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.
shold that font be conserued so long but as a monument of so memorable a christning How can Constantin be worthely surnamed great of Christians if at his death he communicated with Arians and was baptized of them at Nicomedia as their fellow heretik Eusebius first reported to purchase credit to his heresy If this had bene so he shold rather haue bene syrnamed of Catholiques the Apostata or Heretike 11. The last tradition of honoring Saints Bel p. 133. Bel saith made some to honor Heretiks for Saints as Platina saith he writeth of the Platina in Bonif. 8. corps of Herman an heretike honored as Saints reliques at Ferrara for 20. years together Answer vntruth 97 How Apostolical a thing the honoring of Saints is Bellarmin sheweth lib. de Sanct. beatit c. 19. Where besids Scripturs and Councels he proueth it by the testimony of 30. Fathers wherof 25 liued aboue a thowsand years ago But is not this a strange metamorphosis to make the error of common people a popish Tradition Beside Platina affirmeth no such thing him selfe but only that some others write so But nether he nor any other write that it rose of popish Tradition That is Bels accustomed vse of addition And therfore where he noteth danger in beleeuing Tradition he might haue noted danger in crediting his owne relation Yea what danger is in not beleeuing Roman Tradition appeareth both by the testimony of Fathers before cited and by the example of Policrates and his fellows the Quartadecimans and by S. Cyprian Quartadecimans are Heretiks ex Epiphan haer 50. 70. Nicephor l. 4. c. 39. August haer 29. Socrates lib. 5. c. 22. Tripartita hist Vincent Lytin and his followers the Donatists reproued only by Roman Tradition As testifyeth Tripartit lib. 9. c. 38. and Vincent Lyrinen But suppose that they of Ferrara had vpon Tradition taken occasion to commit Idolatry Shal we reiect al things wherof men take occasion to offend So we might reiect Christ who was set vnto the ruine of many Luc. 2. v. 34. and by whom the Iewes took occasion of scandal So we might reiect Scripturs by which heretiks haue taken occasion he heresy Sunne and Moone because Gentils haue by them fallen into Idolatry Cannot Bel distinguish between vse abuse of Traditions betwixt scandal giuen taken Thus much of the certainty of Tradtions Now let vs come to the examination of them CHAP. XI Of the examination of Traditions APostolical Traditions are not to be examined by Scripture This is against Bel pag. 117. but euident Because Apostolical â—el p. 117 Tradition is the Apostles word their S. Paul â— Luke word is Gods word 1. Thess 2. v. 16. But Gods word is not to be examined at al Ergo nether is Apostolical Tradition Wel might the Church at first examine a Tradition whether it were Apostolical or no as she did examine diuers parts of the Bible whither they were Scripture or no but finding it to be Apostolical she could no more examine it by the Bible then she can examin one part of the Bible by an other And Bel in saying That the new testament may Bel p. 135. al. 117. be examined by the old sheweth him selfe rather to be a Iew then a Christian For how dare he examin that which is certaine to be deuine truth Or how can he examin the new testament by the old if he be not more certain of the old then of the new But how Traditions ought to be proued heare Tertullian Tertullian lib. de Corona It can not seeme none or a doubtful fault against Custome which is to be defended for it name sake and is sufficiently authorized by protection of consent Plainly reason is to be enquired but so as the Custome be reteined not to destroy it but to vphold it That thou maist obserue it more when thou art sure of the reason of it But what a thing is it that one shal cal Custome in question when he hath fallen from it 2. But saith Bel Scriptures are called canonical Bel p. 117. because they be the rule of faith Therfore al things are to be examined by them And for this cause saith he Esay sent vs to the Law and testimony Esaiae 8. to try the truth Malachias bid vs be myndful Malach. 4. Psalm 119. 2. Pet. 1. Ioan. 5. Math. 22. Act. 17. 1. Ioan. 4. Gal. 1. of Moises lavv Dauid said Gods word is a lathern S. Peter a shyning light For this cause Christ exhorted the Iewes to read Scripturs and said the Pharises erred because they knew not the Scripturs The Berheans examined S. Paules doctrin S. Ihon bid try the spirits S. Paul pronounced him accursed That preached any doctrin not conteined in Scripture as S. Austin and S. Basil expound him S. August l. 3. cont Petil. c. 6. S. Basil sum 72 c. 1. Bible onely Canonical Scripture but not it alone Canonical Sup. c. 2. parag 1. 7. c. 9. paragr 17. 3. Answer The Bible alone is called Canonical Scripture because it alone of al Scripturs the Church followeth as an infallible rule in beleeuing or defyning any thing But it nether is nor is called the only Canon of faith In the rest Bel affirmeth but proueth not that that was the cause why the Scripture said so As for the places of Esay Malachy Dauid and S. Peter they haue bene answered before As for exhortation of Christ I might deny that he there exhorted the Iewes to read Scripture but Scrutamini Scripturas See S. Gyrill l. 3. in Ioan. c. 4. affirmed that they did read them because they thought they conteined life But suppose he did exhort them to read Scripturs for to finde whether he were the Messias or no wheroâ— as he saith there they giue testimony what is this for trying of al matters by them Can Bel inferre an vniuersal propositioÌ„ of one singuler That of the Pharises Corrupt of Script conteineth two corruptions of Scripturs For neither did Christ say The Pharases but the Saduces erred about the resurrection nether doth he say the cause of their error therin was only ignorance of Scripture as Bel insinuateth leauing out the words povvre of God but ignorance both Math. 22. v. 29. of Scripture and of Gods powre you erre saith he knovving nether Scripturs nor the powre of God So if they had known Gods powre though it had not bene by Scripture but by Tradition or reuelation as Iob and Iob 19. v. 25. the faithful vncircumcised did they had not erred about the resurrection Beside the resurrection is a perticuler matter and euidently testifyed in Scripture what proueth this concerning al points of faith 4. As for the Berhaeans whom Bel wil haue to haue examined the truth of S. Pauls Act. 17. doctrin I ask of him whither they were faithful whilst they examined it or faithles If faithles why proposeth he them to vs as an example to imitat
liuely body to want in the Sacrament his quantity and figure and considering better of the nature of quantity found that no commensuration to place was essential vnto it but onely a natural propriety and therefore separable by Gods power from it as light is from the Sunne taught that Christs hath his quantity in the Sacrament as a natural accident accompaning his body And albeit this be a certaine truth and not onely the common opinion of Schooles but seemeth also to be the common sense of Catholiques yet saith Suarez a learned author Tom 3. in 3. part Suarez disput Si stec 2. It is to hard a censure to condemne the contrary of heresie For saith he I find nether expresse definition nor irrefragable testimony of Scripture against it nor yet any thing which can be conuinced out of reuealed principles and al the reasons made against it are deduced out of Philosophical Principles true and certaine but not altogether euident In like sorte Claudius de Sainctes repetit 4. de Euchar c. 4. testifieth Sainctes that this matter is not clearly defined by the Church or Scripture What shame therfore must it be to Bel to auouch that al Catholiks hold as a point of their faith that Christs body is organical in the Eucharist and declining the principal question about the being of Christs body in the Sacrament which is an vndoubted point of our faith and against which his cheefe argument which as he saith al the Papists in England can not answer taketh no hold to impugne the being of Christs quantity in the Eucharist 7. Neuerthelesse because it is a thinge most true and most agreable to our faith I willingly vndertake the defense therof Let vs see therfore how Bel disproueth it Forsooth because it implyeth contradictiō for a greater body as Christs is to be cōtained in a lesser as in a cake pag 20. Reason the ground of Bels faithe Behould the foundation of Bels faith the best weapon of this stout challenger the strong reason which al English Papists can Scripture Matth 26. v. 26 28. Marc. 14. v. 22. 24. Luc. 22. v. 19. 20. 1. Cor. 11. v. 24. 25. not solue We bring Christs expresse words auouching that what he gaue to his Apostle at his last supper was his body giuen and his blood shed for remission of sinnes which vndoubtedly he ment of his true body and blood For he neuer gaue bred nor shed wine for remission of sinnes We obiect also his other words where he calleth his flesh truly meat and his blood drinke as it were preuenting Ioan. 6. v. 55. the figuratiue exposition of Caluinists Besids the words of S. paul testifying that who receaueth vnvvoorthily the B Sacrament is guilty 1. Cor. 11. v. 29. not of bread and wine il receaued but of the body and blood of our Lord. 8. To these testimonies of holy writte Fathers we adioyne the vniforme consent of Fathers who not onely continually cal the Eucharist the body and blood of Christ and not once a bare figure but withal some Damasc l. 4. de fid c. 14. 7. Synod Act. 6. of them affirme that it is no bare figure but the very body and damne the contrary as abhominable and extreme madnes contrary to tradition of Apostles and Fathers and against the Chrysosto hom de Euchat in Eucenijs Cyril catech 3. verity and propriety of Christs vvords Others deny it to be bread albeit our taste so iudge Others say that the nature of bread is changed Nissen orat mag catech c. 37. Cipria serm de Caena Cyril Alex ad Calosyr Chrysosto hom cit Damas sup August lib. 2. cont aducrs legis Prophet c. 9. tom 6. Leo serm 6. de ieiun 7. mensis Aug. serm 1. in psalm 33. tom 8. Hilar. 8. de Trinitat that bread changed in nature not in shevv is by the omnipotency of God made flesh that bread and vvine are turned supernaturally into the verity of Christs proper flesh Others say vve eate Christs flesh and drink his blood vvith our mouthes that vvhat we beleue with faith we receaue vvith mouth Others auouch that Christ at his last supper carried him selfe secundum literā that is truly really in his hands Finally others say that as Christ is the true sonne of God so is it true flesh blood vvhich vve receaue and drinke These kind of speeches and many other of the like sort can neuer be verified vnles the real presence of Christ in the B. Sacrament be defended 9. Against al these irrefragable testimonies Quod intelligimus debemus rationi quod credimus authoritati Aug. l. de vtil cred c. 11. Heretiques shift to expound scriture figuratiuely Ioan. 10. v. 30. Heretiks be figure slingers 10. 1. v. 14. of Gods word and holy Fathers Bel opposeth humane reason though he expound them figuratiuely because he dare not deny them in bare words which hath bene cuer the shift of heretiques For so the Arrians being vrged with these words I and the Father are one expounded them figuratiuely because they durst not deny them and their reason could not conceaue how two persons should be one nature Likwise the Marcionits vnderstood those words The vvord vvas made flesh figuratiuely because by reason they could not vnderstand how two natures shold be in one person And for the self same cause Bel and Protestants Tantum ritati obstrepit ad ulter sensus quantum corrupt or stilus Tertull lib. de praescript Scripture teacheth more plainly Christs real presence in the Sacrament then it doth his Godhead and humanity S. Augustin lib. 3. de doctrin Christian cap. 10. tom 3. Caluin 4. instit c. 17. parag 20. 23. vnderstand these words This is my body giuen for you my blood shed for you in remission of sinns figuratiuely For these words doe as playnly teach the verity of Christs body and blood in the Eucharist as those other teach the verity of his Godhead or humanity yea more plainly because in these words it is expressed what body and blood is in the Eucharist vz. that which was giuen for vs and shed in remission of sinnes which kind of addition is not in those other words 10. But as S. Austin saith If an opinion of error haue preoccupated the mind vvhatsoeuer is othervvise affirmed in Scripture men vvil vnderstand it figuratiuely Hereupon Caluin said that the reuerence of Gods vvord vvas no sufficient pretence to reiect his reasons And calleth it foolish stubbernes to contend vpon the vvords of Scripture and them catchers of sillables foolish superstitious vvho stick fast to Christ vvords What is this good Reader but to make reason the rule of faith and not to captiuare our vnderstanding to Gods word but to captiuate it to our reason and make it speake properly or figuratiuely according as reason Magdeburg in praefat centur ad reginam Elizabeth can comprehend it Truly therfore wrote the Magdeburgian Protestants of
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
but authority of Scriptures and command of God teaching Answer In the first place S. Hierom speaketh of a perticuler opinion vz That Zacharias who was slaine betwene the Temple and the Altar was S. Ihon Baptists father which he supposeth to haue bene no Apostolical Tradition and therfore of it saith because it is not proued out of Scripture it is as easely reiected as affirmed But what S. Hierom writeth of a particuler opinion helde without tradition Bel can not iustly extend to certaine Traditions The second place maketh nothing against vs. Because the Traditions of the Church were taught by the Apostles and not by any other afterward And S. Hieroms meaning is to deny that any man may teach of his owne worde and authority any new doctrine as Montanus and such like Hereticks did but only that which they receaued from the Apostles who were as S. Paul saith Eph. 2. v. 20 our foundation The thirde place maketh les to the purpose For tradition is no error of Ancestors And Scripture we graunt to be followed but not it alone but as S. Hierom saith the commandment of God teaching whether it be by writing or tradition As for traditions S. Hierom plainly alloweth them Dialog cont Lucif where he confesseth it to be the custome of the S. Hierome Church to obserue many things by tradition as if they were written laws And epist ad Marcel receaueth lent and lib. cont Heluid defendeth our Ladies perpetual virginity only by tradition 16. Many more Fathers I might alleadge for traditions But I content my selfe with the testimonies of them whom Bel brought for the contrary Let the indifferent Reader weigh the places cited by him and me and vprightly iudge as he tendreth his saluation Whether the holy Fathers reiected or imbraced ecclesiastical traditions Perhaps Bel wil answer That the Fathers contradict them selfes and say as the false mother did Let them be nether myne nor thine but be deuided 3. Reg. 3. v. 26. But who remembreth Salomons iudgment wil by this alone perceaue to whom of right the Fathers belong I haue answered al that Bel hath brought out of them and most of the authorities alleadged by me especially those of S. Dionis S. Epipha S. Chrisost S. Basil admit no answer at al Now let vs come to Bels arguments out of Catholique writers CHAP. V. Bels arguments out of late Catholique vvriters touching sufficiency of Scriptures and Traditions ansvvered THE first he alleadgeth is the learned Bel p. 100. Roffensis artic 37. Luther and holy Bishop Fisher whom he vntruly tearmeth a canonized Saint with vs Because in one place he calleth Scripture the storehouse of al truthes necessary to be known of Christians And in an other saith when heretiks Veritate 4. cont art Lutheri contend with vs we ought to defend our cause with other help then Scripture Because saith Bel Popery can not be defended by Scripture and auoucheth vntruth 81. Papists to confesse That they can not manteine their faith by Gods written word Answer How Scripture may be called a Store-house of al truths necessary to Christians appeareth out of the first and second Conclusion And Sup. c. 1. parag 2. 7. in the said place B. Fisher writeth of Purgatory That though it could not be proued out of Scriture yet it ought to be beleeued for Tradition And in the secōd place he nether saith absolutly That we ought not to proue our faith out of Scripture at al nether to Catholiks nor to Heretiks Nor that we ought not to proue it out of Scripture euen against Heretiks For him selfe so proueth it against Luther And much lesse saith That we can not proue it out of Scripture as Bel falsly forgeth But his meaning is That when we dispute with Heretiks we ought to haue aliud subsidium quam scripturae other proofs beside Scripture hereof he geueth foure reasons 2. First because Luther professed to beleeue Purgatory though it were not in Scripture 2. Because Scripturs in some points at the first sight and in words seeme to fauor Heretiks more then Catholiques as appeareth in the controuersy between S. Hierom Heluidius about our Ladies perpetual virginity 3. Because Heretiks deny many parts of Scripture 4. Because though they admit the words yet they peruert the sense and meaning of Scripture which is as much saith Tertullian as if they denied the words And oftentimes the true sense is not so euident that it alone sufficeth to conuince an Heretik when to contend about it wearyeth as the same Tertullian writeth the constant ouer turneth the weak and scandalizeth the midle sort Wherupon he aduiseth Sup. cap. 19. vs wisely That in disputing vvith Heretiks before vve come to proofs out of Scripture vve try vvhose the Scriptures are to whose possession of right they belonge For that being cleared it vvil soone appeare saith he vvho hath the true Christian faith the true vnderstanding of Scripture and al Christian Traditions And the same meant B. Fisher who also citeth Tertul. his words make rather for Traditiōs then against them And if this course were taken with Protestants they wold be quickly confounded For they as Doue confesseth and it is euident Doue of Recusancy p. 13. had the Scripture from vs not by gift or loan For we nether gaue nor lent them to Protestants but by theaft and stealth as Turks and Infidels may haue them and therfore are wrong vsurpers of our goods and possessions and iustly may we say to them with Tertullian VVhen whence came Supra c. 37. you vvhat do you in my possession being none of myne By vvhat right Marcion Luther doest thousel my vvood vvith vvhat lycence Valentine Caluin doest thou turne a vvay my fovvntains VVith vvhat authoryty Apelles Beza doest thou moue my limits It is my possession vvhat do you others sovve and feed at your pleasure It is my possession I possesse it of ould I possesse it first I haue strong originals from the Authors vvhose the thing vvas Thus Tertullian And here I omit that Bel citeth an apocriphal sentence out of Esdr 3. 4. vnder the name of the wise man as if it were Salomons 3. Next he alleadgeth Canus his words Bel p. 101. Seeing the Canon of Scripture is perfect and most Canus de locis lib. 7. c. 3. sufficient to al things what need the vnderstanding and authority of Saints be adioined therto But Bel forgot to tel that Canus proposeth this only as an obiection which he answereth by denying the illatiō therin included Because saith he the Fathers are needful to right vnderstand the Scripture Nether denying nor graunting the Antecedent concerning the perfection and sufficiency of Scripture But how sufficient he thought Scripture to Canus be appeareth l. 3. c. 6. where after S. Ignatius epist ad Heronem he calleth them wolues Heretiks which refuse the Churches Traditions and c. 7. solueth the best arguments Protestans bring
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.
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
If he wil follow them let him confesse him selfe to want faith none wil discommend him for examining ether Traditions or Scripture For in infidels such examination is some disposition to faith but in the faithful an argument of doubt and distrust If faithful how could they examin whither that were true or no which they assuredly beleeued to be deuine truth Wherfore they examined not the truth of S. Pauls doctrin For they receaued it Hovv the Berhaeans examined S. Pauls doctrin saith S. Luke with al greedines and beleeued but did for confirmation and encrease of their faith search the Scripturs whether these things were so or no vz in Scripturs that is fortold in Scripturs And this kind of examining Traditions we disalow not 5. As for S. Ihon He bid vs try doubtful VVhat S. Ihon bid vs trye 1. Ioan. 4. spirits but not Apostolical spirits or Traditions Besids he bid vs not try them only by Scripture and therfore he maketh nothing for Bels purpose Finally as for S. Paul he accursed not as S Austin noteth S. Augustin â—o 9. tract 98. in Ioan him that should preach more then he had done For so he should preiudice him selfe who coueted to returne to the Thessalonians to preach more then 1. Thess 3. v. 10. he had done and to supply as he writeth the points which wanted to their faith But only such as preach things beside vz quite Hovv S. Paul vnder stood the vvord besyde Gal. 1. v. 2. that Ghospel which he had preached which things v. 6 and 7. he calleth an other Ghospel inuerting Christs Ghospel Such were the cirrumcision obseruation of Iewish ceremonies against which he disputeth in the whole epistle But what is this against Apostolical Traditions are they a second Ghospel do they inuert Christs Ghospel are they Iewish ceremonies 6. Beside S. Paul nether speaketh of Scripture S. Paul speaketh not of Scripture but of his ovvne preaching nor can be vnderstood of it alone For when he saith besids that vvhich vve haue euangelized to you he nether had written any thing before to the Galathians Nor then nor after writ to them al points of Christian faith And therfore when he speaketh The like saieth S. Ignat epist ad Heron. of those that teach praeter eae quae traditl sunt of his owne euangelizing both in tyme before the writing of that epistle and vnto the Galathians euident it is he meant not of euangelizing by only writing but rather of euangelizing by word of mouth because before the writing of that epistle he had euangelized to the Galathians only by word of mouth and of that euangelizing he speaketh which before tymes he had vsed to them And so this place maketh more for vs then for Bel. 7. As for S. Austin and S. Basil they say not That S. Paul meant of euangelizing by only Scripture but out of this place infer that nothing is to be preached which is beside Scripture in that sense wherin S. Paul vsed the word Beside vz so beside as it is an other Ghospel inuerting Christs Ghospel which they rightly inferred For what is so beside Scripture as it is a new Ghospel and inuerteth Christs Ghospel is in like sort beside that which S. Paul had euangelized to the Galathians and no Apostolical Tradition but a cursed doctrin And thus much of Bels proofs out of Scripture touching examination of Traditions Now let vs see his proofs out of Fathers CHAP. XII Bels arguments out of holy Fathers about the examination of Traditions ansvvered FIRST he saith That in S. Cyprians daies Bel p. 117. vntruth 98 vntruth 99 nether Tradition was a sufficient proofe of doctrin nor the Popes definitiue sentence a rule of faith These be both vntruths For that TraditioÌ„ was a sufficient proofe of doctrin in S. Cyprians daies is euident by the testimony of his maister Tertullian S. Ireney and S. Dionis before his tyme and S. Basil S. Sup. cap. 4. S. Augustin l 2. de bapt c. 9. Tripartit l. 9. c. 38. Vincent Lyrin Socrates lib. 5. c. 22. Te pacatum reddat traditio Basil hom contr Sabellian Chrysost hom 42. 2. ad Thessaâ— Cap. cit parag 6. Chrisostom others after his tyme before cited And by his owne words before alleadged and the decyding of two controuersies only by Tradition the one in his owne tyme about the baptisme of heretiks the other before his tyme about the tyme of Easter Nether did he euer doubt that true Tradition was sufficient proofe of doctrin of which S. Chrisostom said It is Tradition seeke no more but thought and truly that humane and mistaken Tradition was no sufficient rule as hath bene shewed before And that the Popes definitiue sentence in his tyme was a sufficient rule of faith is euident by his owne saying That false faith can Cyprian lib. 4. epistol 8. calleth Rome the Matrice and roote of the Catholique Church S. Cyprian l. 1. epist 3. S. Augustin l. 6. de bapt contr Donat c. 2. S. Cyprian ep ad Pompeiâ—m Euseb lib. 7. hist c. 3. Vincent Lyrin S. Augustin lib. de vnic bapt cap. 13. See c. 4. parag 7. 8. S. Hieroms account of the Popes decree haue no accesse to S. Peters chair and that Heresyes and Schismes rise not but because it is not thought that there is for the tyme one Priest in the Church and one iudge in Christs roome and by his owne subscribing at the last to the Popes commandement though he thought it had bene contrary to Scripture Nether did he euer withstand the Popes definitiue sentence For P. Steeuen did not defyne as a matter of faith but only commanded that such should not be rebaptized but the Tradition obserued as both S. Cyprian Eusebius Vincent Lyrinen and others testify And this command S. Cyprian did not at first obey wherin he offended as S. Austin writeth though after he did as the same S. Austin doth likewise testify And no doubt but he thought as wel of the Popes decrees as S Hierom did when he wrote to P. Damasus Decree I pray if it please you I wil not fear to say three Hypostases if you bid And requested him for Christs sake to giue authority ether to affirme or deny three hypostases And darest thou Bel make no account of the Popes sentence when so great and holy a Doctor so highly esteemed it as without it he durst nether affirme nor deny three hypostases and with it doubted not to do ether 2. After this Bel alleadgeth the practise Bel p. 118. of Fathers who when the Arians saith he wold not admit the word homousion because it vntruth 100. was not in Scripture mark how he confesseth him selfe to imitate Arians the Fathers did not proue it by Tradition nor say that many vnwritten things are to be beleeued This is not so For S. Athanasius saith that the Bishops of the Nicen S. Athan. apud Theodoret l. 1.
c. 8. See epist ad Epictetum l. cit Apud Athanas Theodoret l. cit S. Grego Nazianz orat 2. de Theolog Councel did not inuent that word but set it downe testimonio patrum by testimony of their Fathers and Eusebius though an Arian confesseth the same And S. Gregory Nazian writing against the Arians saith that it should suffice vs that our Fathers thought not as they do and the same argumeÌ„t vseth also S. Athanasius writing against the Apollinarists And how vntruly he affirmeth that the Fathers did not say many vnwritten things are to be beleeued I refer my selfe to their testimonies alleadged aboue cap. 4. But saith Bel S. Athanasius proued homousion because though the word was not in Scripture the sense was A goodly reason He proued it out of Scripture therfore not out of Tradition as if one should say He proued it out of S. Ihon therfore not out of S. Paul 3. Origen saith Bel hom 25. in Math. Bel p. 118. and hom 1. in 1. Hierem counselleth vs to try al doctrins by Scripture This is vntrue vntruth 101. Origen For Origen speaketh not of al but only of our opinions and doctrins Our opinions and expositions saith he haue no credit without their testimonies Againe VVe must alleadge the sense of Scripture for testimony of al the words we vtter Terrullian calling that truth which is first and false which is after maketh nothing to his purpose Next he alleadgeth S. Austin saying That we must not consent euen S. Augustin lib. de vnit eccles c. 10. to 7. to Catholique Bishops error or priuat opinion against Scripture Error against Scripture is not to be followed Ergo nether Apostolical Traditions contested by the whole Church Surely Bel hath great facility in inferring quodlibet ex quolibet He bringeth also S. Chrisostom calling Gods lawes a S. Chrysost hom 13. in 2. Cor. to 4. most exact rule and bidding vs learn not what this or that man thinks and of these things enquire these points also out of Scripture Answer S. Chrysostoms meaning is that Gods word is most exact in the matter whereof he talked vz. whither pouerty be to be preferred before riches in which matter we ought saith he to leaue the opinions of this or that worldly man who prefer riches but seek what the Scripture saith of it And Bel to make him False translat 13. seeme to say That al truth is to be sought out of Scripture translated these words Deque his à Scripturis haec etiam inquirite thus Search the truth out of the Scriptures Englishing nether de his nor haec 4. After S. Chrysostom he citeth two pag. 120. Chap 5. parag 5. sentences out of Victoria cited by him and answered by vs before To whome he adioyneth Canus teaching That Priests are not Canus l. 3. de loc c. vlt. to be heard vnles they teach according to Gods law Certain And then inferreth That Papists teach plainly that no doctrine is to be receaued which is not tryed by Gods word True also if it be rightly vnderstood vz. of such doctrine as may be tryed not of deuine as Apostolical Traditions be which may not be tryed And of Gods whole word not of a part thereof as the Scripture is And that expounded not according to the humor of priuat spirits but according to the vniforme consent of Fathers Councels This most iust and reasonable rule of trying al matters in controuersy the Councel of Concil Trident sess 18. in saluo coductu dato Protestantibus Trent prescribed to the Protestants But they wil try deuine truth conteined not only in Traditions but also in Scripture that part by which they wil try the rest they wil expound according to their owne priuat spirits which is to make them selfs rule and iudges of al wherfore vainly doth Bel professe to agree with the Pope in al coÌ„trouersies pag. 120. if he wil be tryed by Gods word For vnles Bel be made iudge and tryer both of Gods word and of his meaning or as Protestants speake vnles he may iudge which is Scripture and which is the true sense there must nether tryal nor iudgement passe For vnles Protestants may haue al the law in their owne hands they wil accept no iudgement 5. But because Bellarmin graunteth that Bellarm. lib. 2. de Concil c. 52. singuli Episcopi al Bishops seuerally may erre and somtyme do erre and dissent one from an other so that we know not which of them is to be followed Bel thinketh pag. 121. that he hath a great catch yet remembring him self better that though Catholiques graunt that euery Bishop seuerally may erre yet deny that they can erre al when they are gathered in a Synode confirmed by the Pope he taketh occasion to make a long digression about Councels CHAP. XIII Of the authority of late general Councels GENERAL Councels in these our dayes are as certaine as before tymes This is against Bel pag. 123. saying that in our dayes they are like a nose of waxe and as vncertaine as the winde And because he denyeth not but that general Councels in some times haue bene certaine forsooth such as defyned nothing contrary to Protestantisme I wil only proue that they are now as certaine as euer First because Christ promyseth that he would be in the midst of them that are gathered in his name Math. 18. v. 20. S. Math. That the holy Ghost should teach vs al truth Iohn 16. That the gates of hel should not preuaile S. Iohn v. â—3 S. Math. against his Church Math. 16. v. 18. which promises are limited to no certaine tyme but are extended as he saith Math. vlt. euen to the end of the worlde Likewise Christs commaund of hearing his Church Math. S. Math. v. 17. S. Luc. 18. of hearing preachers sent by him Luc. 10. of obeying our Prelates and being subiect to them Hebr. 13. v. 17. bindeth as wel S. Paul in our dayes as before tymes wherfore either the Church Preachers and Prelates teaching in a general Councel in our dayes can not erre or Christ in our daies commaundeth vs to beleeue heresy and lyes 2. Secondly the present Church of our daies hath authority to decyde controuersies in faith Ergo we be bound to obey her decision Ergo it is no lye The Antecedent is an article of Protestants faith Article 39. Art 20. The first consequence I proue because who resisteth power in matters belonging to the power refisteth Gods ordinance and purchaseth damnation to him selfe Roman 13. vers 2. 3. which being true of temporal power and concerning wordly matters much more true it is of spiritual power and in matters of faith and saluation The second consequence is euident For God who is truth it selfe and can not lye can not binde vs especially See S. Gregory lib. 1. epist 24. vnder paine of damnation to beleeue and follow lyes Thirdly as Protestants except
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
to Moyses law nor no otherwise prohibited therby then the rest of Scripture is 5. What hath bene said to the place of Deut. 4. may be applyed to the other place Deut. 12. if it be vnderstood of the moral law which God gaue to the Iewes But rather I thinke it is to be vnderstood of the Ceremonial law Both because it is not said absolutly what I command that only do as it would if it had bene meant of the Moral law but That only doe thou to the lord which words to the lorde insinuate the meaning to be only of the Ceremonial law manner of sacrifice to be done to God As also immediatly before God had forbidden the Iewes in their manner of worshipping him to imitate the ceremonyes of Gentils in worshipping their Gods because they had many abhominable vses as of sacrifizing their children and streight after concludeth what I command thee that only do thou to the lorde nether adde any thing nor deminish Wherby we see that the worde Command he extended only to sacrifices and ceremonyes which before he had prescribed to be done to him selfe and would haue therin no alteration at al. 6. Nether hindereth this that which Reinolds apol thes p. 207. Reinolds obiecteth That mention here is made of sacrificing children which is forbidden by the moral law For mention is made therof not as of a thing forbidden there but as of a reason of forbidding the Iewes in worshipping God to imitate Gentils because saith God they sacrifice children And of this Ceremonial law very likely it is that God absolutly Ceremonial lavv perfectly prescribed to the Ievves and vvhy would haue no addition or alteration at al to be made vntil it were quite abrogated by Christ And the like reason is not of Gods law concerning faith and manners For there being no such difference in the Ceremonies of the law but what some Iewes obserued al might alike expedient it was that al the Ceremonies should be prescribed at once to the end al might worship God after the same manner especially seeing the Iewes were as S. Paul writeth S. Paul Gal. 4. v. 1. 2. 3. litle ones nothing differing from seruants vnder tutours and gouernours and seruing vnder elements of the vvorlde And therfore had al the rudiments and ceremonies of religion most exactly prescribed vnto them by God with commandement to abstayne from any alteration 7. But seeing in matters of faith and VVhy the lavv touching saith and manners not prescribed al at once precepts of manners there is great difference because euen the same men are not capable at once of vnderstaÌ„ding al misteries as appeareth by our Sauiours words to his Apostles Ihon 16. v. 12. I haue many things to say vnto you but you can not carry them novv And much lesse are al men a like capable of the same misteryes And in like manner al men were not a like capable of the same precepts of life And therfore as S. Austin S. Augustin de sermon Domini in â—â—nte saith God gaue by Prophets the lesse precepts to that people vvhich vvas yet to be tyed vvith feare and greater precepts by his Sonne to a people vvhome he had agreed to free vvith loue Therfore it was not expedient that God should at once prescribe vnto men al that they were to beleeue or doe but at such tymes as seemed fit to his dyuine wisdome to adde therunto by his Prophets and Euangelists 8. Moreouer Bel alleadgeth Esay 8. Bel pag. 8â— v. 20. Ad legem magis ad testimonium Quod si non dixerint iuxta verbum hoc non erit â—is matutina lux Rather to the law and to the testimony If they speake not according to this worde ther shal not be morning light to them This place helpeth him nothing First because the Prophet nameth not only the law but testimony also which comprehendeth Gods vnwritten worde as appeareth Ioan. 3. v. 11. Ioan. 1. 7. 8. 15. 18. 1. Timoth. 6. Apoc. 12. Rom. 8 v. 16. Hebr. 11. v. 39. Act. 4. v 33. 1. Ioan. 5. v. 33. and other where and therfore maketh more for vs then against vs. Secondly because Esay doth not absolutly bid vs recurre to the law testimony but magis rather to them then to witches of whom he had immediatly forbidden vs to enquire Wherfore Bel in not englishing the worde magis as he did the rest corrupted of set purpose the Scripture to make it seeme magis more for his purpose Thirdly Corrupt of Scripture though by the law and testimony we vnderstood only Gods writteÌ„ worde the place maketh nothing against vs. For then Esay indeed should bid vs goe to Gods written worde which we refuse not to doe in al doubts wherin it resolueth vs but forbiddeth vs not to goe to any other which is as he saith iuxta verbum hoc agreable to this worde yea God him selfe commanded vs Deuter. Deutr. 32. v. 7. to aske our Fathers and elders Iob. and. Iob. 8 v. 8. to aske the ancient generation seeke out the memory of the Fathers Wherfore ether must Bel proue that the Churches Traditions are not iuxta verbum hoc agreable to Gods written worde which he shal neuer doe or he must know that God not only forbiddeth vs but rather commandeth vs to seeke after and follow them 9. S. Hierome alleadged by Bel only Bel pag. 89. S. Hierom. in c. 8. Esaiae saith absolutly That doubts may be resolued out of Scripture and who wil not seeke Gods worde shal abide in errour which is vndoubted truth but nothing against vs. But affirmeth not That al doubts may be determined out of Scripture and that we ought to seeke nothing els whatsoeuer Yea him selfe epist ad Marcel resolueth lent to be keapt only by Apostolical tradition And l. cont Heluid S. Hierom. bringeth not one place of Scripture to proue our B. Ladyes perpetual virginity against that hereticke though he bring many to shew that the places which the hereticke alledged conuince not the contrary And thus much touching Bels places out of the oulde Testament CHAP. III. Bels arguments out of the nevv Testament touching sufficiency of Scripture ansvvered HIs first place out of the new Testament Bel pag. 90. is Ioan. 20. v. 30. These are written that you may beleeue that Iesus is Christ the sonne of God that in beleeuing you might haue life through his name And biddeth vs obserue that S. Ihons Ghospel was written after al other Scriptures euen when the Canon of Scripture was compleat perfect and fully accomplished vz. about the 14 yeare of Domitian almost an 100. years after Christs ascension and thereby thinketh to auoyde al our sottish cauils as he tearmeth them Meaning forsooth that S. Ihon meant these words These are vvritten of the whole Canon of the Scripture 2. Omitting Bels manifest error where Tvvo grosse errors in Chronographie Baron An. 97. Onuphrius
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
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
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
euident then the holy Fathers when they speake of beleeuing the Ghospel they meane of deuine and Christian faith And what faith should S. Austin meane of but of such faith as he exhorted the Maniches vnto which was deuine And in the place alleadged by Bel he calleth outward teaching helpe to faith and only meaneth that a man can not learne faith of man alone without al inward teaching of God And therfore addeth That if he be not within who teacheth the Tract 3. in 1. Ioan. 10. 9. hart in vayne is our sound and where Gods inspiration is not there in vaine words sound outwardly which is most true and nothing against vs. Lastly it is against reason For the authority of Gods Church is not meere humane but in some sort deuine as a witnes by God him selfe appointed to testify his truth And therfore he said vvho heareth Luc. 10. v. 16. you heareth me therfore the faith that proceedeth from such authority is not humane 22. Wherfore Bel not trusting much to this shift flyeth to an other vz. That S. Austin said not these vvords of him selfe as he vvas then a christian but as he had bene in tymes past a Maniche This he proueth Because in the same chapter he saith That the authority of vntruth 93 1. vntruth 94 2. vntruth 95 3. the Ghospel is aboue the authority of the Churche in the chapter before That the truth of Scriptures must be preferred before authority consent of nations and the name of Catholique and promiseth to yeeld to Maniches doctrine if he shal be able to proue it out of Scripture But both this answer and proofs are most falsly auouched vpon S Austin For if he had meant the foresaid words of him selfe only as when he was a Manichist he wold not haue said Non crederem nisi commoueret c. I wold not beleeue vnles the Church did commoue me But non credidissem nisi commouisset I had not or wold not haue beleeued vnlesse the Church had commoued me Which Bel wel marking made him say so in english though he had not said it in latine Besides False translat 12. in the same chapter he addeth Qua authoritate Catholicorum infirmata iam nec potero Euangelio credere which authority of Catholiques being discredited I shal not be able now marke Bel to beleeue the Ghospel Moreouer cap. 4. he said That besides other motiues the authority of Catholiques tenet doth holde me in the lap of the Church 23. Bels proofs are nothing but his owne vntruths For though it be true That the Scripture is of greater authority then the Church yet nether doth S. Austin say it in that place nether maketh it any thing against vs. For albeit the Scripturs be in it selfe of greater authority yet the authority of the Church is both infallible and more euident to me And what maruel if for an infallible authority more euident I beleeue an other though greater yet not so manifest As S. Ihon was sent to giue testimony of Christ Ioan. 1 v. 8. and yet far inferior to Christ Nether saith S. Austin That truth of Scripture is to be preferred before authority and consent of Catholiques But Bel added the worde Scripturs as though S. Austin meant that their truth could be knowne without the authority of Catholiques or be opposit vnto it which he manifestly denyeth Nether meaneth he of the truth of Scripturs which the Manichist against whom he wrote reiected almost wholy and he him selfe professeth he could S. Austin speaketh of most manifest and euident truth and such is not the Scriptures not take for truth if it were contrary to Catholiques but of any knowne truth in general which he saith and truly is to be preferred before al authority opposit vnto it because such authority is not infallible but false and deceitful And therfore he speaketh vppon supposition that if it were true which other where he auoucheth to be impossible that Manichists taught truth and Catholiques error then their truth vvere to be preferred before the name of Catholiques consent of nations and authority begun with miracles nourished vvith hope encreased vvith charity established vvith antiquity and succession of Priests euen from the seat of Peter to vvhom our Lord after his resurrection commanded his sheep to be fed vnto this present Bishop But saith the glorious Saint vnto maniches I after him to Protestants Amongst you only soundeth the promise of truth vvhich if it vvere so manifest as it could not be doubted of it vvere to be preferred before al things that hold me in the Catholique Church 24. His third vntruth of S. Austins promise is directly contrary to S. Austin in the S. Austin vvold not beleeue Maniche though he had manifest Scripture Sup. paragr 18. same place If saith he thou shalt read any manifest thing for Manichey out of the Ghospel I vvil beleeue nether them nor thee Not them because they lyed to me of thee Not thee because thou bringest me that Scripture vvhich I beleeued through them vvho haue lyed As for Bels reasons to proue that we beleeue nothing with deuine faith for authority of the Church they are easely answered For though the formal obiect of faith be the first verity yet not simply as it is in it selfe but as it is proposed vnto vs by the Church And therfore though we beleeue nothing but because it is spoken and reuealed by God yet because he speaketh not immediatly to vs by him selfe but by the mouth of his Church whome who so heareth heareth God and Luc. 10. v. 16. 1. Thess c. 2. v. 13. whose worde is not mans worde but truly Gods worde therfore faith is not without the testimony of the Church As for S. Austins authority it hath bene answered before as also his arguments which Bel bringeth against Traditions CHAP. X. Of the certainty of Apostolical Traditions THERE are certaine and vndoubted Apostolical traditions This is against Bel pag. 128 129. c. But I proue it because the traditions of the Byble to be Gods worde of the perpetual virginity of our B. Lady of the transferring of the Sabbath and such like are certaine and vndoubted Besids if in the law of nature and Moyses traditions were keapt certaine why not in the law of grace But more euident wil the conclusion be if we descend to perticuler traditions which Bel endeuoreth Bel p. 128. 129. to proue vncertaine First he setteth-downe this Proposition Vnwritten traditions are so vncertaine as the best learned papists are at great contētion about them This he proueth in the tradition of Easter about which contended S. Victor P. the Bishops of Asia aboue 1400 years agoe both earnestly alleadging Apostolical traditions Likewise S. Anicetus and S. Policarpe who liued al within 200. years after Christ when the Church was in good estate and stayned vvith fevv or no corruptions 2. Marke good Reader his conclusion and proofs therof and thou wilt
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.
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