parag 13. and arâ— 7. c. 9. parag 19. vntruth 92 made oftentymes of coblers tinkers and taylers who may thanke the Lord as one of them did that they know nothing of the Romish tongue 4. That in the Churches vve read vnto the common people latin sermons In deed we read such in our seruice but read them to the common people no more then we read the Masse to them But read both in honour and seruice to God who vnderstandeth as wel latin as english And thus much touching Scripture now let vs come to Traditions CHAP. IX Of Apostolical Traditions vvhether there be any or none OF the Traditions which the Church manteineth some were instituted by Christ some by his Apostles by the inspiration of the holy Ghost and others by the Church it selfe The question is whether there by any of the two former kinds of Traditions instituted or deliuered by the Apostles and therupon called Apostolical vvhat â—ind of traditioÌ„s Bel impugnâ—th without writing which concerne things as Bel saith in the beginning of this article pag. 86. necessary to mans saluation For though as I said before the Scripture conteine al Chapt. 1. things which are necessary to be knowne actually of euery one yet because euery one is bound to deny no point of christian faith but at lest vertually and implicitly to beleeue al such traditions as concerne matters of faith or manners may as Bel speaketh be said to concerne things necessary to mans saluation This supposed I affirme with the vniforme consent of al holy Fathers that there are such traditions and it followeth of that which we proued in the first chapter that the Scripture conteineth not actually al points of christian faith and otherwise I proue it because S. Paul 2. S. Paul S. Basil de Spirit c. 29. S. Chrysost 2. Thessalon hom 4. S. Epiphan haer 61. S. Damascenus 4. de fid c. 17. Thess 2. v. 15. saith Hold the Traditions which you haue learned whether it be by worde or by our epistle therfore he deliuered some Traditions only by worde as S. Basil S Chrisostom S. Epiphanius S. Damascen out of this place do gather 2. Secondly S. Ihon the last writer of Scripture said Hauing many things to vvrite to 3. Ioan. v. 13. you I vvould not by paper and inke Ergo many things which were to be told to christians S. Shon left vnwritten yea thought it not expedient to write them Bel answereth Bel p. 117. That the Apostles taught no needful doctrin which they did not after commit to vvriting This answer insinuateth that the Apostles taught some needles matter contrary to S. Paul 2. Timoth. 2 Tit. 3. and that which S. Paul commanded the Thessalonicenses to hold S. Ihon said he had to write were needles things which is but to blaspheme the Apostles Thirdly in the law of nature there were traditions as is euident and testifyed Gen. 18. v. 19. Likewise in tyme of the Conference at Hampton Court p. 68. Valer. Max. lib. 3. c. 319. de scauro vario seuero S. Dionis l. 1. eccles hier c. 1. S. Ignat. ep ad Heron. S. Iren. lib. 3. c. 3. S. Ciprian l. 2. epist 3. S. Basil lib. de Spirit 6. 27. 29. law written as English Protestants confesse why not therefore in tyme of the Ghospel 3. Fourthly I wil propose to the Reader a choise som what like to that which a Roman made to his Citizens when being accused of his aduersary in a long oration he stept vp and said my aduersary affirmeth I deny it whether beleeue you citizens And so in few words reiected his aduersaries long accusation For S. Dionisius Areopag S. Ignatius both schollers of the Apostles S. Ireney S. Cyprian S. Basil S. Chrisostom S. Epiphanius S. Hierom. S. S. Chrysost 2. Thessal hom 4. S. Epiphan haer 61. S. Hierom. dial contr Lucif S. Augustin epist 118. l. 10. de Genen ad lit c. 23. Austin and others affirme that there are Apostolical Traditions Bel some few new start vp Heretiks deny it Whether beleeue you Christians This choise is far aboue that of the Roman For there was but one against one yea ones bare denyal against the others proofs But here are many against few Saints against to say the lest ordinary fellows Doctors of Gods Church against vnlearned Ministers Catholiques against Heretiks yea manifest proofs against bare denyals And shal we not especially in a matter of fact as is whether the Apostles left any vnwritten Traditions or no beleeue many most holy most learned most incorrupt most antient witnesses yea wherof some were eye witnesses of the matter before a few vnlearned vnconstant iangling new fellowes S. Hierom. epist 61. c. 9. S. Augustin de Symbolo ad Catechumen Ruffin in Symbol S. Hierom. con Heluid S. Augustin haer 55. S. Epiphan haer 78. Locis supra cit c. 3. 4. Moreouer whence haue we the Apostles Creed but by Tradition as testify S. Hierom S. Austin and Ruffinus whence the perpetual virginity of our B. Lady as appeareth by S. Hierom S. Austin S. Epiphanius whence the lawful transferring the Sabbath day from Saterday to Sonday but by Tradition Whence many other things as testify S. Hierom S. Dionis S. Iren. S. Cyptian Tertull. Origen S. Basil S. Epiphan S. Chrisost S. Hierom S. Austin S. Ambrose and others but by Tradition But especially whence haue we the Bible it selfe Whence haue we that euery booke chapter and verse of it is Gods worde and no one sentence therin corrupted in al these 1600. years where haue we that the Gospel bearing the name of S. Thomas who was an Apostle and eye witnes of Christs actions is not as wel or better Christs Ghospel then that which carrieth the name of S. Luke and was written only by heare-say Luc. 1. v. 2. S. Hierom. de Scriptur eccles in Luca. Bel bringeth six ansvvers as is professed in the very beginning but by Tradition This reason so courseth Bel vp and downe as like fox many tymes vn-earthed euen for wearines he runneth into the hunters toyle graunting what the argument would 5. His first answer is That there is great difference Bel p. 134. betvvixt the primmatiue Church and the Church of late daies For the Apostles heard Christs doctrine savv his myracles and were replenished with the holy Ghost and consequently must needs be fit vvitnesses of al that Christ did and taught vvhich adiuncts the Church of Rome hath not Here Bel blasphemeth Christs Church of late daies auouching her to be nether replenished with the holy Ghost Symbol Apostol contrary to our Creed professing her to be holy and Christs promise that the holy Ghost should remaine with her for euer Nor to be a Ioan. 14. v. 16. fit witnes of his truth contrary to S. Paul affirming her to be the piller and strength of 1. Timoth. 3. v. 15. truth and to Gods sending her
Controuersies handled in this booke 1. Of the Popes supremacie Article 1. through out 2. Of the real presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the Alter Article 2. chap. 1. 2. 3. Of the Sacrifice of Masse Art 2. chap. 3. 4. 5. 6. 4. Of the Popes dispensations Article 3. through out 5. Of Original sinne concupiscence Article 4. through out 6. Of merit of good workes Art 8. through out 7. Of the distinction of mortal and venial sinns Art 6. through out 8. Of the sufficiencie of the holy Scripture Art 7. cap. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 9. Of the difficultie of Scripture Ibid. chap. 6. 10. Of the vulgar peoples reading of scripture in vulgar tonges Ibid. c. 7. 11. Of the translating of holy Scripture into vulgar tonges Ibid. c. 8. 12. Of Traditions Art 7. chap. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. Of the authority of late general counsayles ibid. chap. 13. 14. Of the oathes of Bishops Ibid. chap. 14. 15. Of the possibility of keeping Gods commandments Art 8. through out TO THE MOST HIGHE AND MIGHTIE PRINCE IAMES By the grace of God King of great Britanie France and Ireland Defendor of the Faith YF S. Paul Most Gratious Soueraigne being accused of the whole Synagog of the Iewes by their Orator Tertullus of diuers heynous crimes both against Gods and the Princes lawes found notwithstanding such equitie in the heathen President Festus as that he answered his aduersaries that it was not the Romans custome to coÌ„demne Act. 2â— any man before he haue his accusers present and place to make his answer and also such fauour at the The like reporteth Plutarch of K. Alexan. the great Act. 26. Iewish King Agrippa his hands as he both licenced him to speake for him selfe afforded him fauorable audience Much more cause haue your Maiesties Catholique Subiects being accused of the ministers by a hyred spokesman Bel to expect the like yea greater fauor equitie at your Graces handes For if the Romans though Heathens thought it iniustice to condemne any particular man at the clamors of a whole nation before his accusers were present and his defence were heard And if King Agrippa albeit He killed S. Iames and emprisoned S. Peter Act. 12. a Iew persecutor of Christians deemed it notwithstanding a Princes part to geueÌ„ audience to one accused of that Religion which he both hated and persecuted How much more wil a Christian Prince forbeare to condemne the vniuersal cause of his Catholique subiects at the slaunders and outcries of ministers one hyred Proctor before their accusers be brought face to face and they haue time and place graunted to answer for them selues wherein we shal account our selues more happy then S. Paul because we shal plead our cause not before a Iewish but a Christian King such a one as better knowerh the questions and customes of the Christians then King Agrippa did of the Iewes VVherfore seeing that of late Thomas Bel a fugitiue once from Protestants religion as he is now from Catholiques hath not only accused but also malitiously slaÌ„dered the vniuersal Catholique cause in a booke which he hath dedicated to your Maiestie termed it the Dovvnefall of Poperie and withal challengeth dareth yea adiureth in which case our B. Sauiour Matth. 26. though with danger of his life made answer al English Iesuits Seminary Priests and as he speaketh Iesuited Papists to answer him I haue presumed vpon your Gratious fauour to accept his chaleng and am ready to performe it hand to hand if your Maiestie graunt licence and in the meane time to dedicate to your Name this my confutation of his arguments and slaunders VVherin I speake not for my selfe as S. Paul did before King Agrippa but for the religion of your owne Progenitors and Predecessors for the faith of our Forefathers for the cause of al Catholiques and for the good I dare say of your Maiesties owne person kingdoms For though Bel calumniate Christian Kinges and pag. 17. Emperors with opening the window to al Antichristian tyranny and Catholiques generally with thinking p. 1. 22. Christ to be killed a thousand times a day and the like yet especially he slandereth the Popes with vsurping power proper to God and to depose Princes and dispose of their kingdomes at his pleasure therby to alienate your mind from the Sea Apostolike wherin he not onely abuseth your patieÌ„ce with telling you vntruths but greatly harmeth and endamageth your selfe and Realme by endeuoring through Vir Apostata prauo corde machinatur maluÌ„ omni tempore iurgia Seminat â—ouer c. 6. his false slanders to auert your minde from the Popes who haue bene the most ancient most assured and most beneficial frends which the Kinges Realme of England euer had VVhich thing that I may make manifest vnto your Grace I humbly beseech you geue me leaue to set downe some praticular examples of the mutual amitie kind offices benifites which haue euer bene betwixt the Popes and the Princes of this land VVherein if I be somewhat longer then men in Epistles The loue benefits of Popes to England and Kings therof S. Peter P. vse to be I hope that the varietie and profit of the matter wil make requital Not long after the Apostolike Seat was settled in Rome S. Peter the first Pope about the 63. yeare of Christ came hither as not only Gretians but Metaphrast tract de Pet. Paul apud Lippoman Cambden in descrip Britanâ—â— p. 52. And Nicephor as he saieth Protestants also confesse stayed here a long time conuerted many Nations to Christs faith erected Churches ordered Bishops and Priests and being admonished of an Angel returned from hence to Rome to suffer Martyrdome Neither was this loue to our Countrie extinguished by death but as he promised to some so he had it 2. Pet. 1. also in mind after his death and miraculously assisted it in the greatest distresses So that truly wrote S. Sergius Malmesbur lib. 1. Pont. Angl. p. 209. 1. Pope vnto our Kings of England almost a thousand yeares agoe that S. Peter was mindful of them Pope Alexander 3. to King Henry 2. â—ugubin de donat CoÌ„st that England was vnder S. Peters protection euer since Christs name was glorified there For when our country about the yeare 611. began to Apostatate from the faith of Christ and the Bishops were determined to forsake the land S. Perer appearing to Sainct Laurence Arch-bishop of Canturbury did seuerly rebuke and scourge him because he would abandon the flocke which I said S. Peter coÌ„mitted vnto thee This miracle is so certaine as some ProtestaÌ„ts confesse it though Gadvvin in the life of S. Laurence some others wil not beleue it because they haue neither seene nor put their singers into S. Laurence his wounds yet it may suffice any indifferent man that it was auouched by S. Laurence beleeued by King Edbald his people lib. 2. hist
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
Aug. lib. 2. cont Crescon cap. 26. to 7. Apoc. 22. v. 8. c. 19. v 10. S. August q. 61. in Gen. â—â— 4. Genes 29. v. 24. sinneth therin greeuously but the people worshiping erroniously vpon inuincible ignorance offend no more then did S. Ihon when he worshiped an Angel as God thinking as saith S. Austin it had bene God him self or as did Iacob when he lay with Lia who was not his wife thinking verely it had bene his wife Rachel But to say that there is no consecration when the Priest omitteth any word at al or miscalleth any words so as the sense be not altered thereby is not Catholique doctrin but Bels vsual false dealing 9. His last contradiction is that vvhen pag. 34. many Priests are made together in Rome they al pronounce the vvords of consecration This is true but what then Papists saith he can not tel hovv many Gods or hovv many times God is made in a peece of bread O accusator fratrum Where didest thou heare of many Gods amongest Papists Where of making of God we say after S. Hierom and S. S. Hieron eâ—ist ad Helâ—odor S. Pontian epist 1. Decretali Pontian that Priests conficiuni Corpus Christi make Christs body but dreame not of making God These be the slanders malitiously obiected to Catholikes against thine owne knowledge and Conscience But where is the contradiction Forsooth because Inocentius hâ—ldeth that al such Priests do consecrate Durand thinketh that he only who first pronounceth the words and Caietan is of an other opinion I graunt these contradict one an other But what is this to the Massâ— are these contradictions in it You promised to shew vs Bel deceaueth his Reader contradictions in â—he Masse and twise you haue told vs of durand Caietans contradictions as often of other matters which had no shew of Contradiction Besides that the matter in which these three Authors contradict one an other is no point of faith For with Catholiques it is no more matter of faith whether al the said Priests or one only consecrate then it is with Protestants whither al or one should christen a child if many at once should dippe him into the font pronounce the words of Baptisme So the letter be wel sealed it skilleth not whither one or many be thought to make the print when many together put their hands to the seale 10. But if Bel when he looked vpon the Masse booke had looked on his communion booke and with the like eyes and affection Gilby admonition to England and Scotland fol. 70. he should haue found other stuffe in it then he did in the Masse For besyde that it is made out of our breuiary and Missal wherupon Gilby called King Edward the sixt his booke an English mattins patched forth of the Popes Portesse more then a thousand Ministers whome the vniuersity of Oxford acknowledged to be Ansvver to the PetitioÌ„ their brethren and fellow laborers in the Lords haruest in their petition exhibited Exhibited in April 1603. to his Maiesty say that they groan vnder a burden of humaine rites and ceremonies finde enormities in their Church discipline A thousand ministers censure of the communion booke and in their Churches seruice want of vniformity of doctrin Popish opinions and honor prescribed to the name of Iesus with diuers abuses which they are able say they to shew not to be agreable to Scripture Thus Syr haue your owne ministers deminished the credit of your communion booke And Reynolds an excellent ornament saith Ansvver to 8. reasons Confer p. 63. 86. pag. 25. pag. 59. Buckley in the conference at Hampton court 1. proued the communion booke to contradict twise the Byble the Bishops were faine to amend it 2. he argued it to contradict the 25. Article of their faith 3. to conteyne manifest errors directly repugnant to Scripture 4. he requested it to be pag. 23. fitted to more encrease of piety 5. professeth that vrging men to subscribe vnto it pag. 58. is a great impeachment to a learned ministery wherof he giueth diuers reasons as the repugnancy therin to Scripture the corruption of Scripture the interrogatories and ceremonies in baptisme and certayne D. Râ—inolds censure of the communion booke words in matrimony Thus syr the excellent ornament of your Church hath adorned your communion booke and this black verdict hath he giuen therof 11. And if I should but reckon the contradictions Protestants contradictioÌ„s about their communion in Protestants doctrin about the Eucharist I shold neuer make an end only I wil requite Bel with some few 1. how Christs body saith Willet shold be verily 1. VVillet Tetrostyl col 2. part 3. p. 82. present and yet not really Can there be verum and not res or ens vere and not realiter 2. how there can be a real presence 2. Perkins Reform Cath. p. 185. 189. of Christ in the Sacrament as saith Perkins and yet Christ no otherwise present then a thing to it name 3 How God giueth Christ 3. Perkins sup in this Sacrament saith the same Minister as really and truly as any thing can be giuen to man and yet he is giuen by only faith 4. 4. Caluin 4. instit c. 17. paragr 10. How as Caluin teacheth the Eucharist is no empty signe but hath the verity of the thing vnited to it and yet Christ is only in heauen 5. How there is saith Caluin 5. Caluin sup parag 19. 15. a true and substantial communication of Christs body and blood in the Eucharist and yet Christ no more there then he was 6. Sainctes de Euchar. repetit 6. c. 1. p. 208. Mich. Fabrit ep de Beza in the Sacraments of the Iews which were before his body was any substance 6. How Christs body is truely really and substancially in the Eucharist as Beza wrote in his confession exhibited to the Count Palatine and vttered publikly in the disputation at Surius An. 1556. Poysi and yet withal as far from the Eucharist as heauen from earth Surely such fellows as these haue yea no in their religion 2. Cor. 1. v. 17. 2. Cor. 4. v. 2. or els walking in craftines adulterat as the Apostle speaketh Gods worde For if their words be vnderstood as they signify purport they include manifest contradiction and thus much of the second Article VVherfore be myndful Apotal Bel from wheÌ„ce thou are fallen and do penance Apoc. 2. THE THIRD ARTICLE OF THE POPES DISPENSATIONS CHAP. I. BEL beginneth this Article as he did Bel pag. 36. the two former with vntruthes and dissimulatioÌ„s His vntruths appeare in that he chargeth S. Antonin and Austin of Ancona Antonin 3. part tit 22. c. 5. parag 8. vntruth 42. vntruth 43. with teaching the Pope to haue equal powre with God Because S. Antonin writeth That seeing the Pope is Christs vicar none can lawfully withdraw him self from his
wil speake exactly and properly more is required to formal and proper sinne then to formal iniquity For iniquity requireth only want Difference betvvixt formal sinne and iniquity of equity and conformity to Gods law formal sinne besides this requireth voluntarines so al formal sinne is formal iniquity but not contrarywise As adultery or murder committed by a foole or mad man is iniquity but no more sinne then it is in beasts Hereupon S. Austin l. 2. contr Iulian. c. 5. S. Austin distinguished two iniquityes one which is sinne and blotted out in baptisme an other which is the law of sinne infirmity remaineth is yet iniquity because saith he iniquum est that the flesh should rebel against the spirit l. 6. c. 19. calleth lust against wil some iniquity yet oftentymes denyeth it to be true sinne nether doth he say in the place which Bel citeth that iniquity sinne is al one but that sinne is not a different thing from iniquity but that who cōmitteth sinne committeth iniquity which how it is true is euident by that which is said Albeit when he saith that al iniquity is blotted out in baptisme he confounde iniquity with sinne as before is cited out of Scripture which argueth that wel may the worde iniquity be taken in a different sense Iohn 5. and 3. as Iohn 5. for voluntary iniquity and proper sinne as appeareth by the greeke worde adicia and c. 3. for iniquity in general as appeareth by the worde anomia which is cōmon to volūtary or inuolūtary 7. The places of S. Ambros and S. Austin are already answered for they define only mortal sinne And of the same vnderstandeth Bellarmin when he saith al sinne is against the law for venial sinnes he proueth not to be against the law tom 3. lib. 1. de amiss grat stat pecc cap. 11. Nether followeth it as Bel thincketh that some sinnes are no sinnes but only that Some sinnes are not perfectly sinnes as Bellarmin proueth loc cit As for the Rhemists doubtles it is false which Bel addeth that what Sup. c. 2. parag 8. swarueth from the law is against it as I haue proued against his bare assertion of the contrary Durand and Angles I confesse did thincke venial sinnes to be against the law but neither is this a matter of faith neither do they intend to fauour Bel any thing but answer his argument an otherway as hath bene shewed before 8. But pretty it is to see how that because Bel pag. 82 Angles 2. sent p. 275. Angles writeth that it seemeth now to be the commoner opinion in schooles that venial sinnes are against the law Bel noteth the Romish religion of mutability confessing that the olde Romane religion was Catholique Olde Roman religiō Catholique sound and pure sownde and pure with which he wil not contend Beholde the ytch which this fellow hath to calumniate the Romane religion Angles in sinuateth Schoole opinions to be mutable Bel applieth it to Romane religion as if it consisted of schoole opinions which may be helde pro contra salua fidei compage with vnity in faith as S. Austin speaketh But seeing you haue graūted S. Augustin l. 1. cont Iul. c. 6. to 7. the olde Romane religion to haue bene Catholique and pure slaunder the late I bring an action of slaunder against you and charge you that you doe not like dolosus versari in generalibus but to bringe good witnesses when wherin and by whome the late Romane religion corrupted the purity of the olde knowing that otherwise to vse your phrase al the world wil cry with open mouth Fye vpon you and your slaunderous Ministery But in the meane tyme let vs proceed with him here 9. Their canonized Martyr Bishop Fisher Bel pag. 83. Ruffens art 32. cont Luther Gerson de vit spirit lect 1. part 1. saith he and Popish Bishop Gerson wrote that vental sinnes were such only by the mercy of God Here Bel for one truth vttereth twoe vntruths True it is that B. Fisher and Gerson were in that errour but that was both before it was condemned in the Church as it 75. vntruth was since by Pius 5. and Gregorius 13. neither did they account inuoluntary motions of Concupiscence for venial sinnes as Bel doth but such as Catholiques account venial 76. vntruth But vntrue it is that either B. Fisher is canonized or Gerson was a bishoppe who Trithem in Gersone was only Chauncellor of the vniuersity of Paris 10. Finally he concludeth this Article pag. 85. with this goodly reason one stealeth iust so many egges as are necessary to make a mortal sinne A reason not vvorth a rotte◠egge an other stealeth one les but there can be no reason why God may iustly condemne the one to hel and not the other therfore both sinne mortally alike To this I answer by demanding a reason why the iudge may condemne him to death that stealeth thirteene pence halfe penny and not him that stealeth one penny les If he answer because the law condemneth one and not the other I aske againe what reason was there that the lawe was made against the one and not against the other And if Bel can finde a reason in this he wil finde one in his owne question The reason of both is because such a quantity is a notable iniury to our neighbour and consequently is against charity so breaketh the law and a les quantity is not Be myndful Apocalip therfore Bel from whence thou art fallen and do penance Apocal. 2. THE SEVENTH ARTICLE OF VNVVRITTEN TRADITIONS Bel intituleth this seuenth article of traditions though therein he handleth diuerse other matters as of the sufficiencie and perspicuity of Scriptures and of the readinge them in vulgar tongues and by the common people of the authoritie of Councels and oathes of Bishops But these he handleth so confusedly so tediously being almost as longe in this one article as in al the rest as I founde much more difficultie to gather togither what he saied of euery point in different places and to bringe them to some methodical order for the healpe of the readers memory then I had to frame an answere first therefore I wil entreate of Scriptures next of Tradition then of Councels and lastly of Bisshops oathes CHAP. I. The Catholique doctrine touching sufficiency of Scriptures propounded and proued certayne vntruthes of Bel disproued ALBEIT euery one be forbidden to deny any point of the Christian faith yet are not al cōmaunded to know actually euery point thereof but to some it sufficeth that they beleeue the fundamental pointes conteyned in the Apostles Creede and such like and to be so desposed in minde as they woulde beleeue the rest if they knewe them which is to be beleeue them implicitely or virtually Moreouer one thinge may conteyne an other either actually as fyer doth conteyne heate and the sunne light or virtually
as a flynte conteyneth fyer and euery cause his effecte These things supposed 2. First Conclusion is Al such pointes of Christian faith as are necessarie to be actually beleeued of euery one that hath vse of reason though he be neuer so simple are actually conteyned in Scripture either clearely or obscurely This is nothing against traditions because wel may they be and are pointes of Christian faith though they be not such as the actual and explicite beleefe of them be so necessarie as none whatsoeuer can be saued without it For it sufficeth that they be such as the implecite and virtual beleefe of them is necessary to euery ones saluation and may be denyed of none vnder payne of damnation And the conclusion is taught of Bellarmin lib. 4. S. Augustin lib. de doct Christian c. ◠to 3. de verbo non scripto cap. 11. Where expounding these wordes of S. Austine In these which are plainely set dovvne in scripture are al those thinges founde vvhich conteyne faith and maner of life he answereth that S. Austine speaketh of those pointes of doctrine which are necessary simply to al as they saith he are which are conteyned in the Apostles Creed and tenne cōmaundements Likewise Stapleton Staplet Relect Contract 5. q. 5. i◠explic Artic affirmeth that the Apostles wrote al or almost al that parte of faith which is necessary to be explicitely beleeued of al and euery one And it seemeth euident because such pointes of faith as are precisely necessary to be actually knowen of euery one what so euer be both fewe and are the fundamental and most notorious pointes of Christianity as the mysterie of the Trinity the incarnation and passion of Christ and such like which are al actually at least obscurely conteined in scripture For surely the prophets and Euangelists writinge their doctrine for our better remembrance would omitte no one point which was necessary to be actually knowen of euery one especially seeinge they haue writen many things with are not so necessary And this cōclusion teacheth S. Austin when he saith S. Augustin tract 49. in Ioan. to 9. that those thinges are written which seemed sufficient for the saluation of the faithful Where I note that he sayd not vvhich seemed sufficient to Christian faith but which seemed sufficient to saluation because fewer pointes suffice to saluation then the Christian faith conteineth againe In these things which are plainly L. 2. de doct l. cit sup sett downe in scripture al those thinges are founde which conteine faith and maner of life Where I also obserue that he saied not absolutely al things as Bel translateth him but al those Bel pag. 94. 110. 11. False translation things insinuatinge that he speaketh not of al things belonging to Christian faith but onely of those which are necessary to be beleeued and done of euery one which he calleth precepts of life and rules of faith And yet more plainely I beleeue also that herein S. Augustin lib. 2. de pec mer. remis cap. vlt. to 7. there would be most cleere authority diuinorum eloquiorum of Gods word if man could not be ignorant of it without losse of his promised saluation Where if by diuina eloquia we vnderstand holy writte as Bel translateth pag. 95. and S. Augustin seemeth to meane because immediatly before he spake of scriptures me thinks he plainely auoucheth that God hath procured euery thinge to be clearely written which to knowe is necessary to euery mans saluation The same teacheth S. Cyril saying Not al things S. Cyril lib. 12. in Joan. cap. 68. vvhich our Lord did are written but what the vvriters deemed sufficient as wel for manners as for doctrin that by right faith and vvorks vve may attayne to the kingdome of heauen And S. Chrisostome 2. Thess hom 3. vvhat things soeuer S. Chrysost are necessary are manifest out of Scripture 3. Here by the way I must aduertise the Reader of Bels euil dealing with his maister Bellarmin and other Catholiques For because Bellarmin affirmeth That the Apostles Bellarm. lib. 4. de verbo Dei c. 11. wrote al things vvhich are necessary for al men and which they commonly vttered to al but not al the rest Bel inferreth That al things written Bel p. 114. are necessary for al. As if it were al one to say Al things necessary for al are written and al things written are necessary Perhaps he thinks to turne propositions as easely as he did his coate And if al things written be necessary for al as Bel gathereth surely as S. Hierom sayd to the Pelagians teaching S. Hierom. dial 1. cont Pelagian as Bel doth that none can be without sinne but they that are skilful in the law a great part of Christendome must needs be damned yea Luther and Caluin who professe Luther praefat in psalm Caluin 3. instit c. 2. parag 4. their ignorance in diuers points of Scripture I omit that the vttering of some things to some fewe who were perfect spiritual and fit to teach others and capable of strōg meate as is manifest S. Paule did 1. cor c. 2. v. 6. c. 3. v. 1. 2. Heb. 5. 14. 2. Timoth. 2. v. 2. Bel scorn fully calleth preaching in corners Bel p. 114. and such hearers Iesuited Popelings 4. And Catholicks he falsly chargeth Bel p. 139. 141. with denying that baptisme of infants consubstantiality of God the Sonne with his Father and the mistery of the B. Trinity are in Scripture or can be proued thence For Bellarmin proueth baptisme of Infants Bellarm. lib. 1. de baptis c. 8. to 2. by as many arguments out of Scripture as Bel doth vz. by three out of the figure of circumcision gen 17. out of Christs words Ioan 3. and out of the practise of the Apostles act 16. and 1. cor 1. wherof Bel borrowed the first and last The mistery of the Trinitie Bellarmin proueth by six arguments Bellarm. lib. 2. de Christo c. 6. to 1. out of Scripture and and the consubstantiality of Christ he proueth lib. 1. de christo c. 4. out of eleuen places of the olde testament to which he addeth c. 5. nyne more and c. 6. fifteene places out of the new testament 5. Better he might haue charged his good maisters Luther and Caluin with this matter Luther lib. cont Iacob Iatomum Caluin in Ioan. 10. See Staplet Antidat Euangel in Io. 10. v. 30. For Luther said his soule hated the vvorde omousion or consubstantial and Caluin expoundeth these places which make most for the consubstantiality as the olde Arrians did Likewise Luther lib. cont Cochleum an 1523. said Infants are not at al to be baptized if they do not beleeue And lib. de capt Babil c. de bapt Sacraments profit no body but faith alone And Caluin wil not haue the Caluin Io. 3. words Ioan 3. v. 5. which made the very Pelagians to graunt necessity of baptizing Ex
August l. 1. de pecc mer. remiss c. 30. Infants to be meant of baptisme Hereupon the Anabaptists who deny baptisme Balthasar Pacimontan apud Coclâ—um in ostis Lutheri See Posseâ—in de athâ—ismis Haerâ—ticorum of children professe that they learnt their doctrine from Luther and the new Arrians in Transiluania who deny the Trinity and consubstantiality of Christ in their disputation with Protestants appealed to Caluins iudgement professed they receaued their doctrine from him And Smidelin a Smidelin in refutat blasphemae apolog Danaei 1583. great Protestant writeth That it is no maruel that very many Caluinists in Transiluany Poleland and Hungary became Arrians and of Arrians soone after Mahometans 6. But sport it is to heare Bel answer an Bel p. 140. obiection which is the grouÌ„de of the Anabaptists Infants haue no faith Ergo they are not to be baptized First he saith they haue faith that their faith profession is to be baptised of faithful parents in vnity of the Catholique Church After he denyeth them to haue faith in act but to haue faith fundamentally and by inclination How these answers agree let the Reader iudge I would know of him First whence he hath this new point of faith that baptized infants haue to be borne of faithful parents Are none borne of heretiks or Infidels Secondly How they make profession of it by words or deeds and whether Bel by their profession could discerne a baptised infant from one vnbaptized Thirdly how infants can be iustified by faith alone and haue no Inclination to faith iustifyeth Infants according to Bel. Scripture containeth virtually al points of Christian faith See Staplet Relect. controu 5. q. 5. art 1. S Austin l. 1. cont Crescon c. 33. Nullum mihi sacrameÌ„tum aut sermo aliquis admodum obscurior de sacris literis aperitur vbi non eadem praecepta reperio August epist 119. Propter duo praecepta charitatis sensisse Maist quicquid in illis libris sensit nisi crediderimus mendacem facimus Deum August 12. confess c. 25. tom 1. faith in act but only an inclination therto Surely they can haue instification no otherwise then they haue faith and therfore if they haue not faith in act they can haue no iustification in act but only be inclined to it as they are inclined to faith 7. Second conclusion Al points of Christian faith are vertually conteyned in Scripture First because it teacheth vs to belieue the Church which teacheth actually al points of Christian faith and therfore Scripture vertually teacheth vs al. Hereupon wrote S. Austin That in doing what the Church teacheth we holde the truth of Scriptures albeit they afforde no example thereof because we therin follow the Church which the Scripture vndoubtedly sheweth Secondly because the end of al Gods worde whether written or vnwritten is loue of him selfe aboue al things and of our neighbour as our selfe as appeareth by that 1. Timoth. 1. v. 5. The end of the precept is charity and Rom. 13. v. 8. who loueth his neighbour hath fulfilled the law and to the better comprehending and obtayning of this end he referreth al whatsoeuer he reuealed and this end being contayned in Scripture it followeth that the Scripture doth vertually contayne as a cause doth the effect al points of faith 8. And hereupon also it followeth that al the rest of Gods worde whether written or vnwritten may be called an explication of the foresaid coÌ„mandements because it contayneth nothing but which is vertually contayned in these commandements thereto referred by God as to their end which our Sauiour meant when he said In Matth. 22. v. 40. these tvvo commandements al the lavv and Prophets hange because of them depend as of their end al the rest which the law and Prophets contayne And hereupon said S. S. Epiphan Epiphan haer 65. That we may tel the inuention of euery question out of the consequeÌ„ce of Scriptures He said not out of scripture For al can not be taken thence as him selfe writeth haer 61. but of the consequence of them because al questions are resolued out of the Scriptures or out of that which followeth of them as the effect of rhe cause And according to these two conclusions we may expound other Fathers when they say al things are contained in Scripture For either they meane not absolutely of al points of Christian faith nor of actual containing as appeareth by that other where they manifestely defend Traditions but either only of points necessary to be knowne of euery Christian or of vertual containing 9. Third conclusion Al points of Christian faith are not actually coÌ„tained in scripture Al points of Christian faith are not actually in the Scripture neither clearly nor obscurely neither in plaine words nor in meaning This conclusioÌ„ Bel seemeth to graunt pag. 118. where he admitteth of a thing although not expresly written yet vertually saith he and effectually contained in Scripture And the whole English Article 6. Cleargy defyne That what may be proued out of Scripture is necessary to be beleeued though it be not read But what can be proued what not they alone wil be iudges But whatsoeuer Protestants say I proue the conclusion For no where in Scripture it is sayd either in plaine words or in meaning That al the books chapters verses and sentences which in the Bible are admitted for Canonical are truly Canonical and Gods pure worde without the mixture of mans worde If Bel can finde any such place from the first of Genesis to the last of the Apocal let him name it And yet this is a point of Christian faith yea thereupon depende al the Articles we gather out of Scripture S. Austin For as S. Austin said epist 9. and 19. If any vntruth be founde in Scriptures vvhat authority S. Hierom. con Heluid S. Augustin haeres 84. 82. S. Epiphan haer 78. S. Hilar. in 1. Math. Can. 1. can they haue So if any part or parcel of the Bible be doubtful what certainty can the rest haue Secondly the perpetual virginity of our B. Lady is a matter of faith as appeareth by S. Hierom and S. Austin who accounted Heluidius and Iouinian heretiks for denying it and Protestants VVillet Tetract 2. piller part 3. p. 76. 77. confesse it And yet it is no where testifyed in Scripture Thirdly that the seauenth day coÌ„manded by God to be kepte holy is transferred lawfully from Saterday to Sunday is a matter of faith and yet no where actually warranted by Scripture For albeit S. Ihon Apoc. 1. 10. speake of our lords day yet he no where warranteth the said transferring See more in Bellarmin tom 1. lib. 4. de verbo Dei 10. Fourth Conclusion Al points of Al points of Christian faith can not be proued sufficiently and immediatly out of Scripture Christian faith can not be sufficiently and immediatly proued out of Scripture In this conclusion I say not
That no points of Christian faith nor that al can not by some way or other be proued by some similitude congruity or probable illation nor that immediatly by testimony of the Church whose testimony in al doctrine of faith can be immediatly proued out of Scripture But only deny that al can be immediatly proued out of scripture by the very words of Scripture and so sufficiently as it sufficeth to captiuate our vnderstanding Articles 39 decreed by Bishops and Ministers 1562. and 1571. into obedience of faith This is directly against the sixt Article of Protestants faith and against Bel in this whole Article But I prooue it as I did the former conclusion For there is no place of al the Scripture which sufficiently proueth al the test Al thinges can not be taken out of Scripture Epiphan haer 61. to be Canonical our B. Lady to be a perpetual virgin and the Sabbath to be lawfully translated from Saterday to Sunday And it shal be more euident out of that which we shal say of Traditions and in answer to Bels arguments For the present it sufficeth that it is so cleare as our very aduersaries do somtime confesse it As See Couel art 4. p. 31. Hooper vvith him Bel p. 134. 135. Luther See Roffens con Luther verit 4. Bellarm. lib. 4. de verb. Dei c. 4. col 164. Luther certaine of Purgatory Bel pag. 134. and 135. art 7. admitteth one point of faith which is not in the Bible professeth that they meane not of it when they say al things necessary to saluation are contained in Scriptures And Luther art 37. said That purgatory can not be proued out of Scripture and yet in the assertion of the same he said That he was certaine there was Purgatory nor cared much what Hereticks babled to the contrary Now let vs come to Bels obiections which albeit for the most part be against Traditions yet because the matters of sufficiency of Scripture and of Traditions are connexed and because we wil keepe his order as much as we can we wil here answer them in that order as they are propunded by him CHAP. II. Bels arguments out of the oulde Testament concerning the sufficiency of Scripture ansvvered Bel citeth dyuers places which make Bel pag. 86. 87. 88. 89. nothing for absolute sufficiency of Scriptures or against Traditions but only bid vs obey and follow the law as Iosue 1. v. 7. and 23. v. 6. Malach. 4. v. 4. omitting therfore these places I answer to other as Deuter. 4. v. 2. and Prouerb 30. v. 6. where God forbiddeth vs to adde to his worde and Deuter. 12. v. 32. where we are bidden to doe to the lorde onely that which he commandeth without adding or taking avvay First that these places make as much against Protestants as Catholicks For they admit one vnwritten Tradition as Bel confesseth and appeareth Bel p. 134. 135. Brent in prolegom Kemnit in examin Conc. Trid. by Brentius Kempnitius the Deane of the chappel and the places cyted by Bel forbid as wel the adding of one thing as of many to Gods worde 2. Secondly I answer that they make nothing against these Traditions which Bel impugneth vz. such as are necessary to Bel pag 86. in praesat Articuli mans saluation for such are indeed Gods worde though vnwritten For the two first places only forbid adding to Gods worde any thing of our owne head or which is mans worde as may be proued First by the reason of the forbiddance prouerb 30. cit vz. least we be disproued and fownde lyers as no doubt we might by adding mans worde which is subiect to lye but not by adding Gods Worde which can neuer proue vntrue though it be not written Secondly because the Iewes did euer adde one thing to Gods written worde as Bel confesseth Conference at Hampton Court p 68. pag. 134. and the Deane of the chappel affirmed they added both signes and words vnto the institution of the Passouer prescribed vnto them by Moyses which addition and Tradition of Ievves added signes and vvords to Gods vvord and their addition confirmed by Christ. theirs saith he was approued by our Sauiour at his last supper And this doctrine was exceeding wel liked in the conference at Hampton Court Thirdly because the Prophets and Euangelists did adde to Moyses law without breaking of the commādement in the aforesaid places 3. Bel answereth That the doctrine of the Bel pag. 89. Prophets is nothing els but an explication of the law But if by the worde explication he vnderstand only such as adde nothing to the sense or meaning of the law but only explicate in other words types or figures the bare meaning of the law he speaketh most absurdly For beside that it is spoken without any reason at al it is against reason and sense to say that al the books of Iosue Iudges Kings and Prophets adde no sense to the law of Moyses For where doth the law of Moyses tel vs of euery worde or action of euery particuler man or woeman recorded in the books of the oulde Testament written since the law was giuen where is euery worde or deede of euery perticuler person in the new Testament And although dyuers actions of Christ especially his death and passion was prefigured in the law yet the like can not be thought of euery action or speech of euery perticuler person so that the words or figures of Moyses law actually tolde whatsoeuer perticuler things ether Prophets or Euangelists euer wrote Wherfore S. Austin S. Austin lib. 1. retract c. 22. recalled what he had said lib. cont Adimant c. 3. That al the precepts and promises in the new Testament are in the oulde For certaine precepts there be saith he not figured but proper which are not found in the oulde Testament but in the new And for this cause Tertullian lib. cont Hermog Tertullian called the Ghospel a supply of the oulde Testament 4. But if Bel by the word explication Hovv traditions are explicatiōs of the lavv comprehend al such additions as though they adde to the sense and meaning of the law yet are ether of their nature or of the intention of the adder referred to the better vnderstanding comprehension and fulfilling of the law as al the reasons similitudes comparisons examples and sentences in an oration are explications of the theame therof because though they adde sense to the sense of the theam yet they al tend to the perfect comprehension of the theame I graunt al the writings of Prophets and Apostles to be explications of the law as hath bene explicated in the second conclusion Chapt. 1. parag 7. 8. but withal adde that the Traditions of the Church are such like explications For what they containe is in like sort referred as a meane to the end to the perfect vnderstanding and fulfilling of the said law and so they are no other additions
chron 96. Euseb chronic 97. he maketh the 14. yeare of Domitian to be about 100. years after Christs ascension which was but about the 97. yeare after Christs natiuity as is euident by al Chronicles or supputators of tymes and so wanted almost 40. of an 100. after his ascension Omitting also an other manifest error in affirming S. Ihon to haue written his Ghospel almost an 100. years after Christs ascension who dyed the 68. yeare after his passion See Baron An. 101. Eusebius in chron S. Hieron in Scriptur Ecclesiast in Ioanne in chron as Eusebius and S. Hierom testify and therfore could not write almost an 110. years after Christs ascension vnles he wrote many years after his owne death 3. But omitting these errors as testimonies of Bels ignorance in histories which I regard not To his argument I answer That See S. Cyril l. 12. in Ioan. c. 61. those words These are written are meant only of signa miracles done by Christ and written by S. Ihon to moue vs to beleeue that Christ was God Reinold thes 1. Reinolds pag. 60. confesseth That they are referred properly to signa myracles yet wil haue them also meant of precepts doctrine written by S. Ihon because myracles are to confirme and persvvade doctrine and precepts But I proue that they are meant only of miracles Because S Ihon hauing recorded diuers miracles of Christ afterward immediatly before those sayd words saith Many other miracles did Iesus in the sight of his disciples vvhich v. 30. are not vvritten in this booke And then addeth but These are written that you may beeleue that Iesus v. 31. is Christ the sonne of God c. Who seeth not here that the demonstratiue pronowne These is referred only to miracles For S. Ihon hauing said that many miracles were vnwritten streight after with the aduersatiue or exceptiue particle But which Bel guilefully leaft out excepteth these which he had written from the condition of others which he had not written saying But these are written c And Reinolds reason is so far from prouing his purpose as it proueth the quite contrary For because Reinolds proof against him self Christs doctrine and faith was the end of S. Ihons writing and myracles the meanes and motiues to bring men to Christs faith as him selfe professeth in the forsaid words euideÌ„t it is that he meaneth both of Christs doctrine and miracles in the foresaid verse but differently and vnder different words For of myracles he meaneth as motiues and meanes vnder the words These are written c. And of doctrine he meaneth as the end of his writing the myracles vnder the other words That you may beleeue c. 4. But suppose that S. Ihon by These vnderstood both myracles doctrine can Bel therfore infer that S. Ihon meant of thâ— whole canon of Scriptures Surely no because he hauing before said That many other myracles of Christ were not written in this booke and immediatly adding But these are written c. can not be vnderstood but of his owne writing and in his owne Ghospel wheruppon if Bel inferre any thing he must inferre that S. Ihons Ghospel alone is absolutly sufficient and conteineth al things necessary Which I hope he wil not doe Reinolds graunteth Io. Reinolds apol p. 216. that S. Ihons Ghospel is sufficient supposing that we heare of no other But this is nothing to the purpose For they out of this place inferre the Scripture to be absolutly sufficieÌ„t so as we may reiect al other things though we heare of them And therfore seeing S. Ihon in this place can not be vnderstood but of his owne Ghospel if hence they proue absolute sufficiency of Scripture against Traditions they must inferre absolute sufficiency of S. Ihons Ghospel against al other what soeuer I omit a place Bel alleadgeth out of S. Cyril with an other S. Cyril lib. 12 in Io. cap. vlt. S. Augustin tract 49. in Ioan. Sup. c. 1. parag 2. Bel pag. 91. out of S. Austin which I cited in the first conclusion For they proue no more then is there affirmed 5. His second place out of the new testament is act 20. v. 27. I haue not spared to shew vnto you the whole counsel of God Therfore saith he the whole counsel of God touching our saluation is conteined in holy Scripture Omitting his needles proofs out of Lâ—â—a and Carthu that S. Paul meaneth of al counsâ—l touching our saluation I answer that this place ether maketh directly against Protestants or not at al against Catholiques For seeing S. Paul speaketh of his owne shewing vnto the Ephesians if he be vnderstood of shewing only by writing it followeth that his epistle to the Ephesians conteineth al Gods counsel and is absolutly sufficient which is against Protestants But if he be vnderstood as he should be of shewing in general ether by worde or writing nothing followeth to Bels purpose or against Catholiques 6. But saith Bel it wil not suffice to ansvver pag. 91. That al Gods counsel was preached but not written because S. Paul was an Apostle of that Rom. 1. Act. 26. Ghospel vvhich was promised by the Prophets taught no other thing then that the Prophets had foretolde But this proueth no more of S. Paul then of al the Apostles For they were al Apostles of the same Gospel and taught the same doctrine which he did and yet some of them wrote neuer a worde Some shew it hath to proue that al which S. Paul preached was written by the Prophets Sup. c. 1. parag 7. 8. which how it is to be vnderstood hath bene before explicated 7. And because Bellarmin saith That the Bellarm. lib. 1. de verbo Dei cap. 1. 2. Scripture is an infallible and most secure rule of faith And That he is mad who reiecting Scripture followeth inward inspirations Bel chargeth Bel pag. 93. vntruth 77 him to contradict him selfe teaching els vvhere the contrary but cyteth no place because none is to be found and to confound vntruth 78 himselfe because he wil not rely vpon Gods vvritten testimonies but seeke after vnvvritten vanities and ground his faith vpon them Here Bel slandereth Bellarmin For when did euer he or any Catholique refuse to rely vpon Gods written testimony when did they not account it a most infallible rule of faith vpon what vanities do they ground their faith we confesse Scripture to be an infallible rule but not the total rule but as Bellarmin Bellarmin saith lib. 4. de verb. dei c. 12. the partial rule Let Bel improue this Hic Rhodus hic Saltus 8. Moreouer he alleadgeth S. Austin Bel pag. 93. S. Augustin cont Adimant cap. 3. to 6. writing That there are no precepts or promises in the doctrine of the Ghospel and Apostles which are not in the old Testament True But as S. Austin afterward in expresse words recalled S. Augustin lib. 1. Retrac c. 22.
to 1. S. Paul and corrected this error so I would wish Bel to do His third place is 2. Timoth 3. v. 15. Holy scriptures are able to make thee vvise to saluation This maketh not against vs. both Hovv Scriptures are able to make men vvise to saluation because we deny not that Scripturs are able to make men wise to saluation but only deny that they alone do it As also because we graunt they actually conteine whatsoeuer is necessary to euery mans saluation and vertually whatsoeuer els And lastly because the forsaid words are meant only of the old Testament which S. Timothy saith S. Paul there Had learned from his infancy which alone being not as Protestants confesse absolutly sufficient so as we may reiect the new testament they can not therof inferre Scripture to be so absolutly sufficient as that we may reiect Traditions Now let vs come to his proofs out of Fathers which particulerly proceed against Traditions CHAP. IIII. Bels arguments out of Fathers touching sufficiency of Scripture and Traditions ansvvered VIncentius lyrin who lyued in S. Austins Vincent Lyrin con haereses tyme Writeth That he enquiring of many holy and learned men How he should escape heresy they al answered him by sticking to Scripture and the Churches Traditions And. S. S. Ireney lib. 3. c. â— Ireney writeth of him selfe that by traditions of the Church of Rome he confounded al those that teach otherwise then they should No maruel therfore if Bel being desyrous noâ— to escape but to spread heresy and loth to be Ould heretiks detest traditions S. Iren. Tortullian S. Hilarie S. Augustin c. 1. to 6. S. Epiphan confownded do with the olde hereticks Marcionits and Valentinians ex Iren l. 3. c. 2. and Tertul. de praescrip with the Ari ans ex Hilario l. cont Constant August l. 1. contr Maximin with the Aerians ex Epipha her 75. with the Ennomians ex Basil l. de spir sanct c. 27. 29. with the S. Basil Nestorians and Eutichians ex 7. Synod 7. Synod act 1. impugne Traditions And let not the Reader maruel that Bel bringeth the words of dyuers Fathers against Traditions which almost al are obiections taken out of Bellarmin Bollarm lib. 4. de verbo Dei c. 11. For they make no more for his purpose then the words of Scripture did for the Diuel or Iewes when they alleadged them Math. 4. v. 6. Ioan. 12. v. 34. against Christ And we Wil bring such expresse words of the same Fathers for Traditions as shal cleare al suspition and can admit no solution 2. First he cyteth Dionis Areopag saiing Bel pag. 94. S. Dionys de diu nom c. 1. vve must nether speake nor thinke any thing of the Deity praeter ea beside those things vvhich Scriptures haue reuealed I might except that Protestants deny Dionis Areopag to be Centur. CeÌ„t. 1. lib. 1. c. 10. Luther Caluin ex Bellarm. l. 2. de Monachis c. 5. author of those bookes but I neede not For the words make nothing to the purpose both because they forbid only speaking or thincking of the Deity beside that which Scripture reuealeth as also because by praeter he vnderstaÌ„deth not euery thing out of Scripture els we should not vse the words Trinity and Consubstantiality but only such as are quite beside and neither actually nor vertually are conteined in Scripture But let S. Dionis tel plainly his owne minde concerning Traditions Those first Captaines saith he and Princes of our Hierarchy haue S. Dionys l. de ecclesiastic Hierarch c. 1. deliuered vnto vs diuyne and immaterial matters partly by written partly by their vnvvritten institutions How could Apostolical Traditions be more plainly auouched 3. Two places Bel bringeth out of S. Austin S. Augustin 2. de doct Christian c. 6. 2. de peccat mer. remiss â— vlt. which because we alleadged them in cap. 1. conclus 2. and proue no more then is there taught I omit And as for S. Austin he not only auoucheth Apostolical Traditions epist 118. but de Genes ad litt l. 10. c. 23. tom 3. professeth that baptisme of infants were not to be beleeued if it were not an Apostolical tradition and obiecteth them against the Pelagians in lib. cont Iulian. amoni and giueth vs this rule to knowe them If S. Austins rule to knovv Apostolical traditions S. Ireney lib. 3. c. 1. the whole Church obserue them and no Councel appoynted them l. 2. de bapt c. 7. 6. 23 24 S. Ireney he cyteth because he writeth That the Ghospel which the Apostles preached they aftervvard deliuered vnto vs in Scriptures and it is the foundation of our faith These words proue no more then that the Apostles preached not one Ghospel writ an other but one and the selfe same But that euery one of them or any one of them writ euery whit they al preached S. Ireney affirmeth not And his affection to Traditions is euident both out of his words before rehearsed as also lib. 3. c. 4. where he saith we ought to S. Ireney keepe Traditions though the Apostles had written nothing And affirmeth many barbarous nations of his tyme to haue beleeued in Christ keapt the doctrine of saluation and antient Tradition without Scripture 4. The next he produceth is Tertullian â—el pag. 95. Tertul. con Hermogen writing thus I reuerence the fulnes of Scripture which sheweth to me the Maker and the things made And soone after But whither al things were made of subiacent matter I haue no where readde let Hermogenes shoppe shew it written If it be not written let him feare that wee prouided for them that adde or take away Answer Tertullian speaketh of one perticuler matter which the hereticke Hermogenes of his owne head not only without Tradition or Scripture both contrary to both taught of creating the worlde of subiacent matter not of nothing And no maruel if Tertullian said the Scripture was ful in this poynt and required Scripture of Hermogenes for proofe of his heresy being sure he could alleadge no Tradition But for true Traditions Tertullian is so great a manteiner of them as lib. de prescrip he thincketh hereticks ought to be confuted rather by them then by Scripture and other where affirmeth Tertull. lib. de Corona milit lib. 1. cont Marcionem l. 2. ad vxorem diuers things to be practised in the Church as the ceremonies in baptisme signe of the Crosse and such like only by authority of Tradition without al proofe of Scripture vvhere of saith he Tradition is the beginner custome conseruer and faith the obseruer 5. Of S. Cyprian Bel much triumpheth Bel pag. 96. because writing against one particuler Tradition Primo imitare pietatem humilitatemque Cipriani tunc profes consilium Cipriani August lib. 2. cont Crescon cap. 31. to 7. S. Cyptian epist ad Pom peium of not rebaptizing the baptized by hereticks which he thought had
contained Ergo it is truth But perhaps Bels dul head thought it al one to say Al conteined in Scripture is truth wherupon the said Syllogisme dependeth Scripture coÌ„teineth al truth As for S. Athanasius his reuerence of Traditions it is euident by his prouing S. Athanas l. de Nicen. Synod epist ad African apud Theodoret. lib. 1. c. 8. the Godhead of Christ and name of consubstantiality by Tradition by his words lib. de incarn verbi who sticketh to Traditions is out of danger 10. S. Epiphan he alleadgeth writing Bel pag. 98. S. Epiphan haer 65 Chapt. 1. parag 8. S. Epiphan That vve can tel the finding of euery question by consequence of Scripture But these words haue bene explicated before As for Tradition he saith haere 61. VVe must vse it for althings can not be taken out of Scripture For the Apostles haue deliuered some things by writing some things by Tradition The like he saith haere 55. and 75. S. Cyril he citeth where he saith That vve S. Cyrill lib. 2. de recta fid ad Regin must follovv Scriptures in nothing depart from their prescript This maketh not against vs who professe so to doe and yet Withal follow Traditions And what account S Cyril S. Cyril made of Traditions appeareth by his obseruing lent lib. 10. in leuit and vse of the Crosse lib. 6. in Iulian. which are Traditions Apostolical as witnes S. Ambros ser S. Ambros Tertullian 25. 34. 36. Tertul. de corona mil. and others 11. He citeth S. Chrisostome writing Bel pag. 98. Chrysost in psalm 95. That if any thing be spoken without Scripture the hearers mynde wauereth somtymes doubting somtymes asâ—enting otherwhile denying But maruel it is that Bel would touch S. Chrisostome S. Chrysost who hom 42. Thesal vpon these words Holde Traditions saith Hence it appeareth that the Apostles deliuered not althings by letters And the one as vvel as the other are worthy of the same credit wherfore we thincke the Churches Traditions to deserue beleefe It is a Tradition marke Bel aske no more And if Bel had cyted the words immediatly before he had explicated of what kinde of speaking without Scripture S. Chrisostom meant namely sine testibus solaque animi cogitatione vvithout vvitnesses and of his ovvne head But Churches Traditions haue her for witnes descend from the Apostles An other place he bringeth out of the same S Chrisostom as he Author imperf hom 41. in Math. saith but it is out of the Author imperfect who was a flat Arian and therfore his testimony is worth nothing otherwise then he agreeth with holy fathers though his saying cyted by Bel That al is fulfilled in Scripture vvhich is sought to saluation may be explicated by the first or second conclusion 12. Next he bringeth S. Ambrose bidding Bel pag. 98. S. Ambros 1. de fide ad Gratian. c. 4. vs not to beleeue argument and disputations but aske the Scriptures Apostles Prophets and Christ This maketh rather for vs because it alloweth enquiring of others besides Scriptures namely of Apostles from whom the Churches Traditions came And nothing against Traditions because they be no arguments or disputations And indeed S. Ambrose meaneth of humane arguments and reasons such as in the Chapter before he said the Arians vsed to proue Christ to be vnlike to his Father Besides he speaketh only concerning one point vz. the consubstantiality of Christ And therfore though he had bidden vs therin seeke only Scripture he had nothing preiudicated Traditions which plainly he maintaineth ser 25. 34. 36. 38. epist S. Ambros 81. and other where Only I maruel wherfore Bel corrupted S. Ambrose his words Corrupt of Fathers For where he saith vve deny yea abhorre Bel maketh him say vve deny not but abhorre Making S. Ambros teach heresy in graunting Christ to be vnlike his Father which was the matter he spake of and to speake absurdly in abhorring a speech which he doth not deny 13. S. Basil he citeth saying vvhatsoeuer is Bel pag. 99. S. Basil in Ethic. defin vlt ad Eustachium â—icdicum extra scripturam out of the Scriptue seeing it is not of faith is sinne And in an other place Let vs stand to the iudgment of Scripture and let the truth be iudged on their side whose doctrine is agreeable to Gods oracles Answer In the first place by extra scripturam he vnderstandeth things contrary to Scripture as in the same place he vnderstandeth with the Apostle by non ex fide things contrary to faith as appeareth both because he saith such things are sinne which is not true of things which are barely beside Scripture as also because he proueth such things to be sinne because they be non ex fide contrary to faith as the Apostle speaketh Rom. 14. v. 23. Beside by Scripture he vnderstandeth al Gods words as vsually we vnderstand the whole by the cheefest part Which may be proued because before he defined faith to be certaine persuasion of Gods vvorde affirmed it to a rise of hearing Gods worde and therupon inferreth what is beside Scripture is not of faith In which illation if he tooke not Scripture for Gods whole worde as he did in the Antecedent he did manifestly paralogize And thus vnderstood he speaketh nothing against Traditions which are part of Gods worde and as him selfe saieth otherwhere of as equal S. Basil lib. de Spir. c. 27. 29. force as the written worde is 14. The second place maketh nothing to the purpose For he biddeth not vs be iudged by only Scripture yea in allowing those opinioÌ„s for true which are agreable to Scripture he insinuateth that to discerne the truth of opinioÌ„s it is not necessary to proue them out of Scripture so they be consonaÌ„t thereto How earnest a defender of Traditions S. Basil was appeareth lib. de spir c. S. Basil 29 I thincke quoth he it an Apostolical thing to sticke vnto Traditions not written and c. 27. Some doctrine vve haue by writing some vve receaued of the Apostles Tradition and both haue equal force to piety Nor any contradicteth these marke Bel vvho neuer so slenderly haue experienced the rights of the Church And c. 10. he writeth That Hereticks abolish Apostolical Tradition A Trick of Heretiks to reiect tradition Bel pag 99. S. Hierom. and reiect vvritten testimonyes of Fathers as of no account 15. The last Father he citeth is S. Hierom out of whom he alleadgeth three places The first is in math 23. This because it hath no authority from Scripture is as easely reiected as it is affirmed The second is in psal 86. where vpon that verse Dominus narrabit in scripturis populorum he saith God vvil shew not by worde but by Scripture that excepting the Apostles what is said afterward shal haue no authority The third place is in Hierem. c. 4. That we must not follow the error of our Auncestors or parents
against them 4 Out of S. Thomas he citeth That we Bel p. 102. S. Thom. 1. part q. 36. art 2. must speak nothing of God which is not in Scripture by vvords or sense But this is nothing against Tradition of other things An other place he citeth out of â— p. q. 42. ar 4. VVhatsoeuer Christ vvold haue vs read of his doing and sayings he commanded the Apostles to vvrite as vvith his ovvne hands This also maketh nothing against vs. Both because S. Thomas saith not what Christ wold haue vs beleeue but what he wold haue vs read and Traditions be such as Christ wold haue vs beleeue though we read them not as appeareth by his Apostle 2. Thess 2. v. 15. Hoâ—d the Tâ—aditions vvhich you haue learnt ether by speech or by my epistle As also because S. Thomas speaketh not of al points of beleefe but only of Christs sayings and doings besids which the very sayings and doings of the Apostles recorded in their acts epistles or testifyed by Tradition are to be beleeued I omit a pettie vntruth which Bel vntruth 82 often repeareth That vve nether vvil nor can deny S. Thomas doctrin But S. Thomas his S. Thomas mynd concerning Traditions appeareth by his words 2. Thess 2. It is euident that there are things vnvvritten in the Church taught by the Apostles and therfore to be kept For as S. Dionis saith The Apostles thought it better to conceale many things 5. He citeth also Victoria saying I am Bel p. 103. Victoria de sacrament not certaine of it though al say it vvhich is not conteined in Scripture But Victoria meaneth of things spoken not by Tradition but by probable opinion as the conception of our lady without original sinne and such like or he meaneth of things nether actually nor vertually conteined in Scripture as Traditions be according to our 2. Conclusion cap 1. An other place he alleadgeth out of Victoria writing That for opinions Victor de augmento charitatis relect 8. vve ought no vvay to depart from the rule of Scriptures What is this to the purpose Let Bel proue that we ether for opinions or any thing els depart from Scripture and let him not slander vs as he doth That vve beleeue Bel p. 103. 83. vntruth vvhatsoeuer the Pope telleth vs though it be neuer so repugnant to Scripture For who shal be innocent if it suffice to accuse 6. Lastly he quoteth S. Anselme 2. Timoth 3. and Lyra Math. 19. but omitteth their words because they make litle for him S. Anselm saith that Scripture and meaneth the old Testament can make one sufficiently learned to get saluatioÌ„ to keape the commandements and what is more is not of necessity but of supererogation Which how litle it maketh against the beleefe of Traditions were supererogation to declare And thus much touching the sufficiency of Scriptures now let vs entreat of their hardnes or difficulty CHAP. VI. Of the Difficulty or easynes of Scriptures SCRIPTVRES are difficult and hard Scriptures to vnderstand This is against Bel pag. 107. but expresly taught by S. Peter 2. Pet. â— Peter 3. v. 16. where speaking of S. Pauls epistles he saith In vvhich are some things hard to be vnderstood To this Bel frameth three answers Bel p. 107. First that S. Peter saith not the vvhole Scripture is hard to vnderstand but some things in S. Pauls epistles This is not to the purpose because we say not that the whole Scripture that is euery part thereof is hard to vnderstand But graunt with S. Chrysostom 2. S. Chrysost Concion 3. de Lazaro Thessal hom 3. VVhatsoeuer is necessary to euery mans saluation is manifest out of Scripture And with S. Austin lib. 2 doct Christ S. Austin c. 9. Al those things vvhich concerne faith and manners are plainly set dovvne in Scripture And lib. 2. de pec mer. remiss c. vlt. tom 7. I beleeue euen in this point vve shold haue most cleare testimony of Gods word if man could not be ignorant of it without losse of saluation Yet Lex partim in aperto est partim etiaÌ„ inuelatis tegitur Nazianz orat â— de Theolog withal affirme with the same holy Doctor in psal 140. If Scripture were no where obscure it vvold not exercise vs. And the like he saith serm 13. de verb. Apost Only we affirme that absolutly the Scripture is hard and to The Scripture absolutely hard though not euery place thereof this it sufficeth that some places are hard As for away to be dangerous it sufficeth that some places be perilous though others be secure 2. His second answer is That S. Peter only saith some places are hard to the vnlearned vvhich are vnstable And like is his third answer That they are hard to the vvicked vvhich depraue them But to answer thus is in deed to depraue Scriptures and to shew him selfe to be one of the vnlearned and vnstable wherof S. Peter speaketh For S. Peter absolutly saith some things in S. Pauls epistles are hard not respectiuely to these or other kind of men In vvhich epistles saith S. Peter S. Peter some things are hard to be vnderstood vvhich the vnlearned and vnstable depraue to their owne perditioÌ„ Behold he saith not some things are hard to the vnlearned and vnstable but absolutly some things are hard which hard things the vnlearned and vnstable depraue And as S. Austin saith lib. de fid oper c S. Augustin tom 4. 14. one special hardnes meant by S. Peter in S. Pauls epistles is his difficult speech and high commendation of iustifying faith which now Protestants depraue to their owne perdition in gathering therof that faith alone doth iustify as some gathered in the Apostles tyme against which opinion especially as the same holy Doctor witnesseth S Peter S Ihon S. Iames and S. Iude S. Augustin cit writ their epistles An other special difficulty meant by S. Peter saith S. Austin 10. c. 16 are his words 1. corinth 3. If any build vpon the foundation c. 3. Againe if Scripturs be not hard what See S. Chrysost hom 3. de Lazaro tom 2. S. Hierom. meant S. Philip to ask the Eunuch who was as holy studious a man as S. Hierom ae he him selfe testifyeth epist ad Paulin If he vnderstood them What meant the Eunuch Act. 8. v. 30. v. 31. to answere 6 How can I if some do not shew me Could not an holy man so wise as he was being Treasurer to the Q of Ethiopia vnderstand easy matters If Scripturs be so easy what need had K. Dauid to pray for Psalm 118. v. 34. Ib. v. 18. vnderstanding to search Gods law for opening his eyes to consider the wonders of it what hapned to the Apostles that they could not vnderstaÌ„d Christs parables what Math. 13. v 36. c. 15. v. 16. needed the gift of interpretation giuen to some 1. corinth 12.
v. 10. Nay al are interpreters if the Scripture be cleare to al. 4. Origen saith that Scripture is reuera multis Fathers Origen lib. 7. cont Celsum in locis obscura in very deed obscure in many places And that they take away the key of science who say the Scripture is manifest hom 20. in Math. S Chrysostom noteth S. Chrysost hom 40. in Ioannem â—om 3. That Christ bid not read but search Scriptures because summa indigent diligentia they need great study S. Hierom writeth that al the epistle S. Hierom. epist ad Algosiam q. 8. Epistol ad Paulin. S. Augustin l. 2. de doct Christ c. 6. See 12. Conf. c. 14. serm 4. 5. 13. de verb. Apost Iren. lib. 2. cap. 47. Cyrill praefat lib. thesaur S. Augustin tom 2. to the Romans is nimys obscuritatibus inuoluta wrapped in excessiue obscurities That the Apocalips hath as many misteries as words S. Austin noteth That to tame our pride some things are so obscurely said as densissimam caliginem obducunt they bring ouer a most thick darknes And wil Bel account that cleare which the glistering beam of Gods Church for so Bel tearmeth S. Austin accounted so dark and obscure And epist 119. c. 21. professeth to be ignorant of many more things in Scripture then he knoweth If Bel after our holy Fathers please to heare his owne vnholy syers Luther telleth him Luther praefat in psal that he is most impudently rash who professeth to know one book of Scripture in al points By daily reading of Scripture saith Caluin 3. instit Caluin Quotidie legendo in multos obscuros locos incidimus qui nos ignorantiae coarguunt Bel p. 102. Reason c. 2. parag 4. we fal vpon many obscure places which conuince vs of ignorance Nay to what purpose doth Bel require the commentaries of Fathers for better vnderstanding of Scriptures if there be no difficulty in them 5. Finally if our coÌ„mon lawes handling nothing but buying selling bargaining and such common and vsual matters as are daily practized of men be so hard and difficult as they require great study to be wel vnderstood and Clients wil giue great fees for Lawyers counsel in them what shal we thinke of Gods laws which entreat of deuine and supernatural things far aboue mans reach and capacity Or if as S. Austin S. Augustin tom 6. saith lib. de vtil cred c. 7. He that hath no skil in poetry dare not medle with Terentian Maurus without a maister Asper Cornutus Donatus and infinit others are requisit to vnderstand any Poet and doest thou without a guide rush vpon holy books ful of deuine matters O exceeding boldnes or rather madnes And againe If euery Iâ— cap. vlt. art though base and easy require a teacher or maister to get it vvhat is more foolish heady pride then not to learne the booke of deuine sacraments of their interpreters Now let vs heare Bels reasons to the contrary 6. Salomon saith he Prouerb 8. v. 8. 9. teacheth Bels Arguments p. 108. That the words of wisdom are easy and open to euery one of vnderstanding But let vs heare Salomon him self Al my speeches are iust there is not in them any thing wicked or peruerse They are right to such as vnderstand and euen to such as find knowledge What word is here of easynes or manifestnes of Gods words but only of their vprightnes and equity And let Bel learne of S. Austin in psal 146. to 8. S. Austin That in Scripture there is nothing peruers but some thing obscure But perhaps Bels english Byble deceaued him which to deceaue the Reader vsed the ambiguity of the english Bible printed 1584. word plaine which may signify ether manifest or euen for the latin word aequi 7. After this Bel cyteth dyuers places of pag. 108. Psal 25. v. 9. Ioan. 7. v. 17. Ioan. 8. v. 31. 32. Math. 11. v. 25. S Paul Scripture to proue That God reuealeth his wil to al that fear him to litle ones That the doers of his wil know his doctrin and truth But seeing it is no where said That God reuealeth his wil or the good know it by bare reading his word but rather the contrary because faith commeth of hearing and how shal they heare without a preacher Rom. 10. v. 17. 15. These places make nothing for easines of Scripture Besids that they may be expownded not of Gods wil in al points but in such as are necessary to euery mans saluation which we graunt to be plainly reuealed in Scripture I omit his other places That the Scripture Psalm 119. al. 118. v. 105. 2. Pet. 1. v. 19. 1. Cor. 2. v. 15. Cap. 9. parag 17. Bel p. 108. is a lanthern light or candle and That the spiritual man iudgeth or as he expowndeth vnderstandeth al things for they be answered hereafter 8. He alleageth S. Chrisostom saying what need we a preacher our negligence hath brought this necessity For to what end is a sermon needful Al things are clear and plaine out of Scripturs what things soeuer are necessary are manifest But S. Chrisostom speaketh not of al S. Chrysost hom 3. in 2. Thessalon things in Scripture but only of such as are necessary to euery ones saluation as is euident by his last words And such need no preacher for to be vnderstood though they need to be beleeued as S. Paule testifyeth S. Paul Roman 10. 17. But besides these there are things obscure as the same holy Doctor witnesseth in the same place in these words Thou knowest which are cleare what askest thou the obscure And hom 10. in Ioan. he biddeth S. Chrysost item Concion 3. de Lazaro men note vvich is cleare which obscure in Scripture and to harken the exposition of them in the Church And for such points preachers and preaching is as necessary now to vs as wel for vnderstanding as for beleeuing them as they were to the Eunuch act 8. to the two disciples Luc. 24. Other places he Homil. 9. Coloss and Concion 3. de Lazaro cyteth out of S. Chrysostome concerning reading of Scripture which shal be answered in his proper place 9. What hath bene answered to the words of S. Chrysostom is to be applyed to the like in S. Austin lib. 2. de doct Christ S. Augustin tom c. 9. In these things vvhich are plainly set dovvn in Scripture are found al those things vvhich concerne faith and manners For he saith not absolutly Al things but al those things therby insinuating that he meaneth only of things necessary to be beleeued and done of euery one which Bel perceauing in englishing False translat his words leaft out the word Those But I maruel what he meant to cite S. Aust S. Augustin l. 2. de doct Christ c. 6. writing The holy Ghost hath so tempered Scriptures that locis apertioribus by manifester places Bel translateth manifold places he might prouide for hunger
desire of knowledge and by obscurer wipe away loathsomnes For here he plainly teacheth Scripture to be obscure in some places But perhaps it is because S. Austin addeth Almost nothing is in the obscure places which is not most plainly vttered otherwhere But this helpeth Bel nothing For nether saith he that al obscurities are plainly other where explicated Nor that it is plaine in what places they are explicated And so S. Austin admitting some obscure places of Scripture to be no where explicated in Scripture and supposing it not to be plaine in what places such obscure places as are explicated be explicated admitteth Scripture to be obscure An other place he citeth Bel p. 111. 112. 113. out of S. Austin as also S. Hierom and Theodoret concerning reading of Scripturs which shal be answered in the next chapter CHAP. VII Of the vulgar peoples reading Scripture FIRST conclusion it is not necessary to al sorts of people that desire to attaine to eternal life to read Scripturs The contrary auoucheth Bel pag. 103. 109. wherin he exceedeth the heretike Pelagius who required not reading but only knowledge of Scripture for to be without sinne therby condemned a great part of Christians as S. Hierom writeth dialog 1. cont Pelag. But S. Hierom. it is so manifest as it needeth no proofe For how should they doe that can not read Doth Bel thinke Scripture to be like a neck verse that who can not read it shal be hanged where doth God command euery one vpon paine of death to read Scripturs whence came this new law which Bel proclaimeth But marke Reader Protestants taught at first that no works were necessary to saluation And now Bel auoucheth one more vz. reading of Scripturs then euer Catholiques dreamed on 2. Second conclusion It is not expedient See S. Gregor Nazianzen in Apologet orat 1. de Theolog. for euery one of the vulgar sort to read Scripturs This I proue because vnlearned and vnstable persons depraue the Scripture to their owne perdition Many of the vulgar sort are vnlearned and vnstable Therfore many of them ought not to read Scripture The Minor is euident The Maior is auerred by S. Peter 2. c. 3. v. 16. and proued by Hacket More Ket Hammont See Stovv Ann. 1561. 1579. daily experience of new Christs new Iewes new heresyes daily gathered out of Scripture And in truth the Protestants counselling of common people to read Scripturs is much like to the Diuels perswading of Eue to eat the Apple He asked Eue why God forbad her to eat they aske why the Church forbiddeth vs to read And both answering alike He replyeth you shal not die but become like Gods They say you shal not fal into errors but become like Deuines And the euent is like in both Eue by eating fel out of Paradise and incurred death simple people by reading dye in soule fal out of the Church 3. But saith Bel. A good should not be Bel p. 107. taken wholy from the godly for fault of the bad Answere The godly are not debarred from reading Scripture if they be desyrous and iudged by their Pastors to be such as wil reape good therby Neuertheles they ought not without lycence lest as S. Austin S. Augustin lib. de vtilit credend c. 10. tom 6. writeth in the like case Though they hurt not them selfs by reading they may hurt others by example As he that could fly be made to go lest his example prouoke others to so perilous attempt This saith he is the prouidence of true religion and deliuered from our Auncestors and to alter this course were nothing els then to seeke a sacriledgious way to true religion Moreouer though a thing be good in it selfe yet it is not good but to such as know how to vse it But euery one of the common people knoweth not how to vse Scripture For as Gregory Nazianzen S. Nazianz. orat Quod non liceat semper publice de Deo contēdere In Apologetico S. Hierom. epistol ad Paulin. writeth The vvord of holy vvritt is not so base that it is open to the vnlearned common sort and seely men creeping as yet vpon the ground And againe To some it is better to be taught by others And S. Hierom complaineth that euery one challengeth the knowledge of Scripture and that the chatting old vvife the doating old men and the prating Sophister take it in hand See Theodoret lib. 4. c. 17. What wold he say now if he saw Protestants children reading Scripture and taught to read english by the Byble Now let vs see Bels obiections 4. Bel alleadgeth S. Chrisostom as affirming Bel p. 103. 104. S. Chrysost proaem ep ad Rom. 1. That if we read Scripture seriously vve shal need no other thing ◠That it is a great shame for men charged with wife and children only to heare sermons and not withal to study Scripturs 3. That many euils come of ignorance of Scripture as heresies and dissolute life Answer The first point is not against vs who graunt that in reading Scripture we may find al things necessary But the question now is whither it be better for euery one to find such things him selfe out of Scripture or no. As for the second point S. Chrisostom only saith that it is a shame not to exact more diligence of men in hearing sermons then in gathering mony At lest saith he be ready to heare what others haue gathered and bestovv so much diligence in hearing vvhat is said as in gathering mony For though it be a shame to exact but so much of you yet wil we be content if you performe so much The third point is easely answered because he saith Innumera mala nata sunt quod scripturae ignorantur Christ sup vntruth 84 not That much mischeef commeth of not reading as Bel falsly affirmeth pag. 105 but of not knowing the Scripture vz if men wil nether read it them selfs nor heare it readd and expounded by preachers Nether could he thinke that much mischeef can come of not reading Scripture if so be it be heard seeing he promiseth to be content if men wil heare it 5. An other place he citeth out of S. Bel p. 105. S. Chrysost hom 29. in 9. c. Genes tom 1. Chrisostom where he exhorteth men auscultare lectionem scripturae to harken to the reading of Scripture And againe At home to apply them selfes to read Scripturs Answer The first part maketh nothing for reading Differences betvvixt S. Chrysost and Protestants but only for hearing Scripture as is euident The second exhorteth to reading but 1. not euery man woman child as Protestants do but men and namely such who as he saith proem epist ad Rom. haue wiues charge of children and family And hom 9. Colos Hear you saith he who liue in the vvorld haue care of vviues and children who as he writeth conc 3. de Lazaro haue publicke offices
home in our houses Grosse absuraity of Bel. and not heare them read in the Churches which note is more absurd then I need refel yet let the Reader remember it But S. Austins speech was not to al kind of men nor at al tymes but to his owne people whome he knew were like to encrease their deuotion in the holy tyme of lent whereof he spake by reading Scripture And the like exhortation may any Catholique Bishop make to his flocke whome he knoweth not to haue itching ears and 2. Timoth. 4. v. 4. not to be soone conuerted to fables yet withal condemne the promiscual licence graunted by Bel to al sorts of people of what sexe state calling or condition soeuer For so the vnlearned and vnstable be licenced yea necessarily ought saith Bel to read Scripture pag. 103. S. Pet. 2. c. 3. v. 16. though as S Peter testifyeth they wil depraue it to their owne perdition 17. And such constant Catholiques were those men and woemen which as S. Hierom S. Hierom. in psalm 133. Epistol ad Gaudent epist ad Celantiam writeth did striue vvho should learne most Scriptures and vvhome he exhorted to learne the Scripture vvithout booke and to haue it alvvaies in their hands and to teach it their children For as him selfe writeth epist ad Gaudent cit vvhat vve speake vve speake not in general but in part nor say of al but of some And epist ad Paulin. reprehendeth greatly That euery one should take Scripture in hand Wherfore if Bel apply S. Hieroms words to al sorts of persons of what condition Bel like a foolish Phisition soeuer he doth not only against the holy Doctors meaning but sheweth him selfe to be a foolish Phisition prescribing the like diet to al kinde of persons not knowing who can eat milk but not solid meat as the Apostle speaketh 1. Corinth 3. v. 2. Hebr. 5. v. 12. For some as he saith Hebr. 5. v. 11. are weake to heare some part of Gods word and much weaker wold be to read it al. Wherfore the Catholique Church like a prudent nurse permitteth such children as she seeth strong and able to read Scripturs to feed them selfs and cut their owne meat but to such as she perceaueth to be weake and not so able she wil not graunt the like liberty but cheweth their meat or cutteth it her selfe by preaching expouÌ„ding Scriptures to them lest if they were their owne caruers they should hurt them selfs And Protestants like careles nurses let al alike carue them selfs and therby cut their owne fingers yea throats kil them selfs by taking oftentymes poison insteed of meat 18. And hereupon I must aduettise the Bel p. 112. Reader of two vntruths which Bel fathereth vpon Catholiques vz. That they deeme vntruth 85 vntruth 86 them most holy who can by hart no Scripture at al but absteine from reading therof as from poison of their souls For ignorance of Scripture in Ignorance of it self no holynes it selfe we account no holynesse at al and much lesse deeme them most holy who know lest of Scripture But great holines we esteeme it to chuse rather harmles ignorance then curious and disobedient skil As great holines it had bene in Eue 10 Donum ipsum vtiliter aliquando ignoratur S. Augustin l. 6. cont Iul. c. 16. haue made choise rather of ignorance of good and euil then of knowledge therof And the like ignorance of Scripture in Catholiques we preferre before Protestants knowledge For to be thus ignorant saith Tertullian is better lest we know that we should Tertull. l. de praescript not Faith saith he shal saue vs not exercise in Scripture Faith is commanded exercise in Scripture consisting in curiosity hath glory only in study of knowledge Let curiosity giue place to faith let glory yeeld to saluation Thus Tertullian a most antient writer whose counsel I wold to God Protestants did follow And as for Scripture we account it no poison but the food of life and the reading therof good and holsome if it be done as it should not vpon curiosity and disobedience to the Churches precept as the Aple was good in it selfe and the eating therof had not bene hurtful if it had not bene against Gods commandement 19. Bel cireth also Theodoret writing Bel p. 113. That the Hebrevv books are turned into al languages Theodoret. lib. 5. de Graecan affection Againe That we may find ditchers and neatheards and planters reasoning of the Trinity and creation of al things Answer That of the Scripturs translation shal be answered in the next chapter The other proueth no more then that simple people knew the said misteries whereof he saith not they read but reasoned And S. Gregory Nazianzen S. Greg. Nazianz orat 1. de Theol. greatly discommendeth such for it And by the like reason might Bel proue euery Catholique to read Scripture Because as Bellarmin Bellarm. lib. 2. de verbo Dei c. 4. saith truly Catholique rusticks and woemen though they vnderstand not the sentences of Scripture yet they vnderstand the misteries of our redemption and can reason of them yea better then many Protestants who dayly read Scripture But saith Bel why are not al permitted Bel p. 115. to read Scripture if al can vnderstand therein the misteries of our redemption And like to one that hath no thing to doe proueth a needles matter that the knowledge of the misteries of our redemption is necessary and sufficient to saluation though in the next page before he noted that al things Contradict 18. conteined in the written worde which no 18. doubt are more then the misteries of our redemption â—re necessary for al people But omitting Bels contradiction To his argument out of Bellarmin I answer that Bellarmin affirmeth not as Bel imposeth vntruth 87 That al can vnderstand the misteries in the Scripture but rather the contrary when he saith That many vnderstand not the sentences of Scripture And though al could vnderstand the misteries in Scriptures yet al were not to be permitted to read them because al haue not as S. Paul writeth their senses exercised Hebr. 5. v. 14. 1. Cor. 2. v. 5. 1. Cor. 3. v. 1. Rom. 12. v. 3. 1. Cor. 3. v. 2. Hebr. 5. v. 12. to the discerning of good and euil al are not perfect to haue wisdome spoken amongst them al are not to be instructed as spiritual but some as carnal Al wil not be wise to sobriety but some more wise then behooueth them Rom. 12. v. 3. Finally al are not capable of solid meat but some of mikle only CHAP. VIII Of the translation of Scripture into vulgar tongues IT is not expedient to haue or vse commonly Scripture not to be vsed commonly in vulgar tongues Scriptures in vulgar languages This is against Bel p. 106. but it followeth of that which hath bene proued in the former Chapter For if it be not expedient
absolutly for the vulgar sort to read Scripture it is not expedient that it be common in vulgar tongues lest some like foolish Eue be tempted by the sight thereof curiously and against command to read it Secondly because nether the Iewes after their language was corrupted by their captiuity translated the Scripture into their vulgar language Nor the Church euer commanded the Scriptures to be translated into euery vulgar tongue but generally vsed them in Hebrew greeke and latine in which tongs they were written As for the English Bybles translated by Protestants See Conference at Hampton Court pag. 45. 46. 47. they al hitherto haue bene naught as them selfs confesse and are now about a new translation which hereafter perhaps wil be found as faulty as the former Whereby we see that the English faith hitherto hath bene false as builded vpon the English Bible which was false and consequently The good vvhich Protestants haue gotten by English Bibles who dyed in it dyed in a false faith and relyed vpon mans worde in steed of Gods And this is the true death which common people haue incurred and al the good they haue reaped by reading Scriptures in English according to the serpentine counsel of Ministers For where before they knew so much of Gods worde as was sufficient to saluation by reading English Bibles they haue read a lying worde as now after 46. years experience they both see and confesse and because they would not content them selfs with knowledge sufficient to sobriety and saluation but as the Apostle S. Paul writeth Rom. 12. v. 3. be more wise then behooued them God hath sent them as the same Apostle saith 2. Thess 2. v. 11. the operation of error to beleeue lying 2. Against this Bel obiecteth That the Bel p. 106. Apostle calleth them madde who read the Ghospel 1. Cor. 14. v. 24. to people in a language vnknovvne to them and the people also that listen therto as Catholiques doe Answer The Apostle is so far from condemning seruice of God in a tongue vnknowne to the hearers as he saith to such a one Thou doest vvel 1. Corinth 14. v. 17. But indeed he saith That if Ideots and infidels hard vs so doing they wold say we were madde If al the Church meet together saith he Only Idiots and infidels condēne seruice in an vnknovvne tonge and al speake vvith tongues and Ideots or infidels enter vvil they not say that you are madde 1. Corinth 14. v. 23. Wherfore not S. Paul but onely Ideots or infidels cōdemne the Churches seruice in an vnknowne tongue 3. And if the sacrifice and prayer of Zachary Luc. 1. v. 10. 11. which the people did not so much as heare or see did greatly profit them why may not the sacrifice and prayers of Priests which the people both see and heare greatly profit them though they vnderstand them not And if Bel wil excuse Zachary and the Iewes yea God who commanded it Leuit. 16. from madnes though they stood without dores and could nether heare nor see and much les vnderstand the sacrifice and prayers Much better if he please may he excuse Catholiques who both see and heare and parrly vnderstand the Catholique seruice And though Bel scoffe at Catholiques listening to the Ghospel tedde in latine Yet Origen Origen hom 20. in Iosue writeth That with only hearing Scripture though we doe not vnderstand The Diuels vvords not vnderstood vvorke euil Ergo Gods vvords not vnderstood do good it the poison of naughty spirits which besiege vs is driuen away as it were with a prayer and holy spirits are inuited to helpe vs. For saith he If words of coniuration pronounced though not vnderstood worke inchantments how much more vertue thinke we haue the words of holy Scripture And if S. Chrysostom hom 3. de Lazar S. Chrysost might say That though we vnderstand not Scripture yet ex ipsa lectione multa nascitur sanctimonia much holines riseth by very reading Why may we not say the like of very hearing And because Bel vrgeth this obiection no father I answer it no fuller who list see more of it let him read Rhemist 1. Corinth 14. D. Stapleton vpon the same place and Bellar. l. 2. de verb. Dei c. 16. 4. Bel obiecteth out of Theodoret That pag. 113. Theodoret. lib. 5. de Graecan affection the Hebrew books were translated into al languages This is nothing against vs who deny not but Scripture hath bene and may be vpon iust and vrgent causes translated into vulgar languages so it be not vulgarly vsed and common to al kinde of vulgar people Bel p. 106. vntruth 88 Vid. Indic libror. prohibit And here by the way I must aduertise the Reader of dyuers vntruths vttered by Bel concerning this matter 1. That the Pope burneth Scriptures in vulgar tongue This is not so For he burneth only heretical translations and al England knoweth how currant the Rhemists testament is amongst Catholiques 2. That the Pope excommunicateth al lay vntruth 89 vntruth 90 men that reason of matter of faith or dispute of his power citeth 6. decret lib. 5. cap. Quicunque Here be two vntruths For nether is there any worde of reasoning of the Popes power but only of disputing of the Catholique faith without touching whereof we may reason of the Popes power in diuers waies as is shewed art 1. cap. 1. Nether forbiddeth he lay men to reason or At vvhat tyme lay men are for bidden to dispute of faith dispute of faith with whom-soeuer or in what case soeuer but only with Heretiks as is euident out of the whole chapter which instructeth Catholiques how they ought to behaue them selfs towards Heretiks and when Cleargy men may dispute as when that Canon was made they might in al Christendome And in this case it is vnlawful for lay men to dispute of faith both because generally they are not sufficiently S. Greg. Nazianz orat 1. de Theol. in Apologet. orat Quod◠non liceat semper publice de Deo contédere learned to defend the faith against Heretiks as also because disputing of faith is proper them to whome preaching belongeth who are not lay but Cleargy men Whereupon said S. Gregory Nazianz. It is not euery ones part to dispute of God This is not so base matter or pertaining to them vvho as yet creeping on the ground are busyed with earthly study Euery one may thinke of God but not dispute of God Thus S. Gregory for his great knowledge surnamed the Deuine whose counsel I suppose euery wise man wil sooner follow then Babling Bel. And the ciuil Cod. de Sum. Trin. law punisheth al lay men that publikly dispute of faith 3. That Priests oftentymes vnderst and vntruth 91 not the latin vvords of absolution This he might better obiect to his fellow ministers See Bels lacke of latin art 5 c. 4. paragr 10. art 2. c. 4.
to preach and testify his truth to infidels to whom if she be no fit witnes the fault is in God to send such insufficient witnesses as infidels are not bound to beleeue 6. And Bel is far deceaued in thinking that seeing or hearing make men sufficient witnesses of deuine and infallible truth or VVhat maketh sufficient vvitnesses of Gods truth the want of them maketh insufficient For not humane sense vvhich is subiect to error and deceit but Gods deuine assistance maketh men infallible and sufficient witnesses of his truth and the want of this insufficient Wherfore S. Mathew was as sufficient a witnes of Christs natiuity which he saw not as of other things he saw and S. Luke as sufficient a witnes of the things he wrote by hear say as S. Ihon who saw and heard almost al he wrote because they were equally assisted by God in their writing And in like sort the Church of what tyme soeuer is equally a sufficient and infallible witnes of Christs truth though she be not an eye or eare witnes of his speeches and actions as the primatiue Church was Because Math. 28. v. 20. Ioan. 14. Math. 16. Christs promises of his presence and the holy Ghosts assistance and that the gates of Hel should not preuaile against her appertaine equally to the Church of al tymes 7. But suppose that the present Church could not be a fit witnes as the primatiue Bel ansvvereth not to the purpose was what is this to the argument that proueth necessity of Tradition because without testimony of the Church we can not discerne true Scripture from false This Bel should ether graunt or deny if he meant to answer to the purpose and not tel vs of an other matter vz. That the present Church can be no fit witnes whereof if it were true wold follow that we can beleeue no Scripture at al seeing we haue no other infallible external witnes of Scripture 8. His second answer is That as Papists Bel p. 134. admit the Iewes Tradition of the old Testament to be Gods word and vvithal refuse many other Traditions of theirs So Protestants admit this Tradition Bel admitteth tradition of the Bible to be Gods worde and reiect al other And pag. 128. He dareth not deny Traditions absolutly yea admitteth them when they be consonant to Scripture Behold the silly fox in the toyle We contend against Protestants That Scripture is not sufficient to proue al points of Christian faith but that Tradition is necessary for some and Bel here confesseth it where is now the downeful of Popery Me thinks it is become the down fal of Protestantry Where is now Bels first proposition pag. 86. 88. That Scripture conteineth in it euery doctrine necessary to mans saluation Where is now that pag. 87. vve must not adde to Gods vvritten vvorde if this Tradition must needs be added therto where is now that the present Church can be pag. 134. not fit vvitnes if by her testimony we come to know Gods truth Where is now the curse which S. Paul as thou saist pag. 117. pronounceth Bel cursed of S. Paul by his ovvne iudgement against him that preacheth any doctrine not conteined in Scipture where is now That Scripture is the sole and only rule of faith 9 But seeing the fox is in the toyle we pag. 128. must needs haue him preach and tel vs of whome he first had this Tradition Perhaps he wil confesse with his brother Doue that Protestants had the Bible as Gods worde Doue of Recusancy pag 13. from Papists Sure I am he can name no other of whome he first had it Likewise he must tel vs. How he beleeueth this Tradition Whether as fallible and humane truth or as infallible and deuine If as fallible and humane surely he can beleeue nothing in the Bible as deuine truth If as infallible and deuine truth surely the Papists Church for whose only testimony speaking of outward testimonies Protestants first beleeue as an infallible truth that the Bible was Gods worde hath infallible authority 10. Nether is Bels comparison true For we beleeue not the old testamēt to be Gods worde for any Tradition which the Iewes haue but which the Catholique Church hath from the Apostles their successors euen as S. Austin writeth from the very Cont. epist fundam c. 4. to 6. seat of Peter to whom our Lord commanded his sheepe to feed to this present Bishop who deliuered vnto the Church and she to vs as wel the olde as the new testament for Gods worde Let Bel if he list beleeue the old testament for the tradition of Iewes and if he can not finde the like vninterrupted tradition for the new testament but in the Papists Church let him confesse that for her authoriry he beleeueth this tradition as infallible truth and I aske no more 11. But what shift findeth he for this notorious contradiction in admitting one tradition and before impugning traditions in general Forsooth because as he saith and it is his fourth solution VVhen Protestants Bel p. 135. say Scripturs conteine al things necessary to saluation they speake of Scripturs already agreed vpon Protestants admit tradition to be such and so exclude not this tradition but vertually include it in their assertion Behold the fox againe in the toile admitting one tradition ful sore against his wil. O violence of truth saith S. Austin l. cont Donatist post Collar c. 24. stronger then any racke or torment for to wring out confession For here Bel in name of Protestants confesseth that Protestants ouerthrovv their ovvne arguments against traditions they must needs admit one tradition which not only ouerthroweth al their arguments against other traditions For why may they adde one tradition to Gods written worde rather then more why may they beleeue any thing out of Scripture and no more why is one tradition equal to Gods written worde and no more How is one tradition certaine and no more But also sheweth that ether they receaue this tradition for no authority at al but only because it pleaseth them or that they beleeue it as infallible verity for the authority which they account but fallible For I aske why they beleeue this tradition If they answer because it commeth from God I demand how they know that Not by the Bible as is euident If by the Church then I aske why they beleeue the Church rather in this tradition then in other and whether they beleeue her testimony to be infallible in this point or no And whatsoeuer they answer they must needs fal into the toile 12. His third solution is That the nevv Bel p. 135. Testament is but an exposition of the olde and therfore may be tryed and discerned by the same But Syr wil you indeed try the new testament Bel vvil examin Scriptures wil you take vpon you to iudge Gods worde Surely this pride exceedeth Lucifers this is
this place serueth nothing 18. Bels sixt solution is That we beleeue Bel p. 136. not the Scripture to be Gods worde because the Church teacheth vs so but because it is of it selfe axiopistos worthy of credit and God inwardly moueth vs to beleeue it That we beleeue it not for the Churches authority he proueth Because els the formal obiect of our beleefe and last resolution therein should not be the first verity God him selfe but man which is contrary to S. Dionis and S. Thomas S. Dionis de diuin nom c. 7. S. Thom. 2. 2. q. 1. art 1. Aquinas who teach That the formal obiect of our faith is the first verity and S. Thom. addeth That faith beleeueth nothing but because it is reuealed of God Also because S. Austin saith That man learneth S. Augustin tractat 3. in Ioan. to 9. not of man that outward teachings are some helps and admonitions but who teacheth the hart hath his chayre in heauen That the Scripture is of it selfe axiopistos or worthy of credit we deny not only we deny that by it selfe without testimony of the Church we can knowe that it is so worthy Nether deny we that God inwardly moueth our harts to beleeue it only we say that therto he vseth also the testimony of the holy Church nor ordinarily moueth any therto without the external testimony of the Church wherfore albeit it be most true that we beleeue the Scripture to be Gods worde because God moueth vs therto yet false it is to deny that we beleeue it not also because the Church doth teach it Because Gods inward motion and the Churches outward testimony are no opposit causes and impossible to concurre to one and the same effect but the second is subordinate to the first and can not worke without it as the first though it can doth not worke this effect without the second Wherfore wel said S. Austin Non crederem Euangelio nisi Cont. epist fundam c. 4. to 6. me Ecclesiae authoritas commoueret I wold not beleeue the Ghospel vnles the authority of the Church did commoue me therto 19. This place of S. Austin so stingeth pag. 137. Bel as he wyndeth euery way to auoid it First he telleth vs that there is a great difference Bels lacke of latin betweene mouere and commouere because mouere is to moue apart by it selfe commouere to moue together with an other This difference is false For nether is mouere to moue apart but absolutly as it is cōmon to mouing apart or with an other Nether though commouere do more properly signify mouing with an other is it alwaies so taken as infinit places both of holy and prophane writers can testify yea Bel him selfe with in 8. lynes pag. 138. after englisheth it absolutly mouing But suppose it were what inferreth Bel thereupon Forsooth that S. Austins meaning is nothing els but that the authority of the Church did outwardly concurre with the inward motion of God to bring him to beleeue the Ghospel That the Church did ioyntly concurre to S. Austins faith of the Ghospel is certaine and so Bel translating commouere for iointly mouing I refuse not But false it is that the Church did iointly concurre with God only to the bringing of S. Austin to the faith of the Ghospel and not to the conseruing him in the same faith Because c. 4. he saith That if thou percase canst finde any manifest S. Austin thing in the Ghospel of Maniches Apostleship thou shalt weaken the authority of Catholiques with me who bid me beleeue not thee which authority being weakned now nether can I beleeue the Ghospel Behold the authority of Catholiques conserued S. Austin in the faith of the Ghospel without which he professeth that he could beleeue the Ghospel no longer And againe Amongst other things which most iustly as he saith holde him in the Church he reckoneth authority and succession in the Church 20. But do you thinke that Bel wil stand to his expounding of commouere and graunting the Church to concurre with the inward motion of the holy Ghost to bring a man to beleeue the Ghospel No surely For in the next page he telleth vs. That the pag. 138. authority of the Church did moue beholde iointly mouing forgotten S. Austin to heare the Ghospel preached and to giue some humane credit vnto it For deuine faith proceedeth not from the outward teachings of man as I haue proued saith he already out of S. Austin This denyal of deuine faith to proceed from outward teaching of man is directly against Scripture and S. Austin For Rom. 10. v. S Paul Roman 10. 17. Faith commeth of hearing the preacher The Colossians learnt the grace of Christ of Epaphoras Coloss 1. v. 7. The Thessalonians Coloss 1. learnt the Traditions which they should keep by speech and letter 2. Thess 2. Thessalon 2. 1. Corinth 4. Philemon 2. v. 15 S. Paul begate the Corinthians in the Ghospel 1. Corinth 4. v. 15. He begate Onesimus Philem. v. 11. He and Apollo were Gods helpers in bringing the Corinthians to Christs faith 1. Corinth 3. v. 9. They that succour preachers are called cooperators of the truth 3. Ioan. v. 8. and therfore 3. Ioan. 8. much more the preachers them selfs And if deuine faith proceede not at al from outwarde teaching of men why did Christ send his Apostles to teach al nations Math. Math. 28. 28. v. 19. why appointed he in his Church some teachers for consummating of Saints Ephes Ephes 4. 4. v. 11 Why was S Paul a teacher of Gentils 1. Timoth. 2. v. 7. others act 13 v. 4. How 2. Timoth. could S. Paul bestovv some spiritual grace vpon Act. 13. the Romans Rom. 1. v. 11. Did Christ send these Apostles to teach humaine faith was Rom. 1. S. Ihon Baptist sent before Christ to giue humane knowledge of saluation to his people Luc. 1. v. 77. Lastly nothing is more Luc. 1. frequent in Scripture then that one man teacheth an other and surely it meaneth not of humane learning or beleefe For what careth the Sctipture for that but of deuine and such as bringeth to heauen saluation such as made Iewes compunct in hart act 2. v. 37. such as disposed Gentils Act. 2. 10. to receaue the holy Ghost act 10. v. 44. 21. Likewise it is against S. Austin First he thinketh as Bel confesseth the Church to concurre with the inward motion of the holy Ghost to the faith of the Ghospel But faith of the Ghospel to which the holy Ghost inwardly concurreth is deuine Ergo to this the Church concurreth Besids S. Austin affirmeth that authority holdeth Cont. epist fundam c. 4. tom 6. him in the Catholique Church And that if the authority of Catholiques were weakned he wold not beleeue the Ghospel which he would neuer say if his deuine faith did not depend vpon the Catholiques authority Moreouer what more
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
of al the learned men and Bishops of al Nations or els remaine desperate condemned before God and man As the Apostles say they though assisted by God yet thought it necessary to cal a Councel for decyding a controuersy rysen in their daies I omit three other points touched here by Bel. That the general pag. 128. Councels is aboue the Pope can and hath deposed him because he neither proueth them nor they concerne any matter of Catholique faith And are lardgely and learnedly handled of Bellarmin lib. 2. de concil And thus much of Bels seauenth article Be myndful therefore Bel from whence thou art fallen and doe Apocalip penance Apoc. 2. THE EIGHT AND LAST ARTICLE OF KEEPING GODS COMMANDEMENTS CHAP. I. The possibility of keeping Gods commandements explicated and proued out of Scripture GODS children can by his grace keepe his cōmandements This Bel absolutly denyeth pag. 143. 148. 149. and 152. though in the very beginning of this article he were a shamed to deny it plainly but admitteth it saith he in a godly sence and in some sort and only denyeth it in a Popish sence But this godly sence is so vngodly and the sort so sory as he is ashamed to vtter it For as S. Hierom writeth of the S. Hieron epist ad Cresiphontem Iren. lib. 1. cap. 35. Pelagians to haue discouered the opinions of Protestants is to haue ouercome them the blasphemy is manifest at the first yet may we gather his meaning by that he saith pag. 149. That God hath giuen vs those commandements which we can not possibly keep and pag. 144. that euery breach of them is of it nature deadly The mistery therefore of his counsel is that Gods children can not possiblie euen with his grace keepe his commandements but that they must needs oftentymes breake them deadly This kinde of keeping Gods commandements he tearmeth imperfect and vnexact keeping But indeed it is no keeping at al nor a point of Gods children but of the diuels and a true breaking of them For how are they Gods children if they loue him not how loue they him if they damnably offend If you loue me saith Christ Ioh. 14. S. Ioh. v. 15. keepe my commaundements how can they keepe them if they damnably and deadly breake them can true keeping and true breaking stand together 2. God commaunded his precepts to be kept not so sillily as Bel would so as they be oftentimes deadly broken but as Dauid saith Nimis Sphodra Psal 118. v. 8. God saith Psalm S. Austin vpon that place conc 4. hath very S. Austin much commaunded his precepts to be very much kept And according to S. Iames who offendeth S. Iames 2. v. 10. in one is guilty of al. Wherfore deadly breaking of one of Gods lawes can no more stand with keeping them then thefte or murder can stande with keeping the Princes lawes Nor they who oftentimes deadly breake Gods lawes be his children whilest they doe so more then theeues and murderers be good subiects And as for the Luther sermon de natiu B. Mariae maketh al Christians as holy as the mother of God Popish sence it is not as Bel falslie imposeth that we can keepe Gods commaundements so perfectly as we be free from sinne For so as S. Iohn saith we should deceaue our selues and as Bel confesseth we doe daily acknowledge our sinnes but so Bel p. 150. as we be free from deadly sinne which destroieth The Apostles vvere cleane and yet had need to haue their feete vvashed Ioh. 13. ver 10. 11. S. Hierom. dialog 2. cont Pelag. S. Gregor 21. moral c. 9. S. Augustin hom 19. de temp to 10. lib. 1. contr duas epist Pelag. c. 14. to 7. enchirid c. 69. charity the end of the law and keepe the commaundements in al great though not in smal matters For as S. Hierom saith we may be without cacia though not sina amartia or as S. Austin and S. Gregory gather out of S. Paul sine crimine though not sine peccato that is without great sinne though not without smal sinne without mortal though not without venial And to keepe Gods commaundements in this sort is substantially to keepe them because we breake not the end of them which is charity and yet not perfectly exactly as who stealeth but trifles keepeth the Princes lawes though not perfectly but if he steale great matters he is said no more to keepe 1. Timoth. 1. 7. 5. but to breake them And in this sence doe Catholiques defend the foresaid cōclusion which though I might proue many waies yet wil I content my selfe with such proofes as Bel vndertaketh to answer and in that order as he propoundeth them 3. First therfore I proue it because a young man tolde Christ he had kept al the Math. 19. v. 20. commaundements from his youth Bel answereth that S. Hierom saith he lyed and S. Austin Bel p. 150. thinketh he spake more prowdly then truly S. Augustin epist 89. neuertheles more probable it is that he spake truly because not only our Sauiour did not rebuke him as likely it is he would haue done if he had tolde him a lye but as S. Marcke testifieth beheld him loued him Marc. 10. v. 21. and said one thing is wanting to thee goe sel whatsoeuer thou hast and giue it to the poore and come and follow mee If the mans speeche had bene a lye it would not haue prouoked Christs loue but his offence and if he had broken Gods commaundements Christ would haue aduertised him whome he loued rather of keeping the things which he commaunded then which he counselled as is the giuing al we haue to the poore Wherfore S. Chrisostome hom 64. in Math. S. Chrysost saith this man was no dissembler And S. Hierom. dialog 2. contra Pelag. affirmeth S. Hierom. that Christ loued him because he said he had done al omnia fecisse se dicit quamobrem amatur à Domino he said that he had done al things wherfore he was also loued of our lorde which euidently conuinceth that his speeche was true for Christ could not loue him for a lye Neither wil Bel I hope maruel that we expound S. Mathew rather by S. Marcke then by S. Hierome and S. Austin especially seeing S. Hierome alrered his opinion ad S. Austin spake but doubtfully saying I thinke Neuertheles because some fathers haue thought that the mans speeche was not true Catholiques rely not vpon this argument 4. Secondly S. Paule saith For not the Rom. 2. v. 13. hearers of the law are iust with God but the Doers of the law shal be iustified Ergo there are some Doers of the law and it is possible to be done Bel answereth that the pag. 151. Apostle spake not absolutly but vpon supposal of a thinge which saith he is impossible that there were doers of the law for such saith Bel should be iustified by
conuinceth that we can doe it without deadly breaking it As for our confession we doe not confesse that our daylie offences are most great faults but daily confesse our most great fault whether it were done then or before Besides that humble and penitent mindes accompt themselues greatest sinners and their offences greatest faults So S. Paul 1. Timoth 1. v. 15. accounted S. Paul himselfe the chiefest sinner Yea good souls as S. Gregory saith acknowledge sinne where S. Gregor epist ad August Cant. cap. 10. Iob cap. 9. S. Gregor in Psalm 4. Paenitent none is and with Iob feare al their works And as the same holy Doctour noteth the reprobate accompt great sinns litle and the elect litle sinns grear and which before they thought were light straight they abhor as heauy and deadly And S. Hierom S. Hieron epist ad â—â—lant obserueth that it increaseth warines to take heed of litle sinnes as if they were great For with so much the more facility we abstaine from any sinne by how much more we feare it 6. And hence Bel may see why we in dayly confessions confesse our most great fault which I would God he would imitate and both confesse and amend his heynous fault of sinning against the holy Ghost and impugning the Catholique Church which he knoweth to be Gods Church Otherwise let him assure himselfe that shame wil be his end in this life and endles punishment his reward in the next Wel he may beat against this rocke but like the waues he shal without hurting it beat himselfe in pieces and be resolued into froth and foame Let him write books let him spend himselfe and make nets with the Spider of his owne guts they wil proue only spider webbes apt to cath or holde none but such as like inconstant and fleshly flyes are carrayed about with euery mynde of new doctrine and following their carnal appetites and licentiousnes seaze vpon fleshly baite And so Bel though he could become an other God Bel he should but be Beel zebub the God of flies Be myndful therfore Bel from whence thou art fallen and do penance Apocalip 2. FINIS Al praise to Almightie God A TABLE Of the things coÌ„teined in this booke vvherin a signifyeth article c. chapter and parag paragraph ADDITION of one tradition as much forbidden as of many ar 7. c. 2. parag 1. Addition to Scripture which forbidden which not ar 7. c. 2. pareg Anomia how it may signify transgression of the law ar 6. c. 2. parag 2. Antichrists true hinderance meant by S. Paul ar 1. c. 9. parag 4. Antichrists hinderance not taken away in Pipius tyme a. 1. c. 9. parag 3. Angles falsly charged by Bel art 5. c. 5. parag 6. S. Antonin falsly charged by Bel art 3. c. 1. parag 1. and 13. Apostataes may teach true doctrine art 7. c. 10 parag 9. Apostles Creed conserued by Tradition art 7. c. 9. parag 4. S. Athanasius explicated and his reuerence of Traditions art 7. c. 4. parag 9. S. Austin as a Christian said he wold not beleeue the Ghospel without the Church art 7. c. 9. parag 22. Sainct Austin wold not beleeue Maniche though he had had expresse Scripture ar 7. c. 9. parag 24. S. Austin how he compared Concupiscence with blindnes of hart art 4. c. 3. parag 1. S. Austins opinion of habitual Concupiscence art 4. c. 1. parag 18. S. Austins opinioÌ„ of inuoluntary motions art 4. c. 1. parag 13. S. Austin preuented Bels obiections art 4. c. 1. parag 18. S. Austin how he meant that we loue not God altogether art 8. c. 4. parag 2. S. Austin how he called our keeping the commaundements defectuous art 8. c. 1. parag 9. S. Austins teuerence and rule to know Traditions art 7. c. 4. parag 3. S. Austin said the Apostles eat bread our lord art 2. c. 5. parag 8. S. Austin said Iudas eat our price art 2. c. 5. paragr 8. S. Austin why he said Iudas eat bread of our lord art 2. c. 5. parag 8. S. Austin wold not credit the Scripture if the Catholiques were discredited art 7. c. 9. parag 22. S. Austin and S. Prosper Papists out of Bel. art 2. c. 4. parag 13. B. S. Basil explicated and his reuerence of Traditions art 7. c. 4. parag 13. S. Bede a Papist art 4. c. 4. parag 4. Bellarmins doctrin of merit the common doctrin of Catholiques a. 5. c. 6 parag 9. Beleefe in al points not prescribed at once art 7. c. 2. parag 7. Bel a right Apostata from Preisthood art 1. c. 9. parag 31. Bel against Caluin art 5. c. 2. parag 3. Bel admitteth Tradition a. 7. c. 9. parag 811. Bels answer about Tradition of the bible refuted art 7. c. 9. parag 5. Bel admitteth venial sinns art 6. c. 1. parag 1. Bels beleefe of venial sinne beside Gods booke art 6. c. 1. parag 2. Bel a Papist by his owne iudgement art 4. c. 1. parag 10. Bel against al Gods Church which liued in the first 200. years art 7. c. 10. parag 2. Bel alleadgeth authority against him selfe a. 7. c. 10. parag 5. Bel answereth not to the purpose art 7. c. 9. parag 7. Bels argument returned vpon him self art 2. c 6. parag 3. Bels blasphemy against God art 8. c. 2. parag 1. against his Church a. 7. c. 9. par 5. against iustification a. 4. c. 2. parag 1. Bels blasphemy accursed by S. Hierom art 8. c. 2. parag 1. Bels blindnes discouered art 1. c. 9. parag 6. Bel bound to recant art 3. c. 1. parag 13 a. 2. c 5. parag 9. Bels buckler the Princes sword art 1. c 1. parag 10. Bels challeng is Bellarmins obiections art 4. c. 3 parag 2. Bels complaint against Catholiques art 5. c 1 parag 1 Bel condemneth as blasphemy in the Pope which he iudgeth treason to deny to Princes art 1. c. 9. parag 23 Bels contradictions arâ— 1. c. 5. parag 4. c. 8. parag 5 a. 2. c 2. parag 4. a. 4 c 1. parag 12. 13. c. 2. parag 6. art 5. c. 3 parag 3. c. 5. parag 7. art 7. c. 7 parag 19 art 8. c. 1. parag 5 7. c. 2. par 4. Bâ—l câ—rrupted Scripture art 7. c. 2. parag 8 c. 7. parag 3. 12. corrupteth S. Ambros art 7 c. 4. parag 1â— Bel cursed of S. Paul by his owne iudgement art 7. c. 9 parag 8. Bel discredited him selfe art 1. chap. 9. parag 10. Bels dissimulation art 1. c. 1. parag 1. a 2. c 1. par 5 art 3. c. 1 parag 2. Bâ—l denyeth deuine faith to proceed from mans teaching art 7. c. 9 parag 20. Bel disproueth him self art 5. c. 6. parag 6. art 4. c. 1. parag 17. Bel exceedeth Pelagius art 7. c. 7. parag 1. Bels faith grownded vpon reason art 2. c. 1. parag 7. Bel slenderly grownded in faith art 2. c. 5. parag 6. Bels false translation art 2. c. 3. parag 8. c. 4. parag 13 a. 4 c. 2. parag 4. 7. 10. c. 5.
original sinne art 4. c. 2 parag 6. Reinolds proofe against him selfe art 7. c. 3. parag 3. Royal power far inferior to Pontifical art 1. c. 9. parag 31. Rome the top of high preisthood art 7. c. 13. parag 6. Romane religion aboue a thowsand years agoe out of Bel art 7. c. 10. parag 9. Romane Church alwaies kept the Apostles Traditions Rule of trying truth prescribed by the Councel of Trent art 7. c. 12. parag 4. S. SAbbath translation not warrented by Scripture art 7. c. â— parag 9. Sabbath translation warrented by Tradition art 7. c. 9. parag 4. Sacrament of Eucharist improperly called Christs body art 2. c. 4. parag 14. B Sacrament boâ—h a sacrifice and a testament art 2 c. 4. parag 6. Sacrifice requireth not killing a. 2. c. 3 par 8. Sacrificing of flesh by Preists hands allowed by Bel art 2 c. 4. parag 13. no Sacriledge to dispute oâ— the Popes power art 1 c 9 parag 34. Sadduces erred for ignorance both of Scripture and Gods power art 7 c. 11. par 3. Salâ—mon deposed not Abiathar art 1. c. 5. parag 10. Samuel cold not discerne Gods word from mans word but by Hely his teachâ—ng arâ— 7. c. 9. parag 13. Saints honor an Apostolical Tradition art 7. c. to parag 11. Satisfaction supposeth remission of sinns art 5. c. 6. parag 5. Search the Scripâ—urs explicated art 7. c. 11. parag 3. Scripturs and the Churches authority differ art 7. c. 9. parag 23. Scripture beleeued both for Gods and the Churches testimony art 7. c. 9. par 18. Scripture how of it selfe worthy of credit art 7. c. 9. parag 18. Scripture the storehouse of truth art 7. c. 5. parag 1. Scripture hath al points actually to be beleeued of euery one art 7. c 1. parag 2. Scripture conteineth virtually not actuâ—lly al points of Christian faith art 7. c. 1. parag 7. 9. Scripture can not sufficiently immediatly proue al points of faith a. 7. c 1. par 10. Scripture how able to make men wise to saluation art 7. â— 3 parag 8. Scripture no poison but food of liâ—e art 7. c. 7. parag 18. Scripture easy in things necessâ—ry to euery ones saluation art 7. c. 6. parag 1. Scripture absolutly hard ibid. Scripture more in sense then in words art 7. c 9. parag 14 Scripture not so clearly discerned as light from darknes art 7. c. 9. parag 15. Scripture why called a lantherne or light art 7. c. 9. parag 17. Scripturs vulgar reading what monsters it hath bred in England art 7. c. 7. parag 2. Seruice of God in the old law some tyme nether heard nor seene of the people art 7. c. 8. parag 3. Seruice in an vnknowne tong discommended only of idiots and infidels art 7. c. 8. parag 2. Sinne habitual what it is art 4 c. â— parag 3. Sinne some of it nature breaketh frendship with God some not art 6. c. 1 par 6. Sinne ordinarily taken only for mortal art 6. c. 2. parag 1. Socrates his error art 7. c. 10 parag 5. S. Steeuen P. defined not the controuersy about rebaptization art 7. c. 12. parag 1. Superior and inferior not contradictions but relatiues and may be verifyed of the same thing art â— c. 6. parag 2. T. S. Thomas how he called our keeping the commandements imperfect art 8. c. 2. parag 3. Traditions of three kinds art 7. chap. 9. parag 1. Traditions which impugned by Bel ibid. which defended in this booke ibid. Traditions ther are conteining things necessary to saluation art 7. c. 9. par 1. Traditions how they are explications of the law art 7. c. 2. parag 4. Tradition admitted by Bel art 7. chap. 9. parag 8. Traditions how they are additions to Scripture how not art 7. c 2. parag 3. 4. Traditions apostolical certain and vndoubted art 7. c. 10. parag 1. Traditions Apostolical not to be examined by Scripture art 7. c. 11. parag 1. Traditions how they may be examined by the Church art 7. c. 11. parag 1. Traditions how to be examined out of Tertullian art 7. c. 11. parag 1. Traditions auouched by the Fathers art 7. c. 4. per tot Traditions defended by S. Paul and S. Ihon art 7. c. 9. parag 1. 2. Traditions in S. Cyprians daies sufficient proofe of doctrin art 7. c. 12. parag 1. Tradition of Easter certein a. 7. c. 10. par 3. Tradition of as equal force to piety as Scripture art 7. c. 4 parag 13. 14. Tradition reiected by old heretiks art 7. c. 4. parag 1. Treason disannulleth not the gift art 1. c. 6 parag 3. Truth euidently knowne to be preferred before authority art 7. c. 9. parag 23. Truth what and how to be tryed art 7. c. 12. parag 4. V. VAlew of the Masse art 2. c. 4. parag 9. Variety of fasting lent rose of ignorance or negligence art 7. c. 10. par 5. Venial sinns admitted by Bel art 6. chap. 1. parag 1. Venial sinne why not against the law art 6. c. 1. parag 8. Venial sinne such of his nature art 6. c. 1. parag 2. Voluntary in the origen what it is art 4. c. 1. parag 11. Voluntary motion of euil why expresly forbidden in the tenth commandement art 4. c. 3. parag 10. Vse and abuse of a thing to be distinguished art 7. c. 10. parag 11. W. VVItnesses sufficient of Gods truth by what made art 7. chap. 9. parag 6. Wemen ought to be instructed of men art 7. c. 7. paragr 5. Wemen may teach in case of necessity or perticuler inspiration art 7. chap. 7. parag 13. Words of consecration when and how they worke their effect a. 2. c. 6. parag 5. Worshipping an vnconsecrated host vpon ignorance no offence art 2. c. 6. par 8. Wiats rebellion defended and praised by Protestants art 1. c. 3. parag 6. X. XArisma wel translated by grace art 5. c. 4. parag 4. FINIS