 5. par 1. Berhaeans example explicated what they examined art 7. c. 11. parag 4. S. Bernards meaning about possibility of louing God art 8. c. 4. parag 3. 4. S. Bernards meaning about merit art 5. c. 5. parag 9. Byble alone canonical Scripture but not alone Canonical art 7. c. 11. parag 3. Byble conserued and beleeued to be Gods word by Tradition art 7. c. 9. parag 4. Bilson attributing to Kings participation of Gods name power honor homagâ— art 1. c. 7. parag 7. Bishops oath to the Pope made with consent of al Catholik Princes a. 7. c. 14. par 2. Bishops oath to the Pope lawful and antient art 7. c. 14. parag 2. Bishops sweare no rebellion a. 7. c. 14. par 3. Britanny conuerted first to Popery art 7. c. 10. parag 2. C. CAtholiques and Protestants true difference in whome the supremacy is art 1. c. 2. parag 3. Catholiks neuer attributed to the Pope power proper to God art 1. chap. 7. parag 5. Catholiks faith of the Eucharist grownded vpon Scripture and Fathers art 2. c. 1. parag 7. 8. Catholique Church like a prudent nurse art 7. c. 7. parag 17. Catholiques and Protestants opinion about deposition of Princes compared art 1. c. 3. parag 8. Catholiques falsly charged where Protestants might better art 7. c. 1. par 4. Catholiques falsly charged about disobedience to euil Kings art 1. c. 9. parag 34. Catholiques how they think the commandements possible art 8. c. 1. parag 2. Catholiques haue Tradition euen from S. Peter art 7. c. 9. parag 10. Catholiques vse Scripture in vulgare tong art 7. c. 8. parag 4. Caluin attributeth deuine power to Magistrats art 1. c. 7. parag 3. Caluin confesseth S. Austin to thinke inuoluntary concupiscence no true sinne art 4. c. 1. parag 18. Caluin accounteth the sacrifice of the crosse insufficient art 2. c. 4. parag 5. Caluin father of the new Arrians art 7. c. 1. parag 5. Caluins smale account of Gods word when it is against him art 2. c. 1. parag 10. Caluinists become Arrians and Mahumetans art 7. c. 1. parag 5. Ceremonial law perfectly prescribed to the Iewes art 7 c. 2 parag 5 6. Charles made Emperor without consent of Eastern Emperors art 1. chap. 9. paragr 19. Choise propounded to Protestants about Emperors made by Popes art 1. c. 6. parag 3 an other about Traditions art 7. c. 9. parag 3. about Luther art 7. c. 9. parag 16. Christs body to be organical in the sacrament no point of faith a. 2. c 1. parag 6. Christs body in his nariuity in a litle roome art 2. c. 1. parag 12. Christs body in onâ— place naturally in many sacramentally art 2. c. 2. parag 6. Christs body broken in a signe art 2. c. 5. parag 3. Christs body broken in a signe which really conteineth it art 2 c. 5. parag 4. Christs blood is a testament a 2. c. 3 par 7. Christs blood how powred out or shed at his supper art 2. c. 4. parag 8. Christ carâ—yed him self literally or really in his owne hands art 2. c. 4 parag 1. Christ nether killed nor dyeth at Masse art 2. c. 3. parag 6. Christ offered sacrifice at his last supper art 2. c. 2. parag 2. Christs sacrifice at his last supper not imperfect nor at his passion needles art 2. c. 4. parag 4. Christ sacramental being a representation of his natural being a. 2. c. 4. parag 1. ChristiaÌ„s bound to obey as wel the present as the primatiue Church a. 7. c. 13. par 2. S. Chrisostom about Traditions explicated art 7. c. 4. parag 11. S. Chrisostom about reading Scripture explicated and opposit therein to Protestants art 7. c. 7. parag 8. S. Chrisostom how he meaÌ„t that Christ bid vs not immitate his fast a. 7. c. 10. par 6. S. Chrisostom giueth not people liberty to expound Scriptures contrary to their Pastors a. 7. c. 7. parag 8. Churches authority not mere humaine art 7. c. 9. parag 21. Churches authority concurreth to deuine saith art 7. c. 9. parag 20. Churches authority both first brought and continued S. Austin in beleefe of the Ghospel art
lying dissembling and abusing Gods word euery where shew them selues in his books and now and then are noted in my answer No maruel therfore if one possessed of so many and so wicked spirits be so forward so spiteful so malicious against Catholiques as to callenge adiure them al iointly or seuerally to the combat with him Oh that I would please his Maiestie to admit this combat that Bel I the weakest of many thousands of Gods soldiers might try the truth not by writing which blusheth not as Tully said but face to face as the Bishop of Eureux and Plessy did before the French King I doubt not but if there were any blood in Bels body or any shame of men in his minde I shold make it appeare in his face But whiles this combat must be fought a far of only by paper shot and writing and our writings kept from the view of the people no meruail if Bel feare no shame of men whiles they may see him fight florish but must not behold ether defence or blowes of his aduersary If he be so confideÌ„t in his Heresy which he once vomited forth and now like the dog hath lickt vp again as he maketh shew of why hath he not in al this tyme of his Apostasy procured lycence for publike disputation or at lest why neuer repaired he to the Catholique Priests in prison Let him procure but one such safe conducte for Priests as the councel of Trent graunted Sess 13. 15. 18. three or fowre to Protestants when none of our English Ministers durst accept it he shal not need to challenge or adiure but shal be dared at his owne dore For Priests who willingly spend their blood in testimony of the truth which they teach wil far sooner spend their breath in defence therof are ready to make the like offer Epistle to the King as Bel doth in a different matter to iustify it before indifferent iudges against him or what Protestant soeuer vpon peril of their liues if their aduersaries wil aduenture the like peril And vpon this condition Bel I challenge thee and adiure thee accept it if thou darest What more could haue bene done to bring this so weighty a matter wherupon dependeth the eternal saluation of so many millions of soules to tryal face to face then hath bene done of Catholiques by speaking by writing by petition by supplication Puritans vpon one only supplication haue bene admitted to Conference Catholiques can vpon none And this is that which maketh Bel so bold to challeng vs to the open combat when he knoweth we can not appeare in open shew but vpon hazard of our liues And I wold to God that with danger yea with losse of life we might be lyceÌ„ced publikly to try this truth so important to the eternal life of our dearest countrimen But seeing there is no hope of this when I red Bels challenge it seemed to me not only an vnlearned thing patcht vp of obiections gathered out of Bellarmin and learnedly answered by him but a witles challenge of some coward who seeing his enemy commanded vpon pain of death to keep his house callengeth him to the open field and more like to condemne the Author of folly and vanity then the Catholique religion of falsity before any discreet iudicious Reader Neuertheles because as I vnderstood some monthes after the publishing of it some vnaduised Protestants hearing Bels glorious vaunts and challeng had conceaued great hope of this their Champion thought his booke vnaÌ„swerable I took it in hand not knowing as then that any other wold vouchsafe to Author of the Forerunner of Bels dovvnefal medle with it haue left to my knowledg no one point therin vnanswered attending more to solue what he obiecteth then to coÌ„firme what Catholikes mantein though this also I haue done sufficiently as I hope for my intended breuity He termeth this challeng a downfal of VVhat Bel impugneth Popery and yet in the greatest part therof impugneth no point of Popery but ether perticuler opinions of priuat men or which is worse false imputations of his owne being so desirous of quarrelling as he fighteth with his owne shadow And what he impugneth he doth with so good successe as almost in euery Article he ouer throweth VVith vvhat succesâ—e what he meant to establish and confirme So that if he had giuen his booke the right name he shold haue called it the downfal of Bels foolery Of these eight Articles which he hath pickt out as most aduantagious for him self in which there are some things which as S. Austin speaketh l. de vtil cred c. 1. to 6. may be impugned to the common peoples S. Austin capacity but not be defended by reason of their difficulty but of few In the first he impugneth the Popes superiority ouer al Princes on pag 1. earth and his powre to depose them at his good wil and pleasure wherof the first is but the opinion of some few Canonists coÌ„monly reiected of al Catholiks and disproued at large by Bellarmin whose doctrine Bel accounteth the Popes owne doctrin saith it is approued by him The second no Catholik holdeth but it is Bels faulse slaunder of Catholiks In the second omitting p 19. the question of the being of Christs body in the blessed sacrament he impugneth the being of his quantity therein as a thinge saith he held of al papists as an article of their faith which is vntrue as is declared in the answer In the third he inueigheth pag. 37. against the Popes powre to dispense in matrimony before it be consummated which likwise is an opinion of Canonists commonly refuted of Catholik deuines In the fift omittinge true merit which is a point of faith he impugneth condigne merit as a thinge defined by the Councel of Trent p 75. which it is not In the seuenth Article in steede of Traditions conteining things necessary for mans saluation which in the beginning of the article he proposed to impugne he impugneth an erronious opinion p. 131. 132. 133. of Papias about Christs reigne after his iudgement and an other of S. Ireney about Christs age one history about Zachary S. Ihon Baptists father an other concerning ConstaÌ„tins baptisme a probable opinion of Popes priuate teaching the same doctrin with S. Peter and an other concerning our Ladies CoÌ„ception without sin In the eight he oppugneth the keeping of Gods commandments in such a sense as no Catholik dreameth of So that though he had flong down al these matters yet ther had bene no downfal of Popery Is not this fellow think you a iolly challenger of Pâ—pists a goodly downfeller of Popery Is not be one of â—hos 1. Timoth. 1 of whom S. Paul saith willinge to be Doctors of the law know nether what they say nor of what But if we marke the successe which this Champion hath whiles he yet florisheth by him self before â—is
had once deceaued you in a mony matter you wold beware how you trusted them again and wil you beleeue them stil they hauing by their owne confession hitherto deceaued you both in your Church seruice Bible commending the one to you as diuine seruice and the other as Gods pure word and now condemning them both Open your eyes for the passion of Christ and seeing publike conference wil not be graunted where we might lay open vnto you the deceits of your Ministers help your selfs as wel as you may read with indifferency such books as are written for this purpose make earnest intercession to God to see the truth grace to follow it when you haue found it which God of his goodnes graunt Farewel 2. Februar 1605. Thy seruant in Christe IESV S. R. A TABLE OF THE ARTICLES AND CHAPTERS ARTICLE I. Of the Popes Superiority BELS argument against the Popes superiority answered diuers his vntruths and dissimulations therin discouered Chapt. 1. The opinion of Protestants touching Princes supremacy set down Chapt. 2. The opinion of Protestants touching deposition of Princes Chapt. 3. The practise of Protestants touching deposition of Princes Chapt. 4. Bels proofes of his assumption against the Popes superiority answered Chapt. 5. Bels answer to an argument of Catholiks for the Popes superiority confuted Chap. 6. Some of Bels slaunderous vntruths disproued Chapt. 7. Certain fals steps of a ladder which Bel imagineth the Pope had to clime to his superiority disproued Chapt. 8. The rest of Bels fals steps and slaunderous vntruths in this article disproued Chap. 9. ARTICLE 2. Of the Masse Bels reason against the real presence of Christ in the B. Sacrament answered his vntruth and dissimulation therin discouered Chapt. 1. Authorities alleadged by Bel against the real presence answered Chapt. 2. Masse proued Bels argumēt against it answered his manifold vntruths therin disproued Chap. 3. The rest of Bels arguments against the Masse confuted Chap. 4. Berengarius his recantation explicated and S. Austins authority answered Chap. 5. Bels imaginary contradictions in the Masse answered and true contradictions in his communion shewed Chap. 6. ARTICLE III. Of the Popes Dispensations Chapt. 1.  ARTICLE IIII. Of original concupiscence in the regenerate The Catholike doctrin touching concupiscence explicated and proued Chap. 1. Diuers vntruths of Bel disproued his arguments out of S. Paul against the doctrin of the former Chapter answered Chap. 2. Bels arguments out of S. Austin touching concupiscence answered Chap. 3. Bels arguments out of S. Ambros S. Bede S. Thomas touching concupiscence answered Chap. 4. ARTICLE V. Of the merit of good vvorks Of the Protestanis enmity to good works and frendship with euil Chap. 1. Of Bels positions touching good works Chap. 2. The Catholiks doctrin touching merit particulerly set downe and proued Chapt. 3. Bels arguments out of Scripture against condigne merit answered Chap. 4. Bels arguments out of holy Fathers against condigne merit answered Chap. 5. Bels arguments out of late Catholik writers against condigne merit answered Chap. 6. ARTICLE VI. Of the distinction of mortal and venial sins The true distinction proued and Bels obiection answered Chapt. 1. A text of S. Ihon epist 1. explicated Chap. 2. ARTICLE VII The Catholike doctrin touching sufficiency of Scripture propounded proued certaine vntruths of Bel disproued Chap. 1. Bels arguments out of the old testamēt concerning the sufficiency of Scripture answered Chap. 2. Bels arguments out of the new testament touching sufficiency of Scripture answered Chap. 3. Bels arguments out of Fathers touching sufficiency of Scripturs and Traditions answered Chap. 4. Bels arguments out of late Catholik writers touching sufficiency of Traditions and Scripture answered Chap. 5. Of the difficulty or easynes of Scripture Chap. 6. Of the vulgar peoples reading Scripture Chap. 7. Of the translation of Scripture into vulgar tongs Chap. 8. Of Apostolical Traditions whether ther be any or none Chap. 9. Of the certainty of Apostolical Traditiōs Chap. 10. Of the examination of Traditions Chap. 11. Bels arguments out of Fathers about the examination of Traditions answered Chap. 12. Of the authority of late general Coūcels Chap. 13. Of the oath which Bishops vse to make vnto the Pope Chapt. 14. ARTICLE VIII Of keeping Gods commandements The possibility of keeping Gods commandements explicated and proued out of Scripture Chap. 1. The possibility of keeping Gods commandements proued out of Fathers and reason Chap. 2. Bels arguments out of Scripture against the possibility of keeping Gods commandements answered Chapt. 3. Bels arguments out of Fathers against the possibility of keeping Gods commandements answered Chapt. 4. THE FIRST ARTICLE OF THE POPES SVPERIORITY CHAPT I. Bels arguments against the Popes Superiority ansvvered diuers his vntruthes and dissimulations therin discouered BEL like a man in great choler and very desirous to encounter with his enemie beginneth his chalenge very abruptly hastily yet not forgetting his scholerschip or ministerie he geueth the onset with a syllogisme ful charged with vntruthes dissimulacions You Papistes saith 3. Vntruthes 2. dissimulations he tel vs that the Pope is aboue al powers and potentates on earth that he can depose Kinges Emperours from their royal thrones and translate their empires and regalities at his good wil and pleasure But this doctrin is false absurde nothing else but a mere fable And conseqently Romish Religion consisteth of meere falsehoods fables flat leasinges 2. Not without cause gentle Reader hath Bel proposed these bloudy questions of the Popes supremacie and deposition of Princes in his first article and placed them in the forefront of his battel for he hopeth that they wil be his best bulwarke and surest defense in the combate that in such lystes he shal not fight alone but assisted with the Princes sworde wherein he dealeth with Catholiques as Puritanes which Conference at Hampton Court pag. 82. 83. his Maiesty prudently obserueth doe vvith protestants vvho because they could not othervvise make their partes good against protestants appeale to his supremacie And as the old Arians Ambr. epist 32. victor lib. 1. de preste◠vandol did who euermore accused the Catholiques as iniurious to the Prince which they al learne of the Iewes who being vnable to disprooue Christs doctrine endeuoured to bring him into the compasse of treason and Matth. 22. v. 17. at last procured his death as enemy to Cesar Wherfore ymitating the example of our Sauiour when the like question was propounded to seeke his bloud I answere Bel briefelie That what is Cesars we ought to Luc. 20. v. 25. geue to Cesar and what is Gods to God and what is Gods Vicars to Gods Vicar Onely because Bel in his said syllogisme chargeth Catholiques most falsely withal dissembleth the opinion of protestantes touching the supremacie and deposition of Princes I wil disproue his vntruthes and discouer his dissimulations and afterward compare the opinion and practise of Protestants Catholiques touching this matter
auoucheth That ordinarily he can not depose Princes euen for iust causes 7. But let vs heare Bel disproue him self Anatomy of Popish tyrany in the Caueat to the Reader and lib. 2. cap. 4. §. 10. c. 9. 1. Contradiction Secular Priests saith he write plainly and resolutly that the Pope hath no power to depriue Kings of their royal Scepters and regalities nor to giue away their Kingdomes to an other In which opiniō likewise the French Papists do concurre iump with them Item The Seculars although they acknowledge the Popes power supereminent in Spiritualibus yet do they disclaime from it in temporalibus when he taketh vpon him to depose Kinges from their empires and translate their Kingdomes And least we should thinke these few Priests who wrote so were no Papists Bel him self testifieth that they are the Popes deare Vassals and professe the selfe same religion with Epistle to the King other Catholiques 8. The third vntruth conteined in the proposition is that we teach the doctrine of his proposition as a pointe of our faith wherevpon he inferreth in his conclusion our religion and faith to be false Because we teach no such doctrine at al and much lesse as a point of our religion or faith And the grauest best learned amongst Catholiques attribute to rhe Pope onely spiritual superiority ouer Princes and power to depose them in that case wherin our Sauiour said Math. 18. that it were better for a man to be cast into the sea then to liue to wit when they so scandalize others as their deposition is necessary for the saluation of soules as I haue already shewed out af Bellarmin Bel. parag 29. whose testimony in this matter Bel can not refuse seing he calleth him the mouth of Papists and auoucheth his doctrin to be the Popes owne doctrin And this doctrin good Christiā Princes account no more preiudicial or iniurious to their estates then they do the like doctrin of S. Paul 2. Cor. 10. where he professeth him self to haue power to destroy al loftines extolling it self against the knowledge of God to be ready to punish al disobedience 9. Wherfore to requite Bel with a syllogisme like vnto his owne I argue thus you Bel tel vs that we Papists saie the Pope is aboue al powers and potentates on earth that he can depose Kings and Emperours and translate their empiers at his good wil and pleasure But this your tale is a very tale false absurd and nothing else but a mere fable and consequently your late chalenge consisteth of mere falsehoods fables flat leasings The proposition is your owne wordes the truth of the assumption appeereth by my answer to your argument And thus much touching Bels vntruthes vttered in his proposition and proofe therof now let vs come to his dissemblinge CHAP. II. The opinion of protestants touching Princes Supremacie set dovvne LVTHER an Euangelist as he termeth him selfe or as other accompte him Luther lib. cont stat eccles in prologo in glossa cont decreta Caesar Ex Sur. An. 1531. 1539. Pope of Recusamy p. 31. 32. Magdeburg praefat Centur 7. Caluin in c. 7. Amos. an Apostle a prophet a third Elias a beginner of protestantisme in his booke of secular power condemneth those Princes who prescribe laws to their subiects in matter belonging to faith and the Church Magdeburgians his first and cheefest childeren write thus Let not Magistrats be heads of the Church because this Supremacy agreeth not to them Caluin saith they were blasphemers who attributed the supremacy to King Henry 8. And lest we shold think that only forayne Protestāts are of this opinion Antony Gilby in his admonition to England and Scotland Gilby calleth King Henry a monstrous bore for taking the supremacy that he displaced Christ was no better then the Romish Antichrist made him selfe a God And lately VVillet cōtract 791. part 1. and 3. p. 269. 270. Willet auoucheth That Bishops and Pastors haue a spiritual charge ouer Kings that Kings ought to yeeld obedience to those that haue ouersight of their soules That Heathen Princes had the same power and authority in the Church which Christian Princes haue and yet soone after affirmeth That heathen Princes cold not be heads of the Church that is to haue the Souereingty of external gouernment Againe That the King is nether mistical nor ministerial head of the Church that the name of head is vnproperly giuen to the Prince and if any think it to great Kings not so much is ministerial heads of the Church by vvillet a name for any mortal man we wil not saith he greatly contend about it So we see he denyeth both name and authority of the head of the Church to Kings 2. And his Maiesty perceaued that Reanolds and his fellows aymed at a Scottish Presbitry which agreeth with a Monarch Conference p. 82 83. as wel as God and the diuel page 79. and acknowledged his supremacy only to make their partes good with Bishops as Knox his fellow ministers in Scotland made his grandmother head of the Church therby to pul downe the Catholique Bishops Yea that the whole English Clergy is in their harts of the same opiniō appeareth by their open profession to agree in religion with forayne Protestants who plainly deny the supremicy of Princes by their writing and Apologia pag. 28. teaching that Christ alone can behead of the Church by their condemning Catholiques for attributing such authority to man and finally by their Synodical explication of the article of supremacy which they expound thus That Princes should rule al estates Lib. 39. Artic. art 37. and degrees committed to their charge by God whether they be Ecclesiastical or temporal and restrayne with the ciuil sword the stubborne and euil doers wherein we see no power in Ecclesiastical causes granted to Princes but only ouer Ecclesiastical persons And we deny not that Princes haue any power ouer Ecclesiastical persons yea in the very canon of the Masse as priests pray for Papa nostro N. and Antistite nostro N. for our Pope and Byshop so they pray for Rege nostro N. acknowledging the one to be their King as the others to be their Prelates and consequently both to haue power ouer them For as S. Augustin said and it is euident Rex à Augustin in Psalm 44. 67. regendo dicitur a King is so called of power to gouerne And as ecclesiastical persons be ciuil or politique members of the common wealth wherein they liue so haue they See Stapelton relectione Controuersiae 2. q. 1. a. 1. ad 2. Victoria relectione de potesta ecclesiastica sect 7. the same politique or ciuil head which that commonwealth hath for otherwise either ciuil members should haue no ciuil head at al which were monstrous or not be vnder the head of that body whereof they be members but onely vnder a ciuil head of an other body which is
Michael Fabritius in epist de Beza tooke by treason or force many of their cheefest cities Roane Orleans Lyons and others made league with the enimies of France and giuen townes into their hands they haue leuied great armies of subiects brought in great bands of Strangers and fought foure mayne battels against their King they deposed their King and chose an other and coyned money in his name with title of the first Christian King of France They Sur. An 1560. opened the tombs of two of their Kings burnt their bones They conspired to murder the King two Queenes his wife and his mother with his brethren nobility and had executed their designments if they had not bene preuented by their massacre They slew the King of Nauar Father to the Fabritius sup fol. 61. 66. French King now regnant And their horrible outrages in al kinde of dishonesties cruâ—â—ties and Sacrileges are vnspeakable 4. In Scotland the Protestants first took Scotland arme against the Queene dawager Grand Sur. An. 1560. mother to his Majesty then regent of Scotland and by their rebellions and tumults hastened her death which his Majesty great Conference p. 81. ly lamented in the conference Likwise after infinit indignities and perils they driue Queene Mary of blessed memory his Majesties Mother their natural and lawful Prince oâ—â— of her kingdome and country forced her to surrender her crowne and Scepter to a bastard murthered her husband his Maiestes Father and therof infamed her wrongfully as was proued at her iudgment in England had murdred both her selfe and his Maiestie then in her womb if a charged pistole put to her womb would haue giuen fyer And at last by Protestants she was put to death against law of nations And his Maiesty coÌ„fesseth of him selfe that in Scotland he vvas a King vvithout state vvithout Conser p. 4. and 20. honor vvithout order vvhere beardles boyes vvould braue him to his face and keept for the most part as a vvard And in what present danger he was of being murdered by the Protestant Earle Gowry and his brethren no man is ignorant And otherwhere gratiously acknowlegeth Basilicon doron That he found none more faithfil to him selfe then such as had bene faithful to his mother who were Papists and them he foâ—nd faithles to him selfe vvho had bene such to his mother and an honorable person yet liuinâ— and Q. Elizab. vvoords confidence of Catholiks worthy of credit and hard it can testify that Queene Eelizabeth did oftenâ—ymes say to my Lord MouÌ„tague a famous Catholique of worthy memory That if she â—el into danger she vvould sooner put her life into his hands and others of his profession theâ— of any other subiect she had And if Queene Elizabeth though she were far more seuere towards her Catholique subiects thâ—n al Protestant Princes together haue hiâ—erto bene towards theirs did neuertheles put more affiance and trust in them euen after she had bene deposed of the Pope then in any Protestant what assurance may that Prince His Maiesties speech to the Parlament 19 Mart. 1603. England haue of the loyalty and fidelity of Catholiques who hath vsed great lenity towards them and nether is nor like to be deposed of the Pope 5. Finally in England Protestants rebelled twise that in one yeare against their Queene Mary once vnder the conduct of the Dukes of Northumberland Suffolk erecting a false Queene so excluding as much as lay in them the Succession of his Maiesty And againe vnder wyat and at both times she was defended by Catholiks The things I rather touch then relate because they are fresh in memory of many or to be found in many histories 6. Now let vs compare the practise of Protestants and Catholiques practise compared 1 Carolus 5. 2 Francis 2. 3 Carolus 9. 4 Henricus 3. 5 Philippus 2. 6 Philippus 3. 7 Christiernus 8 Sigismundus 9 Maria Ang. 10 Maria Scot. Protestants touching the deposition of Princes with the practise of the Pope since the tyme that Protestants began They haue within this 70. yeares partely deposed partly attempted as far as lay in thir power one Emperor three French Kings two Kings of Spaine one of Denmarke one of Pole-land one Queene of England and one of Scotland They haue slayne one King of Nauar one of Denmarke one Queene of Scotland one Queenes husband and burnt the bodies of two other Kings atteÌ„pted to murder one French King two French Queenes one King of Scotland Whereas the Popes neuer slew any Prince at al but haue saued the liues kingdomes of many since ProtestaÌ„ts began haue deposed one onely King Henry 8. and one Queene Elizabeth and spared both King Edward the 6 many Kings of DeÌ„mark Sweâ—land besids a great number of German Princes And his Maiestie is so far from danger of being deposed by him as he hath already censueed See D. Giffords commission and Mons Bethunes letters Proclamation 22. Februar anno 1. Note this al those that moleste or disturbe his maiesty and his maiesty gratefully acknowledgeth him selfe beholden to the Pope for his temporal cariage and diuers kind offices towards him euen then when ther was lesse cause of such kindnes then now is Yea which is a point worthy of consideration Neuer did any Pope depose any King or Prince merely for not professing the Catholique religion if he had not before embraced it If any obiect that the Pope hath beside King Henry and Queene Elizabeth deposed the present French King I answer that it was before he had the Crowne of France and was onely titulo tenus King of Nauar besids that the Pope vpon his amendment hath both restored him to his dignity and shewed him many great and extraordinary fouors And thus much of Bels dissembling the opinion and practise of Protestants touching the Supremacy or deposition of Princes Now let vs come to his proofs of his Assumption CHAP. V. Bells proofes of his Assumption answered BELLS proofs of his Assumption I might let passe as nothing pertayning to vs seeing we teach no such doctrin as he therin affirmeth to be false Neuertheles because the Reader may iudge whither he be a more fond disputor or false reportor I wil set them downe and answer them seuerally His first proofe is out of their famous Bel p. 2. saith he Pope Gregory the great lib 2. epist 61. where writing to the Emperor Mauritius he calleth him Soueraigne Lord and professeth him selfe subiect to his command and to owe him obedience Whereupon Bel inferreth that for 600. years after Christ Popes liued vnder Emperors in al dutiful obedience that is as he vnderstandeth in al causes Ecclesiastical and ciuil 2. Marke good Reader how many and how grosse errors he committeth in this one silly proofe First he sheweth smal skil in chusing Authors for his purpose because none make more against him in this matter then S. Gregory For he
obedience And that Christ hath giuen him most ful powre as S. Cyril saith he teacheth lib. thesaur which proofe out of S. Cyril this honest challenger left out Austin of Ancona affirmeth Augustin do Ancona in summa p. 152. that The Pope as Christs vicar hath vniuersal iurisdiction ouer al Kingdoms and Empiers Did euer man see greater impudency what word is here of equal powre with God Nay expresse word of inequality if vicars be vnequal to principals deputies to Kings Did Christs humanity when it receaued most ful powre Math. 28. v. 18. and authority S. Mathevv ouer al kingdoms and bounds of the earth psal 2. v. 8. receaue equal powre to Dauid God And if the powre of Christ as man though neuer so ful and vniuersal were create and vnequal to Gods powre who can imagin the powre giuen by Christ as man to a pure man to be equal to Gods I omit Bels error in affirming that Austin of Ioan. 12. liued 956. August de Ancona 1305. Onuph in chron Ancona dedicated his booke to Pope Ihon the twelft who was dead almost 400. years before him But he shold haue said Ihon 22. and this error can not be laid vpon the Printer seeing the number is set downe not in cyphers but letters 2. His dissimulation is euident First because Dissimulati◠4. he concealeth that the opinion That matrimony only contracted may be vpon vrgent occasion dissolued is held but of some Canonists and of very few deuines who commonly hold the contrary But impugneth Bel impugneth an opinion of Canonists and of Protestants as a matter of faith 5. Dissimulation Surius Ann. 1540. Vid. Lindan l. de concordia Haereticor p. 69. it as if it were held of al Catholiques and as a point of their faith Secondly he imposeth the said opinion vpon Catholiques only dissembling that Protestants think not only matrimony contracted but also consummated by carnal copulation may be dissolued impugne Catholiques for not admitting any cause of dissoluing such matrimony 3. Luther the Protestants first Father writ a booke 1540. where he auoucheth it to be hard and vniust that the innocent person may not marry an other after separation made for adultery Caluin calleth it a Caluin 4. instit c. 19. paragr 37. most vniust law Likwise Bucer in cap. 19. Math. Melancht de loc tit de coniugio Kemnitius in 2. part exami And Willet in VVillet controu 15. q. 2. p. 526. 527. name of English Protestants Al these affirme that adultery is a iust cause why euen consummated marriage may be dissolued and a new contracted Luther addeth other Luther in c. 7. ad Corinth edit 1523. causes as the one persuading the other to sinne much debate betwene them and long absence of the one party which if it be done of malice seemeth iust cause to willet and therto he citeth Beza 1. Corinth VVillet sup 7. and other Protestants And this was practized in K. Edward 6. tyme when Syr Ralf Sadler hauing maried one Mathew Baro his wife in his absence though Baro had begotten children of her yet could not recouer her but by Parlament she was adiudged to Sadler Caluin addeth want of Caluin Bucer sup consent of parents if the parties be yong and Bucer addeth incommodious behauior of ether party to be a sufficient cause 4. Wherfore if the Pope by dissoluing Bel pag. 37. contracted matrimony which he doth very seldom and vpon vrgent occasion weighty cause challenge as Bel saith powre equal to God Surely Protestants by dissoluing consummated matrimony often and vpon so many causes wherof some are very smale and not sufficient to dissolue a meere ciuil contract do challenge powre aboue God But let vs see how he against some Catholiques and generally al Protestants proueth that contracted matrimony can not be dissolued but by God alone for any cause whatsoeuer 5. His reason is because Christ said Math. pag. 38. c. 19. v. 6. what God hath ioyned let not man seperate and Luc. 16. v. 18. Euery one that putteth away his wife and marieth an other committeth adultery And S. Paul 1. Corinth c. 7. v. 10. Those that are ioyned in matrimony command not I but our lord that the wife depart not from the husband but if she depart abide vnmaried or be reconciled to her husband To this the Canonists answer That Christ and his Apostle spake only of consummated matrimony because Math. 19. Christ forbiddeth seperation of such as immediatly before he had said to be made one flesh which is by consummation of matrimony And likewise Luc. 16. prohibiteth mariage after dismission of a wife carnally known as is gathered out of Math. 5. v. 32. where he vseth the same words and citeth the law of diuorce Deut. 24. v. 1. which speaketh of a woman carnally known saying If a man haue taken a vvife and had her and she haue not found fauor in his eyes for some filthines he shal c. And hereby are answered the words of S. Paul in which he referreth him self to the precept of Christ Besids that S. Thecla virgin was by him soluta à nuptijs losed from mariage as writeth S. Epiph. haer 78. which S. Epiphan fact S. Ambros lib. 2. de virg commendeth S. Ambros and it argueth that the Apostle tought vnconsummated mariage might be dissolued 6. Against this answer Bel bringeth many replies in number but none of force 1. That if contracted matrimony were not de iure pag. 38. diuino the greatest Popish Doctors vvold not deny the Popes dispensation therin Lo here when it maketh for his purpose he confesseth the greatest Catholique Doctors to think contracted matrimony to be indissoluble Why then doth he impugne the contrary as an Article of our faith To his argument I answer that though al Catholiques beleeue the institution of contracted matrimony to be of God and Deuines for the most part probably thinke the continuance also therof to be iure diuino and commanded by God yet neuertheles Canonists do probably teach that the continuance of it is not absolutly and in al cases commanded by God but may vpon great and vrgent causes be dissolued by the Church 7. Secondly he replyeth that Christ speaketh absolutly and maketh no mention of copulation or popish consummation Answer Though in that verse he spake absolutly yet immediatly before he made mention of copulation And wil Bel forbid vs to expound a sentence of Scripture by the antecedents or consequents But I maruel much why he tearmed consummation or copulation popish Me thinketh he shold rather cal it Ministerish For Papists can say with S. Austin lib. de bono coniug c. 13. tom 6. VVe S. Austin see lib. 5. cont Faust c. 9. haue many brethren and companions of the heauenly inheritance of both sexes vvho are continent ether after experience of mariage or are free from al such copulation such are innumerable But for Ministers their first
Greg. Naz. orat 3. in bapt S. Hierom. S. Chrysost to 4. epist 105. writeth that As death is rendred as a stipend to the merit of sinne so is euerlasting life as a stipend to the merit of iustice S. Ireney l. 4. c. 72. saith By good works we conquer heauen S. Basil orat in init prouerb By good works we buy heauen S. Gregory Nazian For good works we may exact reward not as grace but as playne debt S. Hierom epist ad Celant God hath cause to reward vs. S. Chrisostom hom 7. in epist Rom. calleth vs. Gods creditors and vsurers and him our debtor and hom 3. Tom. 2. de Lazaro that by good workes we deserue heauen as by euil hel Yea Bel him selfe admitteth Bel pag. 77. more then impetration when hereafter he cōfesseth heauen to be due to good workes for where duty is there is not meere Contradict 16. impetration that works are to heauen as the loane of a cloake in a shower of rayne vpon promise of an hundred pownds for here is some iustice And professeth to defend pag. 79. Durand 2. d. 27. quaest 2. expresly admitteth condigne merit Cap. 1. parag 2. Durands opinion who vndoubtedly admitteth more then simple impetration But if Bel had remembred his owne and the common doctrin of Protestants before rehearsed that al good works whatsoeuer are sinne he wold neuer haue graunted that they are impetratorious of Gods fauor and reward For how cā sinne impetrate fauour or reward and not rather offence and punishment Wherupon Perkins in plaine Perkins refor Cathol Of merits p. 112. 104. Caluin 3. instit c. 15. parag 4. 2. tearms affirmeth that our righteousnes is not capable of merit and vtterly renounceth al merit of man And Caluin not only abhorreth the name of merit affirming it to be proude and to obscure Gods grace and to make men proude but professeth that our good vvorks are euer sprinkled vvith many filthinesses for vvhich God may be iustly offended and angry vvith vs so far saith he are they from purchasing his fauour or procuring his liberality towards vs. Thus we see how conformably Bel speaketh to his owne and his fellow Bel against his fellovv Ministers Ministers doctrine 4. Second Conclusion Good workes done in Gods grace are condignely meritorious of eternal life This is that which Bel impugneth in this Article as a point of our faith and auoucheth it to be defyned by the Councel of Trent but falsly For the Councel hath no word of condigne merit but only of true merit which in plaine tearms Bel him self dare not impugne or deny If any shal say saith the Councel that a iustified Ttident sess 6. can 32. man by good works which he doth by the grace of God and merit of Iesus Christ whose liuely member he is doth not truly deserue increase of grace eternal life and consecution therof if he departe in grace and also increase of glory be he accursed Here are good works defyned to be true merit of glory without determining whither they be cōdigne merit therof or no. Wherupon vega who was one of the Vega. Deuines of the coūcel writeth de fid ope q. 4. That some noble schoole diuines being moued saith he with no light arguments and vsing a certaine sober and prudent moderation haue denyed that there is any condigne merit of eternal happines And againe It is certaine saith he that there is merit in our works and some of them be meritorious but of what reward and how they are meritorious it is in controuersy there are diuers opiniōs amōgst the schoole diuines And q. 5. he affirmeth Gregory Gregor 1. d. 17. q. 1. Durand q. 2. Marsil in 2. VValden de sacra c. 7. Burgens in psalm 35. Eckins in centur de predest Durand Marsil Walden Burgensis and Eckins to deny condigne merit Satus also an other diuine of the sayd Councel l. 3. de Nat. Grat. c. 7. saith that there is some difference amongst Catholiques about condigne merit and c. 8. after he had proued condigne merit out of the Councel and otherwaies yet concludeth not that it is a point of faith but only calleth it conclusionem probatissimam a most approued Conclusion And Bellarmin whome Bel tearmeth the mouth of Papists lib. 5. de iustific cap. 16. after he had rehearsed twoe opinions of Catholiques wherof the one seemeth plainly to deny condigne merit the other admitteth it only in a large sense proposeth and defendeth the third opinion which defendeth condigne merit absolutly only as verissimam communem sententiam Theologorum most true and the common opinion of Diuines as indeed it is and we shal proue it anone against Bel. Hereby appeareth Bels shameful proceeding in this Article in impugning condigne merit as a point of faith defyned by the Councel of Trent which hath no word of condigne merit and omitting the question of true merit which the Councel defyned Catholiques defend as a point of their faith against Protestants 5. The third Conclusion is that This This seemeth defyned Conc. Trid. sess 6. c. vlt. in Bulla Pij 5. Gregor 13. condigne merit is not absolute but supposeth the condition of Gods promise made to reward it This is held of the best Diuines and proued at large by Bellarmin l. 5 de iustifi c. 14. The fourth Conclusion is that This condigne merit in our works is not perfect hauing actual and perfect arithmetical equality before explicated This manifestly S. August in psal 93. to 8. S. Chrysost 2. Cor. 9. S. Bernard serm 1. de Annuntiat the Fathers teach with al Catholiques and Bels arguments hereafter brought conuince it and no more The fifte Conclusion is that the imperfect cōdigne merit which is in our works to heauen riseth not meerly of Gods acceptation but partly of the due proportion and sufficiency before explicated in them to the reward This likewise is no matter of faith yet truth taught by S. Thomas 1. 2. 4. 114. ar 1. 3. Bonauent S. Thomas S. Bonauent 2. d. 17. and Deuines in that place cōmonly Bellar l. 5. de Iustif c. 17. though Scot. 1. Bellarm. Scotus d. 17. and some others deny it with whom Bel also falleth in league towards the end Bel pag. 7◠of this Article The sixt Conclusion is that the said condignity riseth not of any due proportion which is in the substance of our worke if it be considered in it selfe but as it is the fruit of the holy Ghost mouing vs to do it and the effect of Gods grace helping vs in doing it which grace making vs partakers as S. Peter speaketh of deuine nature 1. Pet. 1. v. 4. Coloss 1. v. 10. 2. Thessal 1. v. 5. so dignifyeth our works as according to S. Paul we walke vvorthely of God and become vvorthy of Gods kingdome And because Bel denyeth none of these Conclusions but the second and fieft them
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
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
euermore it hath bene obserued as appeareth by S. Ignatius epistol ad S. Ignatius S. Iteney Origen S. Basil S. Chrysostom S. Augustin S. Leo. S. Gregory S. Grego Nazianzen in sanct lauaerum â—oncil Laoâ—iâ—cen Can. 10. Philip. S. Ireney loc cit Origen hom 10. Leuit. Basil orat 2. de ieiunio Chrysostom hom 1. in Gen. and 11. hom 16. and 73. ad populum S. Austin epist 118. and 119. and serm de quadrag Leo and Gregor loc cit And what S. Chrysostom meant in the words cited by Bel he him self explicateth in these words Because I am sorry saith he if neglecting the rest you thinke fasting sufficient to saue you which is the meanest of the vertues So that he meant that Christ bid vs not only fast lent but more especially be humble See S. Hierom ep ad Celantiam Math. 9. v. 13. Ose c. 6. v. 6. vntruth 96 Bel p. 130. and milde The like speech vsed Christ when he said I wil haue mercy and not sacrifice vz. only and rather then mercy And so we may say with S. Chrysostom he commanded not fasting but humility And Bel vseth his old trade in auouching vs to think it greater sinne to eat flesh in lent then to commit adultery murder or periury Whereas euery Catholique knoweth these sinnes to be against the law of nature and lawful in no case whatsoeuer and the other against a positiue precept which according to the general custome of the Church bindeth none vnder 21. or aboue 60. years old no sicke body no laboring man no woeman bearing or nursing children besides many other perticuler cases wherein fasting in lent is dispensed withal 7. Eight Traditions more Bel reckoneth Bel p. 131. 132. 133. as of celebrating in vnleauened bread of Christs age when he dyed of his raigne on earth after iudgement of Zacharias that was slayne betwixt the Temple and the altar of the Popes teaching successiuely the self some doctrin with S. Peter of our ladies conception without original sinne of Constantins baptisme at Rome and lastly of honoring Saints But these are ether falsly alleadged for traditions or litle or nothing to the purpose For that of celebrating Leo 9. ep ad Michaelem PattiarchaÌ„ c. 29. Eugen. 4. in decreto vnionis These tvvoe vvere no traditions but erroneous opinioÌ„s See S. Hierom de scriptur in Padia Bel impugneth histories in steed of Traditions Origen in 25. Math. Basil homil de human Christâ— General Nissen orat de Christ natiu Cyrill cont Anthropo This is no Tradition but if it be ment of the Popes teaching as he is Pope it is in Scripture if as a prinat maÌ„ it is an opinion brating in vnleauened bread concernes no thing necessary to mans saluation as testify P Leo 9. and P. Eugenius 4. and therfore is none of these which Bel vndertooke in the beginning of this article to impugne And though S. Ireney were deceaued about Christs age when he suffered and Papias about his reigne after iudgement that maketh not much to the purpose For wel may the Church be certain of Traditions though one Father were mistaken about one Tradition and an other about an other That of Zachary that he was S. Ihon Baptists father who was so slain S. Basil reporteth not as an Apostolical but an historical Tradition and though S Hierom deny it yet Origen S. Greg. Nissen S. Cyril and Valentinian affirme it 8. As for the Popes successiuely teaching the self same doctrin with S. Peter the truth thereof vnto S Victor P. tyme about the year 187. is testifyed by S. Ireney lib. 3. r. 3. vntil S Cornelius P. about the yeare 251. by S. Cyprian lib. 1. epist 3 vnto S. Lucius 1 P. about 257. by him self epist ad Episc Hispan Gall. vntil S. Dammasus P. about the year 380 by S. Hierom epist ad Damas vntil S. Leo 1 Pope about 450 by Theodoret epistol ad Renatum vntil S. Gelasius 1. P. about 496. by him self epist ad S. Ireney S. Cyprian S Lucius S. Hierom. S. Theodoret S. Gelasius 2. S. Ihon. 2. S. Gregory Agatho Nicolas 1. Anast vntil S. Ihon 2. Pope about the year 533. by him self epist ad Iustin vntil S. Gregory the great about the year 600. by him self lib. 6. epist 37 vntil Pope Agatho about the yeare 681. by him self in his epistle approued 6. Synod act 8. and 18. vntil P. Nicolas about the year 860. by him self epist ad Michael Imperat. vntil P. Leo 9 about Leo 9. the yeare 1050. by him self epistol ad Petr. Antioch vntil Pope Innocent 2. about the year 1140. is insinuated by S Bernard epist S. Bernard 190. And the same may be proued of the rest of the Popes since Now let vs see whome Bel opposeth to these so many so holy so antient witnesses 9 Forsooth Nicolas de Lyra a late fryer Bel p. 132. Lyra in cap. 16. Math. Tit. 3. v. 11. O truly said of S. Paule that Heretiks are condemned by their owne iudgements For who condemneth not him self if he wil beleeue one late writer before so many so holy so antient And much more if that Author be found to affirme nothing to the contrary For he only saith That Summi Pontifices inueniuntur apostatasse à side Popes haue apostated from the faith which is a far different thing For wel may one be an Apostata Math. 26. v 70. Concil Sinuessan Damasus iâ— Marcelliâ—â— and yet teach the doctrin of his Predecessor As S Peter denyed his maister yet taught no contrary doctrin S. Marcellin offered sacrifice to Idols and yet taught no Idolatry Caïphas murdered Ioan. 11. v. 51. S. Augustin l. 4. de doctr Christian c. 27. to 3. Christ and yet prophecyed For as S. Austin said of some Bishops that they durst not teach heresy lest they should leese their Bishopriks So we might say of Popes that though some of them had apostated from Christ yet they durst not teach heresy or apostasy lest they shold be deposed but might with a wicked and deceitful hart to vse S. Austins words preach things which are right and true or as S. Paul speaketh preach Philip. 1. v. 18. Christ vpon occasion not vpon truth But indeed neuer did any Pope in his hart apostatat from Christ 10. That point of our ladies conception Bel impugneth an opinion for tradition without sinne is no Tradition but a pious and probable opinion of many and denyed of diuers Catholiques as of S. Thomas S Bernard whome Bel him self citeth and others And as for Constantins baptisme at Bel impugneth a History in steed of tradition pag. 133. Rome it concerneth no matter of saluation but is a meere historical Tradition sufficiently proued by Card. Baronius Annal. Ann. 314. and vnawares contested by Bel him self when he saith that he hath seen at Rome the font and that Constantin is worthely See Nicephor lib. 7. c. 35. called great For why