Controversies handled in this book.  

1. Of the Pope's supremacy. Article 1. through out.  
2. Of the real presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar. Article 2. chap. 1. 2.  
3. Of the Sacrifice of Mass. Art. 2. chap. 3. 4. 5. 6.  
4. Of the Pope's dispensations. Article 3. through out.  
5. Of Original sin & concupiscence. Article 4. through out.  
6. Of merit of good works. Art. 8. through out.  
7. Of the distinction of mortal and venial sins. Art. 6. through out.  
8. Of the sufficiency of the holy Scripture. Art. 7. cap. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.  
9 Of the difficulty of Scripture. Ibid. chap. 6.  
10. Of the vulgar people's reading of scripture in vulgar tongues. Ibid. c. 7.  
11. Of the translating of holy Scripture into vulgar tongues. Ibid. c. 8.  
12. Of Traditions. Art. 7. chap. 9 10. 11. 12.  
13. Of the authority of late general counsels. ibid. chap. 13.  
14. Of the oaths of Bishops. Ibid. chap. 14.  
15. Of the possibility of keeping Gods commandments. Art. 8. through out.    

TO THE MOST HIGH AND MIGHTY PRINCE, JAMES By the grace of God King of great Brittany, France, and Ireland, defender of the Faith.  
IF S. Paul (Most Gracious Sovereign) being accused of the whole synagogue of the jews, by their Orator Tertullus of divers heinous crimes, both against Gods and the Prince's laws, found notwithstanding such equity in the heathen Precedent Festus, as that he answered his adversaries, that it was not the Romans custom to condemn 
Act. 2●  any man before he have his accusers present, and place to make his answer: and also such favour at the 
The like reporteth Plutarch of K. Alexan. the great. Act. 26.  jewish King Agrippa his hands, as he both licensed him to speak for himself, & afforded him favourable audience. Much more cause have your majesties Catholic Subjects, being accused of the ministers by a hired spokesman Bel, to expect the like, yea greater favour & equity at your Grace's hands. For if the Romans though Heathens, thought it injustice to condemn any particular man at the clamours of a whole nation, before his accusers were present and his defence were heard? And if King Agrippa, albeit 
He killed S. james and imprisoned S. Peter. Act. 12.  a jew & persecutor of Christians, deemed it notwithstanding a Prince's part to given audience to one accused of that Religion which he both hated and persecuted: How much more will a Christian Prince forbear to condemn the universal cause of his Catholic subjects at the slanders and outcries of ministers & one hired Proctor, before their accusers be brought face to face, and they have time and place granted to answer for themselves? wherein we shall account ourselves more happy than S. Paul, because we shall plead our cause, not before a jewish, but a Christian King, & such a one as better knowerh the questions and customs of the Christians, than King Agrippa did of the jews.  
Wherefore seeing that of late Thomas Bel (a fugitive once from Protestants religion, as he is now from Catholics) hath not only accused, but also maliciously slandered the universal Catholic cause, in a book which he hath dedicated to your Majesty, & termed it the Downfall of Popery, and withal challengeth, dareth, yea adjureth (in which case our B. Saviour 
Matth. 26.  though with danger of his life made answer) all English jesuits, Seminary Priests, and (as he speaketh) jesuited Papists to answer him. I have presumed upon your Gracious favour to accept his challenge, and am ready to perform it hand to hand, if your Majesty grant licence, and in the mean time, to dedicate to your Name this my confutation of his arguments and slanders. Wherein I speak not for myself as S. Paul did before King Agrippa, but for the religion of your own Progenitors and Predecessors, for the faith of our Forefathers, for the cause of all Catholics, and for the good (I dare say) of your Majesties own person & kingdoms. For though Bel calumniate Christian Kings and 
pag. 17.  Emperors with opening the window to all Antichristian tyranny, and Catholics generally, with thinking 
p. 1. 22.  Christ to be killed a thousand times a day and the like: yet especially he slandereth the Popes with usurping power proper to God, and to depose Princes, and dispose of their kingdoms at his pleasure, thereby to alienate your mind from the Sea Apostolic. wherein he not only abuseth your patience with telling you untruths, but greatly harmeth and endamageth yourself and Realm, by endeavouring through 
Vir Apostata pravo cord machinatur malum, omni tempore iurgia Seminat. ●ouer. c. 6.  his false slanders to avert your mind from the Popes, who have been the most ancient, most assured, and most beneficial friends, which the Kings & Realm of England ever had. Which thing that I may make manifest unto your Grace, I humbly beseech you give me leave to set down some praticular examples of the mutual amity, kind offices, & benefits, which have ever been betwixt the Popes and the Princes of this land. Wherein if I be somewhat longer than men in Epistles 
The love & benefits of Popes to England and Kings thereof. S. Peter P.  use to be, I hope that the variety and profit of the matter will make requital.  
Not long after the Apostolic Seat was settled in Rome, S. Peter the first Pope, about the 63. year of Christ came hither (as not only Grecians, but 
Metaphrast. tract. de Pet. & Paul. apud Lippoman. Cambden in descrip. Britan●● p. 52. And Nicephor. as he saith.  Protestants also confess) stayed here a long time, converted many Nations to Christ's faith, erected Churches, ordered Bishops, and Priests, and being admonished of an Angel, returned from hence to Rome to suffer Martyrdom. Neither was this love to our Country extinguished by death, but as he promised to some, so he had it 
2. Pet. 1.  also in mind after his death, and miraculously assisted it in the greatest distresses. So that truly wrote S. Sergius 
Malmesbur. lib. 1. Pont. Angl. p. 209.  1. Pope unto our Kings of England almost a thousand years ago, that S. Peter was mindful of them: & Pope Alexander 3. to King. Henry 2. 
●ugubin. de donat. Const.  that England was under S. Peter's protection ever since Christ's name was glorified there. For when our country about the year 611. began to Apostatate from the faith of Christ, and the Bishops were determined to forsake the land. S. Perer appearing to Saint Laurence Archbishop of Canturbury did severely rebuke and scourge him because he would abandon the flock which I (said S. Peter) committed unto thee. This miracle is so certain as some Protestant's confess it, & though 
Gadwin in the life of S. Laurence.  some others will not believe it, because they have neither seen nor put their singers into S. Laurence his wounds; yet it may suffice any indifferent man, that it was avouched by S. Laurence, believed by King Edbald & his people, 
lib. 2. hist. c. 6. Malmesb. lib. 1. Reg. & lib. 2. Pont. Huntingt. l. 3. Marian. A. 693. al. 617. Westman. 616.  who thereupon returned to the Chaistian faith, recorded by S. Beda above eight hundred years ago (who wrote nothing but what he knew him self or received from credible men, whose history was approved by the King of his days & by the Protestants 
Godwin in life of Tatwin. Cambd. in Britania. p. 12.  now) and finally it is contested & delivered by our best Chroniclers.  
Not long before, when the King had built a Monastery and Church in honour of S. Peter, where now westminster standeth, S. Peter came from heaven and consecrated (as by miracle he confirmed) the same church, promising that there he would hear the prayers of the faithful. Whereupon King Edward Conss: re-edified that church of new & chose it for the place of his sepulture, whom the most of his successors have imitated, and been there also crowned. Authors of this are Abbot Ealred, Malmesburiensis 
In vit. S. Eduardi. Malmesbur. l. 1. de Pont. See Savil ep. ad Reg. Elizab. ante Malmesbur. Epist. ad Eduard. R. apud Sur. Baron. An. 610.  (a man highly esteemed of Protestants) P. Nicolas 2. and others. In like manner when England was sore oppressed by the Danes, S. Peter was seen of Brithwald a holy B: of winchester, in a vision to anoint S. Edward Conss: King of England, and to foretell the years of his reign, and the end of the Danish fury, adding withal these most comfortable words. The kingdom of England is the kingdom of 
Loc. cit. Malmesb. lib. 2. reg. cap. 13. p. 91. lib. 8. histor. Angl.  God. This testify the foresaid Ealred, Malmesbury, Polidor, and others. If Protestant's object against my Authors, that they were Papists, I must confess (but to their shame) that I find no protestant writer before K. Henry 8. his time: yet such papists they are as protestants account some of them the singular 
Cambden in Britan. p. 12. & in Durham. Stow A-726. Bel in downefal p. 54. of S Beda. Savil of Masmesbur. Hunting. and Hoveden. epist. ante Malmesbur.  ornaments of England, especial friends of truth, and renowned through Christendom for virtue and learning, and others they call faithful recorders of things done, good and diligent Authors, and most true guides of the times past. Such also they are, as wrote long before protestants were, & therefore not upon any spleen against them: and finally such they are, as upon their authority principally dependeth all the credit of our English Chronicles. Others perhaps will say, that the foresaid histories are not in scripture. True: nor almost any thing else in all our Chronicles. Shall we therefote believe nothing but what God reporteth? I request no more, but that the foresaid matters be as well credited, as other things are, which the same Author's report.  
This affection and love towards England was not proper to S. Peter alone, but descended unto his successors. For when the sweet sound of the Gospel first preached here by him, had so increased, as it came to the ears of Lucius then King of this land, he sending to Rome for preachers, P. Eleutherius about the year 156. sent 
P. Eleutherius A. 156. S. Beda lib. 1. c. 4. Martyr. Rom. 26. Ado & Marian. in chronic. Westmon. A. 188. Stow 179.  hither S. Fugatius and S. Damian, who baptised the King, Queen, and almost all his people. Whereby our Country became the first, that publicly professed the faith of Christ, and there upon is called Primogenita Ecclesiae. The like charitable office performed also P. Victor unto Scotland 
P. Victor. 203. Boet. lib. 6. histor. Scot Genebr. chron. in Victore.  about the year 203. sending thither his legates at the request of King Donaldus, who converted the King together with the Q. and nobility And about the year 324. Pope Silvester 
P. Silvester. 324. Constant. in edicto Menolag. Graecor. call. jon. Huntingt. l. 1. hist. p. 306. Acta liberij. vita Siluestri.  having perfectly instructed our great Emperor Constantin, baptised him, and miraculously cured him of his leprosy, as the said Emp. and many others testify. Afterward when the Christian faith in Britain began to be infected with heresy, P. Celestin about 
P. Celestin. A. 432. Prosper in chron. An. 432. Baron. 429. Prosper An. 434. Beda l. 1. c. 13. Plat. in Celestino. Baron. Ann. 429. Cambden in Hibernia. Marian. in chron. Cambd. in Hibern.  the year 432. sent hither S. S. German and Lupus for to expel and confute the heresies, which they accomplished. And the same P. in the year 434. consecrated Palladius a Bishop, and sent him to Scotland, where as yet was no B: & not forgetful of Ireland, sent thither S. Patrick, who with miracles converted the Island, & deserved (saith Cambdin) the title of Apostle thereof. Thus continued the love of the Sea Apostolic towards our Country all the time that the Britons possessed it.  
But towards our English nation, after they had conquered this Island, 
Beda lib. 1. ●. 22.  it was far greater. For whereas not only the Britons refused, but the French also and other Christian nations 
Gregor. lib. 5. epist. 58. 59 Gadwin us life of S. Austin.  neglected, to preach unto our English ancestors, who ever until that time had been Pagans, & bondslaves (saith S. Beda) of Idols: only Rome 
lib. 2. c. 1.  put forth her helping hand to draw them out of that darkness & misery of Infidelity. For no sooner that blessed & holy father S. Gregory (as Gadwin 
P. Gregory. An. 596. loc. cit.  calleth him) understood that the Angles or English (whom for their beauty and his tender affection he called Angels) were Pagans, but forthwith he 
Beda lib. 2. c. 1. Malmesb. l. 1. Reg.  went to the P: (being himself yet a monk) and desired him to send Preachers into England, and offering himself to be one: And obtaining 
joan. Di●●. in vit. Gregor.  licence came on his voyadge towards England three days journey, but was recalled at the importunity of the Romans, who were unwilling to forego so worthy a man, nevertheless he forgot not his holy enterprise. For as soon (saith S. Beda l. 1. cap. 1.) as he was high Bishop over the whole world, he made our nation the Church of Christ, which had been ever until that time the bondslave of Idols. And in the year 596. 
Beda sup. Stow. An. 596. Godwin. sup.  sent hither S. Augustin with almost forty Monks more to preach, who being received of K: Ethelbert in short time converted both him & his Country. And that they preached the true faith and religion of Christ, appeared by the miracles they wrought in testimony thereof, which were so great, and many, as it seemed (saith S. Gregory) 
lib. 7. epist. 30.  that they imitated the virtues of the Apostles by the miracles they wrought, and are withal so certain, as they are not only testified by the said S. Gregory 
lib. 9 ep. 56. ●8. Beda lib. 1. c. 31. l. 2. c. 2. Apud Godwin. in vit. August. Godwin. sup. Stow An. 603. Cambd. in Britan. p. 104.  in divers places, S. Beda & other ancient writers, and by the Epitaph of S. Augustins tomb, but confessed also by divers Protestants. Again in the year 601. he sent more Preachers and with them all things necessary for the furniture and service of the Church, as holy vessels (saith S. Beda) Altar 
Beda lib. 1. c. 29.  clothes, apparel for priests and Clarcks, relics of holy Apostles and Martyrs, and many books, and a pall to S. Augustin to use only (writeth S. Gregory) at Mass, 
Apud Bed. sup.  appointed also him to be over all the Bishops and Priests of Britain, and gave him licence to institute 24. Bishoprics, whereof 12. should be under his province, and 12. under york. Besides he sent rich presents of 
Bed. lib. 1. c. 32. Gregor. lib. 9 epist. 59 60.  divers sorts, and letters unto the King and Queen, for to confirm them in their faith: and sent order also into 
Gregor. lib. 5. epist. 10.  France to buy such English youths as were there slaves, and to send them up to Rome there to be brought up in virtue & learning. Wherein he gave the example of the English Seminary which not long after, our English Kings founded in Rome. This was the exceeding love of this B. Pope towards our Nation, whom we may well, and must (saith S. Beda lib. 2. c. 1.) call our Apostle, and may lawfully pronounce of him that saying of the Apostle. 
1. Cor. ●.  Although he were not an Apostle to others, yet he was unto us: For the sign of his Apostleship we are in our Lord.  
Neither was this great good so happily begun and planted in our nation by S. Gregory and his Legates, neglected by the Popes his successors, but rather diligently watered and furthered by them, as appeareth by the letters 
Bed. lib. 2. c. 10. 11. Huntingt. l. 3. Bed. lib. 2. c. 17. Hunting. sup. Bed. lib. 4. c. 18. Hunt. l. 4. p. 335. Malmesbur. l. 1. Pontif. p. 197. Westm onast. A. 789. Malmesb. l. 2. Reg. p. 47. A. 804. P. Honorlus An. 635. Bed. l. 3. c. 7. Gadw. in vit. Birini. P. Vitalian. 668. Bed. lib. 4. c. 1. 2. Gadw. in vit. Theodori. Antonin. tit. 14. c. 4. paragr. 14. Lazius l. 3. de Cimmeri●s Ramus & Poeta German. apud Cambd. in Britan. p. 105. Polid. lib. 5.  & Messages of divers of them sent unto our Princes and Bishops to that purpose. as of P. Boniface 5. in the year 618. of P. Honorius in 633. of P. Agatho 679. P. Zacharie about 746. P. Adrian 789. P. Formosus 894. and others. But most of all it was increased by P. Honorius his sending hither in the year 635. that Apostolical man S. Birin, who converted the west Saxons: and by P. Vitalian, who in 668. sent hither those holy and great learned men S. Theodor and Adrian, by whose teaching Englishmen in short time became the rarest men, and best learned of their age, and the first founders of the universities in Paris, and Pavia, and consequently the chiefest fountains of the learning which hath been since in the west. After this time Eardulf King of Northumberland, being driven out of his kingdom & country, P. Leo 3. in the year 808. 
P. Leo 3. An. 808. Amoinus l. 4. c. 94. Regino in chron. Baron. 808.  sent Card: Adalph his legate into England, who with the help of Charles the greats Ambassadors, restored the King peaceably unto his kingdom. Not long after P. Leo 4. dispensed 
P. Leo 4. 855. Gathezelin in vit. S. Suithuni apud Sut. Baron. 855.  with King Ethelwal for to marry, which he being a Subdeacon could not do lawfully: & at the same kings request crowned his son Alfred 
Westmonast. 855. Baron. sup.  King, and adopted him for his son. who afterward, for his worthy deeds both in war & peace was surnamed the great, and for all things became the rarest Prince that England (and perhaps Christendom) ever had. Soon after in the year 883. at the suit of the King Alfred, the great P. Martin 
P. Martin. 1. 883. Westmonast. & Baron. A. 883. Gadwin in vit. Pleg.  1. released the tribute which the English school or Seminary then in Rome paid, & sent to the King many gifts, among which was a good piece of the holy Cross.  
In the year 990, when Richard: Marquis of Normandy had purposed to invade England, and make war upon king Ethelred, P. john 15. sent 
P. Ihon. 15. An. 990. Epist. apud Malmesb. l. 2. Reg. c. 10. Baron. An. 990.  his Nuntio and letters to take up the matter, who happily brought them to agreement: and about the year 1059. P. Nicolas the second granted to king 
P. Nicolas 2. 1059. Epist. ad Eduard. R. apud Sur. in cit. Eduardi.  Edward Conss. and his successors, advocationem & tuitionem omnium totius Angliae Ecclesiarum, the advouzon & protection of all the Churches in England. And in the year 1094. P. urban 2. in 
P. Vrban. 2. 1094. Malmesbur. l. 1. Pontif. p. 223. Gadwin in vit. Anselmi.  a council at Bari, appointed that S. Anselme Archbishop of Canterbury and his successors should sit in Counsels besides the Archdeacon of Rome, who sitteth before the P. adding these honourable words Includamus hunc in orb nostro tanquam alterius orbis Papam, whereas before it was unknown (saith Malmesbury) what place belonged to our Archbishop; & the same place did P. Paschal 2. confirm in a council at Rome about the year 1102. But besides this, divers other dignities have been granted to the Sea of Canturb: 
Malmesbur. sup. p. 208. 209.  by the Popes, as that it should be Primate over all Britain, and the B: legatinatis, 
Polid. lib. 13. Gadwin in vit. Theobaldi.  and other like dignities.  
Moreover in the year. 1098. the Scottish men (saith Genebrard out of 
Genebrard. chron. in Vrban. 2. Pascali 2. Leone 9  Mayor & Boethius two Scottish Chroniclers) obtained of P. Vrban 2. for their Prince, that he might have the name, title, and anointment of a king (which the Hungarians and Polonians 
Baron. An. 1000  had obtained for their Princes, about the year 1000) whereupon Edgar was then first anointed King of Scotland. And about 1107. P. Pascal 
P. Pascal. 2. 1107. Malmesbur. lib. 5. Reg. p. 163.  2. writing to king Henry 1. among other things promiseth so to favour him and his son, as who (saith he) hurteth you or him may seem to have hurt the Church of Rome. And in the year 1152. when K. Steephen (having usurped the Crown of England) would have caused the Bishops to Crown his son Eustace, thereby to exclude for ever the right heir Henry 2. Pope Eugenius 
P. Eugenius 3. An. 1152. Stow A●. 1152. Gadwin in vit. Theobaldi.  3. sent commandment to the Clergy not to meddle in that matter, whereby it was hindered. In the year 1160. P. Adrian 4. gave unto King 
P. Adrian. 4. 1160. Stow. An. 1160.  Henry 2. the dominion and regiment of Ireland, and sent unto him the Bull of his grant with a ring of gold in 
Westmon.  token of the investiture: which grant at the request of the said K. P. Alexander 3. 
P. Alexander 3. An. 1171. Hoveden. p. 1. Annal. p. 528. Polid. lib. 13. P. Lucius 3. 1185. Houed. p. 2. p. 628.  confirmed to him & his heirs. And as for P. Lucius 3. successor to the said Alexander, his good will appeareth by the great praise which he giveth to our English kings, whom he writeth to have far exceeded the rest of Christian Princes in warlike prows and nobleness of mind. Which affection continued also in his successor P. urban 3. of whom (as Hoveden 
P. Vrban. 3. An. 1185. part. 2. p. 631.  writeth) K: Henry 2. obtained many things, whereof one was that he might crown which of his sons he would of the kingdom of Ireland, which he 
Stow. Ann. 1185.  confirmed by a bull, and in token of his good will & confirmation, sent to him a crown. And lastly P. Clement the 
P. Clement. 3. An. 1189. Howed. p. 2. pag. 652. Westmonast. A. 1189.  third in the year 1189. when, not only the French king, but also his sons and Nobles had conspired against the said K: & invaded his dominions with a far greater power than he was able to resist, sent a Cardinal to exhort them to peace, who excommunicated the hinderers of the peace, and threatened to interdict the French kings country unless he made peace with England.  
Likewise in the year 1193. when K: Richard Ceur de lion was taken prisoner, as he came from the holy land by the Duke of Austria, P. Celestin 3. 
P. Celestin. 3. A. 1193. Westmon. Ann. 1193. Stow 1195. Polid. l. 14.  at the K: request excommunicated the D: and enjoined him to release the covenants which he had constrained the K: to make, and to send home the pledges: who not obeying the Pope he soon after died miserably, and was left unburied until his son had sent home the pledges, and sworn to stand to the judgement of the Church. And in the year 1207. P. Innocent 3. 
P. Innocent. 3. An. 1207. Stow Ann. 1207.  sent to K: john an eloquent Epistle and divers precious jewels. And in the year. 1215. when the Barons had extorted from the said king certain charters and liberties, the P. at the Kings request disannulled them, and 
Stow 1195. 1296. 1297. Gadwin in vit. Steph. Langton. Polid. lib. 15. 16.  excommunicated the Barons which had rebelled against him, & when the said Barons had called in Lewis the Prince of France, chosen him their King, and yielded the chiefest Cities & holds into his hands, so that England was in evident danger to be lost, the P. sent his Legate to assist king john, and to forbid the French upon pain of excommunication to enter into England, which he stoutly performed. Also in the year 1253. P. Innocent 4. 
P. Innocent. 4. An. 1253. Coming ventura nella relat. de Napoli. Polid. lib. 16. Stow A. 1254.  bestowed the Royal title and right of the kingdoms of Naples and Sicily upon Edmond son to K: Henry 3; and sent by a Cardinal the investiture thereof. And 1257. P. Alexander 4. 
P. Alexander 4. Ann. 1257. Westmon. An. 1259.  sent Messengers unto Richard brother to the said king, for to assure him of the Imperial dignity and to exhort him to go into Germany to receive it, which he did, and was crowned king of Romans at Aquisgran. And in the year 1292. when the Barons had wrested out of the said K. hands certain liberties, P. Vrban 4. at the 
P. Vrban. A. 1262. Stow Ann. 1262. 1264.  king's suit, sent a Legate to accurse the Barons that had rebelled in defence of the said liberties.  
Again in the year 1272. at the request of king Edward 1. P. Gregory 
P. Gregory 10. An. 1272. Westmon. An. 1272. Polid. lib. 17.  10. excommunicated Guy of Monfort for killing the king's Cousin German in a church at Viterbo, and condemned him of wilful and privy murder, of Sacrilege and treason, declared him to be infamous, and incapable of any office in the commonwealth, and disherited his posterity unto the fourth generation, and excommunicated all those that entertained him and interdicted their dominions. And in the same king's time was Cambridge of a 
Cambden in descript. Cantabrig. p. 435. ex Remington. p. Clement. 5. 1311. Clement. ●it. de Mag●st. c. 1.  school made an university by the P. & soon after in the year 1311. under king Edward the second P. Clement 5. appointed that in Oxford should be read two lectures of the Hebrew, Arabic, and Chaldaic tongue, and authorised it for one of the famousest universities in Christendom. Also in 
P. Ihon. 22. An. 1316. Polid. lib. 17. Stow. An. 2316.  the year 1316. P. john 22. at K: Edward 2. his request, sent two Legates to make peace betwixt England and Scotland, and to reconcile Thomas Earl of Lancaster to the King, who excommunicated the Scots, because they would not agree to peace. And in the same year at the king's petition, the P. confirmed all the ancient privileges of the university of Cambridge, which of long time they had enjoyed by the benefit (writeth Stow) of the 
Stow. 1317.  Pope's predecessors.  
Moreover in the year 1489. Pope 
P. Innocent. 8. A. 1489. Stow. Ann. 1486.  Innocent the eight sent a Nuntio to take up the variance betwixt the King of Scotland and his people, but before his arrival the King was slain. And about the year 1504 When there arose a contention between K: Henry 7. & Ferdinand King of Spain about the precedence, P. julius 2. having 
P. julio 2. A. 1504 Valaterran. Coming ventura. Stow ib.  heard both their Ambassadors gave sentence for the King of England. And in the year 1505. sent to the said King a sword & Cap of maintenance, as to a defender of the Church. But as no King of England deserved better of the Sea Apostolic then K: Henry 8. did for a long time, so none received more honour from thence then he did. For he received not only from P. julius 2. in the year 1514. a sword and 
Stow 1514.  Cap of maintenance, for defending him against the French king; But also of Pope Leo 10. in the year 1521. 
P. Leo 10. A. 1521. Stow A. 1521 Onuphr. chron. 1520.  the most honourable title of defender of the faith, for defendig by writing the Catholic faith against Luther. Which title as it is more honourable than the titles of most Christian, or Catholic, given likewise by Popes to the French K: and K. of Spain: so was it ever highly estiemed of K. Henry, and by him caused to be engraven 
Stow did see it. An. 1547.  on his tomb, where he left the title out of his Supremacy.  
And though Q. Elizabeth had utterly cast of the Pope's friendship, yet he forsook not her. For Pius 4. supposing 
P. Pius 4. A. 1560.  that she had revolted from that Sea, rather for fear lest her title to the crown might be called in question, because one P. had before declared her birth, to be unlawful, then for dislike of the religion which in her father and sister's days she had professed, sent a Nuntio to promise her all favour touching her title to the crown: And soon after an other, to request her to send her divines to the Council of Trent with promise of all security and liberty. Neither may I leave your Majesty out of the number of the Princes of this land, who have tasted the love & friendship of the Sea Apostolic: Because 
P. Clement. 8. 1603.  out of your own grateful mind, you have publicly professed, your 
Proclamat. ●● 1. ●egni.  self beholding unto P. Clement 8. for his temporal carriage, and divers kind offices towards your Majesty. Besides he hath (as it is reported) censured all such as shall molest your grace, and hath often times professed that he would willingly give his life for the eternal good of our country. Which is the greatest love that one can bear (as our Saviour testifieth) unto his friend. Oh how great enemies are they unto England, who seek by false slanders to make such friends odious unto us.  
By this which hath been said (omitting much more for brevity) your Majesty clearly seethe, how greatly and how continally the Sea Apostolic hath ever favoured the Christian Princes of this land: how many and how great benefits both spiritual and temporal, Popes have bestowed upon them, and in their dangers and distresses according to their power assisted them. Weigh (I beseech your grace) in the balance of your Princely wisdom, the foresaid benefits, with such as yourself or Auncitors have received from the rest of Christendom, and 
Pope's have benefited Engl. more than all Christendom besides.  you shall find that the Sea Apostolic alone, hath more benifyted England, than all Christendom beside, and consequently that the forsaking of the Pope's friendship hath more endamaged your Realm, then if it had forsaken the rest of Christendom. But especially (I humbly beseech your Majesty) weigh them with such as Bel, or any minister can show you to have received, from their two seats of pestilence in witenberge and Geneva. What kingdoms have they bestowed upon you? unto what imperial or Royal dignity have they exalted you? from what Paganism have they converted your land? what enemies have they appeased? what assistance have they afforded you in any need? what good, little or great have they brought to this land? Now what mischief have they not brought? That 
Bel in his own judgement was both an Apostata and Traiter while he was Priest.  one Apostata, and firebrand of sedition Knox, sent from Geneva, brought more mischief to your Grandmother, your B. mother, to your father, and Kingdom of Scotland, than I can rehearse, or your Majesty without great grief can remember. Ministers pretend the love of the Gospel, as the cause of persuading you from friendship with the Pope: But yet dissuade not from friendship with the Turk. They pretend also your grace's 
See Conser. at Hampton Court. p. 80. 81.  security: But the true cause indeed your Majesty descried & discovered in Knox, to wit their own security & advancement, which they fear would be endangered, if you kept your ancient, and surest friend, and therefore with your loss (as your majesty perceived in your Grandmothers case) they work their own wealth and security. And thus much of the Popes. 
The lave & benefits of the British Kings to the Sea Apostolic. Note this.   
As for the Christian Princes of this land, though they have been of four different, and most opposite nations, to wit Britons, English, Danes, and Normans, yet have they all agreed in keeping the league of friendship with the Pope, being officious unto him, & accounting him their especial friend. Of the British kings of this land first 
K. Lucius A. 156. Beda lib. 1. c. 4.  is King Lucius, whose particular affection towards the Sea Apostolic, is evident, by that he neglecting other Christian Churches near unto him, he sent so far as to Rome for Preachers. As for Constantin the great 
Constantin Mag. 324.  (the immortal glory of the British kings) his extraordinary love and affection unto the Sea of Rome is more notorious than I need rechearse. For he not only gave unto the Pope the government of Rome, and of a good part of the west (as besides himself, and Latin historiographers, 
Constant. in edicto. Isidor. Eugubin de donat. Constant. Grat. d. 69. Iuo. Genebr. in chron. Photius seu Balsam. in nomoran. R. Abraham in Zikron Dibre Romi. Abben Estra 11. Daniel. Cadualader. Polid. lib. 3.  both Greecks and jews professed enemies to the Pope do testify) but also served him as a lackey holding his stirrup and leading his horse by the bridle. Cadwallader also the last British king in England, having left his country went no whither but to Rome, and there ended his days. And if the histories of those ancient times were more perfect, or the Britons had reigned longer in this Island, no doubt but we should have more examples of their devotion to the Sea of Rome, as appeareth by 
Solomon A. 869. Argenteus. histor. Brit. lib. 2. c. 27. Baron. An. ●●9.  Solomon their King in little Britain, after they had been driven hence by the Saxons; who writing to Pope Adrian the second beginneth his letter thus. Domino ac beatissimo Apost: sedis Rom: Hadriano, Solomon Britanorum Rex flexis genibus inclinatoque capite. And sendeth him his statue in gold, with divers rich gifts and money, promiseth a yearly pension, and acknowledgeth his Royal title to have been given to him by Popes. This was the love of the British kings unto the Sea Apostolic.  
To the British kings succeeded the 
The love & benefits of the English Kings. K. Ethelbert An. 596. Beda lib. ●. c. 25.  Saxons or English, as well in their love and reverence to the Sea of Rome, as in their kingdom. For king Ethelbert at the very first received S. Gregory his Legates very courteously, provided them of all things necessary, and freely licenced them to preach, using these gracious words worthy to be imitated of your Majesty in the like case. For so much as you are come so far to impart unto us such knowledge as you take to be true, we will not trouble you, but rather with al courtesy receive you. After him king Ofwin having 
K. Oswin. A. 665.  perfectly learned that the Church of Rome (saith S. Beda) was the Catholic 
Lib. 3. c. 29.  and Apostolic Church, sent thither in the year 665. a Priest to be consecrated Archbishop of Canterbury. And in a conference about the observation of Easter, hearing that the keys of heaven were given to S. Peter, concluded thus. I will not gain 
Bed. lib. 3. c. 25. Bar. An. 664.  say such a Porter as this is, but as far as I know and am able, I will covet in all points to obey his ordinance. And in the year 670 he bore (saith S. Bede) such love and affection 
lib. 4. cap. 5.  to the Apostolic Sea of Rome, as if he might have escaped his sickness, he purposed to go to Rome, and to end his life in those holy places there.  
But what he could not through death perform, the valiant Prince King Cedwalla did in the very flower 
K. Cedualla. An. 689.  of his age and prosperity. For in the year 689. forsaking his kingdom (saith S. Beda) he went to Rome, thinking it to 
Beda lib. 5. c. 7.  be a singular glory, and renown for him to be regenerated with the Sacrament of Baptism at the Sea Apostolic. And withal conceived hope, that as soon as by baptism he was cleansed from sin, he should departed from this world to immortal joy. Which by God's providence was performed, and he honourably buried by the Pope in S. Peter's Church. Not long after him, to wit in the year 709. two English Kings Coenred and 
K. Coenred and Offa. 709.  Offa forsook their kingdoms, went to Rome, and there became Monks, 
Lib. 5. cap. 10. Baron. 709. Huntingt. l. 4. p. 337. Malmesb. 1. reg. c. 6. Marian. chro. Westmonast. 710. Sigeb. 707. Polid. lib. 4. Fox. l. 2. K. Ina. An. 726. Lib. 5. cap. 7. Baron. 726. Ethelwead l. 2. c. 13. Huntingt. l. 4. p. 338. Malmefbur. l. 1. Marian. chron. Stow 685. Fox. l. 2. Westmon. An. 727. Geneb. 741. Polid. lib. 4. Stowv in Ina.  continuing (saith S. Beda) at the Apostles tombs in praying, fasting, & dealing alms until their dying day. Ina al. Hun successor to K. Cedwal in his kingdom, succeeded him also in his devotion to the Sea Apostolic, for after he had reigned (saith S. Beda) 37. years he gave over his kingdom, & went himself to the tombs and monuments of the Apostles in Rome, as in those days many English both of the Nobility and Commons, spiritual and temporal men and women were want to do with great emulation. Neither went he only to Rome, but became there a Monk, and was the first that paid the Peter pence, appointing that every householder of his kingdom, who 
English Seminary in Rome almost 900. years ago.  had thirty penny worth of cattle of one sort, should pay yearly one penny to Rome: which money was partly for the P. partly for the maintenance of an English school or Seminary which 
Westmon. A. 727. 794.  he then built in Rome for bringing up of English youths there in virtue and learning.  
Not long after about the 750. year S. Richard K. forsook his kingdom, 
S. Richard K. A. 750. Sur. 7. Februar. Baron. 750.  & leaving his two sons in Germany with S. Boniface an Englishman the Pope's Legate there, went himself in Pilgrimage to R. but dying in the way at Luca is there honourably buried. And the year 775. King Offa though 
K. Offa. An. 775. Fox l. z. Martyr.  a warlike Prince, gave over his kingdom, went to Rome, and there became a Monk: and imitating the example of King Ina, increased the English 
See Malmesbur. l. 2. reg. c. 2. p. 38. Westmon. An. 794. Bar. 775. Polid. l. 4 Hunting. l. 4. p. 342. Greg. 7. l. 8. ep●st vlt. Baron. A. 782.  Seminary begun by him, and imposed the like pension of Peter pence upon his kingdom of Mercia: as Charles the great about the same time imposed upon France the like tribute to be paid to Rome. The love and affection of King Kenulph, a worthy 
K. Kenulph. An. 808. Annal. Fran. Baron. 808. Malmesbur. 1. Reg. c. 4. p. 30. 33.  Prince, and successor to King Offa, appeareth by his redeeming the Pope's Legate taken of Pirates in the year 808. and by his submissive letter to the Pope, wherein he humbly craveth his blessing, as all his predecessors had, desireth to be adopted for his son, as I (saith the King) love you like a father, & embrace you with all obedience. And protested to be willing to spend his life for the Pope.  
After him King Ethelwolph in the 
K. Ethelwolph. An. 855. Westmon. Baron. 855. Ethelwerd lib. 3. cap. 3. Srow Ingulphus.  year 855. went to Rome, took with him his best beloved son Alfred, for to be instructed (saith westmonaster) of the Pope in manners and religion, where he abode a whole year, and procured his son to be crowned of the Pope and adopted of him for his son, he also notably repaired the English Seminary 
Malmesb. l. 2. cap. 2. p. 38. Stow Ann. 839.  at Rome, which had been burnt a little before, and confirming gifts of K. Ina, and Offa, imposed 
Malmesbur. sup. Marian. 877. Platina in Leone 4.  the pension of Peter pence upon all England, which was afterward paid until the later end of K: Henry 8. About the same time King Burdred leaving 
K. Burdred. Ethelwead l. 4. c. 3. Malmesb. l. 1. c. 4. p. 33. Ingulph. Stow 875. K. Ganute a Dane 1032. Malmesb. l. 2. cap. 1. Ingulph. Polid. l 7. Huntingt. lib 6. Stow in Canute. Marian. A. 1033.  his kingdom went to Rome, and was there buried in the English school. Neither would King Canute, though a Dane be found ungrateful to the Sea Apost: but went to Rome in the year 1032. confirmed the payment of the Peter pence, gave great gifts of gold silver, and precious things to S. Peter, & obtained of Pope john immunity for the English Seminary. And finally K. Edward Conf: the last but 
K. Eduard. Conf. An. 1056. Ealted in vit. eius.  one of the Saxon blood, would have gone to Rome in Pilgrimage, had not his people upon fear of the Danes invasion hindered him, yet sent he Ambassadors to the Pope with great presents, and confirmed all the duties & customs belonging to him in England. And thus continued the English Kings all the time of their reign in singular affection, and devotion to 
The love & benefits of the Norman Kings.  the Sea Apostolic.  
To whom as the Norman Princes succeeded, so they followed them in their piety and religion. For beside that they paid the Peter pence, in particular K. william Conqueror having 
K. W. Conqueror. An. 1066. Stow in Herald.  subdued England, and slain K. Herald in the year 1066. sent strait his standard to the Pope, as to his peculiar 
K. Henry 1. Malmesb. l. 1. Pont. p. 226.  friend. And K. Henry 1. professed by his Ambassador to P. Paschal 2. that England was a peculiar province of the Church of Rome, and paid unto her yearly tribute. King Henry 2. about the year 
K. Henry 2. An. 1180. Genebr. in chron. 1180.  1180. together with Lewis King of France led P. Alexander's horse, and with great pomp conducted him 
K. Richard 1. Polid. lib. 14. Genebr. 118. Stow.  through the City Tociacum. K. Richard Ceur de Lion at the exhortation of the P. went in person to the holy land, with an army of 30. thousand foot, and five thousand horse: in which voyage he conquered the kingdom of Cyprus, & city of Ptolemais, and overthrew the soldan in a great battle; and the like enterprise afterward undertook K. Edward the 
K. Henry 2. An. 1241. Stow An. 1241.  first in the year 1241. King Henry 3. placed the Pope's Legate in the most honourable room of the table at a public banquet in Christmas betwixt himself and the archbishop of york: And afterward with great pomp (saith Stowe) and innumerable company of Nobles, and trumpets sounding before, brought him to the Sea. How devout K. Richard 2. and Englishmen 
K. Richard 2. Stow An. 1407.  in his time were to the Sea of Rome, appeareth by their building an hospital there, for receipt of English Pilgrims (instead of the foresaid Seminary which as it seemeth was destroyed in that great burning of Rome in the year 1084) in the place where S. Thomas of Canturbury had before built a chapel in honour of the B. Trinity. This hospital was afterward in the reign of K. Henry 6. and Henry 7. re-edified, and much increased, and lastly in the year 1570, was much beautified and augmented both in buildings and revenues by P. Gregory 13. and by him converted to the ancient use of a Seminary, retaining still the obligation of an hospital.  
The affection of K. Henry 4. appeareth 
K. Henry 4. A. 1409. Stow Ann. 1409.  by his letter to the Pope A. 1409. which he beginneth thus. Most holy father our humble recommendations in filial wise premised. And afterward, having taken with our said son, and also with our Prelates and Nobles mature deliberation, we beseech with all humility & require your clemency (whose state and honour upon divers causes as a devout son of the Church so far as we might with God, we have ever embraced and do embrace) by the express and whole assent of the estates aforesaid etc. And as for King Henry 5. he in the year 1416. sent his 
K. Henry 5. An. 1416. Stow Ann. 1416.  Ambassadors to the general Council at Constance, at whose procurement it was there ordained that England (saith 
Note this.  Stowe) should obtain the name of a nation & be said one of the five Nations that own their devotion to the Church of Rome, which thing until that time men of other Nations for envy had letted. Behold what an honour K. Henry 5. the Alexander of England, and Conqueror of France, and England in his most flourishing & triumphant time, accounted it to owe devotion to the Church of Rome. Which now Ministers would accounted so dishonourable. And as for K. Henry 
K. Henry 7. An. 1505.  7. your majesties great grandfather, his affection is evident by the sword and cup of maintenance sent to him from the Pope, & spoken of before.  
But none of the kings of the Norman blood ever showed so great signs of love & affection to the Sea Apostolic as K. Henry 8. did for a long time 
K. Heury 8. A. 1511. 1521. Stow 1511. 1512. 1513. Onuphr. in jul. 2.  for first in the year 1511. he wrote to the French K. to desist from molesting Pope julius 2. and in the next year sent an army of ten thousand men into France for the Pope's defence. And in the year 1513. went himself in person with a royal army & conquered Turwin and Turnay. And not content to defend the Pope with his sword, in the year 1521. wrote an excellent book 
Stow An. 1521.  in his defence against Luther. And again in the year. 1527. when Pope Clement 7. was taken prisoner by the Emperor's soldiers, he gave monethlie 
Stow An. 1532.  60. thousand Angels to the maintenance of an army, for the Pope's delivery. And in this singular affection towards the Sea Apostolic continued he until the 22. year of his reign 
Stow 1530. & deinceps.  An. 1530. when not upon any injury offered by the P. or dislike of his religion, which (except the matter of supremacy) he defended to his death, and persecuted the Protestants, but only upon occasion of delay (saith Stowe) made by the Pope in his controversy of divorcement, and through displeasure of such reports, as he heard had been made of him to the court of Rome, and thirdly pricked forward by such counsellors to follow the example of the Germans, he first forbade the procurement of any thing from Rome, and soon after prohibited all payments and appeals to Rome, and lastly took upon him that supremacy which all his Christian predecessors had acknowledged to be in the Pope.  
Thus your Majesty seethe how long, how honourably, and how profitably also unto both parties, hath the mutual amity and league of friendship, betwixt the Sea Apost. and the Princes of all the four Nations, that have swayed the Sceptre of England continued and flourished: & how of late it was broken by one Prince upon mere passion, contrary to the example of all his Predecessors and Successors also, except one child and a woman. What dangers and troubles he and his kingdom incurred thereby, and how his progeny (according as Friar Poeto did then foretell him) is now consumed, and his Crown translated to an other Royal line, against which in his time he made sharp war, I need not here declare. Only I will say, that himself being after more free from passion, laboured to be reconciled to the Sea Apostolic and employed therein B. Gardener (as he professed in a sermon at Paul's Cross) and had easily obtained it, if he would have acknowledged his fault and done penance. What remaineth for me to conclude this long epistle, but prostrate at your majesties feet humbly to beseech you for your own good, and in the name of the foresaid Christian Princes, that as you are the head of the fieft Nation, which (according to God's providence foretold by a holy man 
Hunting. l. 6. p. 359.  many hundred years ago) hath attained to the rule of this land, so you would continue that most ancient, honourable, and profitable league of friendship, which was betwixt them all and the Sea Apostolic; who (I beseech your grace) will give you more faithful council, than your own Progenitors and forefathers? who can give you more safe and secure direction in government of your kingdom, than your own Predecessors, who so happily, and so long time governed it? who are so worthy to give you example, or whom can you with so much honour imitate, as so many, so valiant, so prudent Princes? and yet they all with one voice, counsel and request you, to follow in this so important a matter, not so much themselves, as the council of the wisest King that ever was, yea of God himself in these words. Thine own 
Proverb. 27.  friend and thy father's friend see thou forsake not, especially such a one, as hath ever been not only your own friend, and particularly your B. mother's friend, but of all your Christian forefathers. Who as they have left unto your grace their Crown and kingdom; so have they also bequeathed their faith religion & friendship with the Sea Apostolic, as no small portion and stay of their inheritance. We estieme your public acknowledging of Rome to be the Mother Church, and yourself to be beholding to P. Clement 8. for his temporal carriage and kind offices, as sparks of a greater fire of love enkindled in your Princely heart towards that Sea, which we beseech almighty God so to increase, as it may one day burst forth to your own good, and the universal joy of Christendom. Our Lord jesus long preserve your Majesty with all grace, health, and prosperity  
Your majesties dutiful Subject and daily Orator. S. R.   

THE EPISTLE TO THE CHRISTIAN READER.  
AS no water (Christian Reader) waxeth so could, as that which hath been once hot: no enemies become so cruel to a common wealth, as Rebels who have been once subject: So none are so eager adversaries to God's Church as Apostates, 
S. Maximus serm. de Apost.  who have once been her members, and children. Amongst Heretics none more earnest against the Apostles than the 
S. Hieron. de Scriptor. in Petro.  first Apostata Simon Magus, who dared to encounter hand to hand with the principal Apostle S. Peter, and laboured to seduce by 
Baron. Annal. An. 68  his magik, whom he by miracles had converted. Amongst the Tyrants, and persecutors 
Nazianz. orat. 1. in julian. Theodoret. lib. 3. c. 21.  none more cruel than julian the Apostata, who by blood endeavoured to wash away his Christendom, and both by sword, & pen laboured all he could, not only to extinguish the religion, but also the very name, and memory of Christians. Amongst Philosopher's none more vehement than 
Porphirius & julian. rabidi in Christum canes. Hieron.  Porphyry the Apostata, who writ fifteen books against Christian religion, and for his singular hatred thereof was surnamed tou Christianon polemios the Christians adversary. And in these our miserable days none have been so spiteful, so malicious, so vehement against Catholics either in persecuting, speaking, or writing, as they who have been once Catholics. And in England now none showeth himself, so forward, or so vehement against Catholics as the Apostata Bel, daring, challenging and adjuring all Papists jointly, and severally to the combat with him, being desirous as it seemeth of the title of ton catholicon polemios. The Catholics adversary.  
These Apostates be like to him, who 
Luc. 11. v. 25. 26.  being delivered of one devil, the house cleansed with beesoms and trimmed up, was afterward possessed with seven devils 
See S. Ireney lib. 1. c. 13.  worse than the former, and his end made worse than his beginning. For such is the estate of this miserable caitive Bel, who being once delivered from the devil of Heresy, cleansed with the besom of confession, and Penance, and trimmed with patiented sufferance for the Catholic faith, falling afterward to idleness, and dissolute life, whereof himself since hath boasted, is possessed again of his old devil of Heresy accompanied with seven other wicked spirits of blasphemy, railing, pride, slandering, lying, dissembling, and abusing of Gods and holy Father's words, and his end become far worse than his beginning was. His spirit of blasphemy he descryeth in many places as p. 149. where he saith that God hath given us those commandments which we can not possibly keep. This the holy Father S. Hierom both calleth, and accutseth as 
S. Hieron. epist. ad Damasc. de exposi. ione fidei.  blasphemy in these words. We curse their blasphemy who say that God hath commanded to man any impossible thing. And no marvel. For what reason can there be in God to command 
Quod rationem non habet dici non debuit. S. Eugenius apud Victorem de persecut. vandal. l. 2.  a thing which he knoweth can not be done? what fault in us not to do that which can not be done? what justice in him to punish, and that with eternal death, the not performance of that which can not be performed? If never there was man so void of reason as would command a thing, which he knew could not be done, never Tyrant so cruel as would punish with temporal death the unperformance of impossible matters, shall we think it no blasphemy to God, to attribute that to him which we can not imagine that any man who hath any spark of reason, or humanity would attempt? Having thus blasphemed against God no marvel if he blaspheme against his Church of late days saying. p. 134. that she is no sufficient witness of his truth, & p. 41. against our justification calling it supposed holy whereby he giveth us to understand that as he is fallen from God and his Church, and lost holy justification, so he is an enemy to them al.  
His railing spirit he could so ill master, as in the very first period of his epistle to the 
Epistle to the King.  King, without respect of his Majesty he must needs call us the cursed brood of traitorous jesuits, and straight after speaking ex abundantia cordis, and reviling especially against the jesuits, who have been his masters, he avoucheth them to be traitorous, seditious, brutish, barbarous, cruel, villainous, most bloody, treacherous, proud, cruel, tyrants, firebrands of all sedition, thieves, murderers, right Machevels, coosiners, malicious, and dependers upon the devil. And of this Rhetorik I expect good store for my part, but the more the merrier, such reproachful terms in this quarrel shall be to me super millia auri, & argenti. His pride is more notorious than I need show it. For if it were pride in Goliath though a Giant to challenge any of God's host, what is it in this puny, not only to challenge, but to adjure all Papists severally and jointly, being himself not worthy to carry the books after many of them, as shall appear by his manifold ignorance, not only in devinity, 
See the Index.  but also even in Latin, principles of Logik, Histories, and Preaching, as shall be made manifest in this answer.  
His slanders reach even from the highest 
pag. 17.  to the lowest, Kings and Emperors he slandereth with no les matter than opening the window to all Antichristian tyranny. 
Bells ingratitude.  Popes (who long time manteined him at school) with challenging power equal 
p. 16. 40. 106.  to God, with dispensing with one to marry his full sister, with burning the Scripture, and the like. And Papists he slandereth 
p. 22.  with killing Christ a thousand times a day, with affirming that the Pope can depose Kings and Emperors, and translate their 
p. 1.  Linpires and regalities at his good will and pleasure, with attributing to the Pope power equal to God, thinking the breach 
p. 16. p. 130.  of Lent to be a greater sin than adultery perjury, or murder. His other three spirits, of lying, dissembling, and abusing God's word every where show themselves in his books, and now and then are noted in my answer.  
No marvel therefore if one possessed of so many, and so wicked spirits be so forward, so spiteful, so malicious, against Catholics, as to calling, & adjure them all jointly or severally to the combat with him. Oh that I would please his Majesty to admit this combat, that Bel, & I (the weakest of many thousands of God's soldiers) might try the truth, not by writing, which blusheth not (as Tully said) but face to face as the Bishop of Eureux, and Plessy did before the French King. I doubt not but if there were any blood in Bells body, or any shame of men in his mind, I should make it appear in his face. But whiles this combat must be fought a far of, only by paper shot, and writing and our writings kept from the view of the people, no marvel if Bel fear no shame of men, whiles they may see him fight, & flourish, but must not behold either defence or blows of his adversary.  
If he be so confident in his Heresy (which he once vomited forth, and now like the dog hath licked up again) as he maketh show of, why hath he not in all this time of his Apostasy procured licence for public disputation? or at , why never repaired he to the Catholic Priests in prison? Let him procure but one such safe conduct for Priests as the council of Trent granted 
Sess. 13. 15. 18.  three or four to Protestant's (when none of our English Ministers durst accept it) & he shall not need to challenge, or adjure, but shall be dared at his own door. For Priests who willingly spend their blood in testimony of the truth which they teach, will far sooner spend their breath in defence thereof, & are ready (to make the like offer 
Epistle to the King.  as Bel doth in a different matter) to justify it before indifferent judges against him, or what Protestant soever upon peril of their lives, if their adversaries will adventure the like peril. And upon this condition Bel I challenge thee, and adjure thee, accept it if thou darest. What more could have been done to bring this so weighty a matter, whereupon dependeth the eternal salvation of so many millions of souls to trial face to face, then hath been done of Catholics by speaking, by writing, by petition, by supplication? Puritan upon one only supplication have been admitted to Conference, Catholics can upon none. And this is that which maketh Bel so bold to challenge us to the open combat, when he knoweth we can not appear in open show, but upon hazard of our lives. And I would to God that with danger, yea with loss of life we might be licenced publicly to try this truth so important to the eternal life of our dearest countrymen. But seeing there is no hope of this, when I red Bells challenge it seemed to me not only an unlearned thing, patched up of objections gathered out of Bellarmin, and learnedly answered by him, but a witless challenge of some coward, who seeing his enemy commanded upon pain of death to keep his house, challengeth him to the open field, and more like to condemn the Author of folly, and vanity; then the Catholic religion of falsity before any discreet, & judicious Reader. Nevertheless because (as I understood some months after the publishing of it) some unadvised Protestants hearing Bells glorious vaunts and challenge, had conceived great hope of this their Champion, & thought his book unanswerable, I took it in hand not knowing as than that any other would vouchsafe to 
Author of the Forerunner of Bells downefal.  meddle with it, & have left to my knowledge no one point therein unanswered, attending more to solve what he objecteth, then to confirm what Catholics mantein, though this also I have done sufficiently (as I hope) for my intended brevity.  
He termeth this challenge a downfall of 
What Bell impugneth.  Popery and yet in the greatest part thereof impugneth no point of Popery, but either particular opinions of private men, or (which is worse) false imputations of his own, being so desirous of quarreling, as he fighteth with his own shadow. And what he impugneth he doth with so good success, as almost in every Article he over throweth 
With what success.  what he meant to establish, and confirm. So that if he had given his book the right name he should have called it the downfall of Bells foolery. Of these eight Articles which he hath picked out as most advantageous for himself, & in which there are some things, which as S. Austin speaketh l. de util. cred. c. 1. to. 6. may be impugned to the common people's 
S. Austin.  capacity, but not be defended by reason of their difficulty but of few. In the first he impugneth the Pope's superiority over all Princes on 
pag. 1.  earth, and his power to depose them at his good will, and pleasure. whereof the first is but the opinion of some few Canonists commonly rejected of all catholics, and disproved at large by Bellarmin, whose doctrine Bel accounteth the Pope's own doctrine, & saith it is approved by him. The second no catholic holdeth, but it is Bells false slander of catholics. In the second omitting 
p: 19  the question of the being of Christ's body in the blessed sacrament, he impugneth the being of his quantity therein as a thing (saith he) held of all papists as an article of their faith, which is untrue, as is declared in the answer. In the third he inveigheth 
pag. 37.  against the Pope's power to dispense in matrimony before it be consummated, which likewise is an opinion of Canonists, & commonly refuted of Catholic divines. In the fift omitting true merit which is a point of faith, he impugneth condign merit as a thing defined by the Council of Trent 
p: 75.  which it is not. In the seventh Article in steed of Traditions containing things necessary for man's salvation, which in the beginning of the article he proposed to impugn, he impugneth an erroneous opinion 
p. 131. 132. 133.  of Papias about Christ's reign after his judgement, and an other of S. Ireney about Christ's age, one history about Zachary S. John Baptists father, & an other concerning Constantins baptism, a probable opinion of Pope's private teaching the same doctrine with S. Peter, and an other concerning our Lady's Conception without sin. In the eight he oppugneth the keeping of God's commandments in such a sense as no Catholic dreameth of. So that though he had flung down all these matters, yet there had been no downfall of Popery. Is not this fellow think you a jolly challenger of P●pists? a goodly downfeller of Popery? Is not be one of ●hos 
1. Timoth. 1  of whom S. Paul saith willing to be Doctors of the law, know neither what they say, nor of what.  
But if we mark the success which this Champion hath, whiles he yet flourisheth by himself, before ●is adversary enter the field, and like Vergils' Bul. 
A Eneid. 12.   
— beats the wind withal his might  
And casting sand doth flourish to the sight.  
it is admirable. For, omitting particular contradictions, almost in every Article he flingeth down the very main point which he would establish. As art. 1. he would prove that the Pope hath no superiority over Princes, nor power to depose them: and yet affirmeth that some Kings, and Emperors have humbled 
pag. 17.  themselves, yielded their sovereign rights to him, and that Popes lived in dutiful obedience 
pag 2.  under Emperors until the year 603. which he proveth by S. Gregory, and yet no les than 
S. Fabian. S. Innocent. 1. Symmachus S. Felix 2. Anastasius 2. Vigilius.  six Popes did in that time excommunicate their Emperors, & S. Gregory was the first that decreed the deposition of Kings and Princes. In the second article after he had talked long against the real presence and sacrifice of the Mass he falleth to call the sacrificing of (Christ's) flesh with Priests hands, 
p. 26. 27.  golden words, and to say that if we would be judged by a doctrine of Beauties, (which a little before he had said was the Pope's doctrine) the controversy about the real presence would be at an end. In the fourth article after he had long laboured to prove involuntary motions of the flesh to be formal sin, and called the contrary damnable doctrine, he both affirmeth and proveth such involuntary motions in S. Paul to have been no sin, because they 
pag. 48.  were against his wil In the fift Article after he had spent many leaves to fling down condign merit, at the last he avoucheth, that if we would be judged by Beauties & 
p. 78. 79.  others doctrine published in print, that controversy would be ended, & yet immediately before he had affirmed that Bellarm. taught his doctrine of merit, (which is the very some which commonly all catholics hold) after mature deliberation, and grave consultation with all the best learned jesuits in the world, and with the Pope himself. What is this but to confess that in vain he impugneth the Pope's doctrine of merit? Such is the force of truth (saith S. Austin) that it is more forcible to 
Lib. count Donat. post collat. c. 24. pag. 81.  wring out confession, than any rack or torment. In the sixth Article he admitteth the distinction of mortal and venial sin in a godly sense (as he saith) and yet straight after concludeth absolutely that all sins are mortal, and saith that we flatter ourselves in our cursed deformed venials. In the seventh article after he had spent 27. leaves to fell down Traditions, called them falsehoods, and vanities p. 93. and pronounced them accursed of S. Paul who receive them: at last himself p. 
p. 134. 135.  134. and 135. accepteth one Tradition about the Bible whither it be God's word or no; whereby he beateth down whatsoever before he had set up against the Traditions of the Church. In the last he granteth that God's commandments are possible to be kept in a godly sense, and yet afterward absolutely concludeth that we can not possibly keep them. Thus we see this silly fellow 
p. 149.  as he hath been of opposite religions and professions, so playing ambedexter, now the minister now the Priest, now the Protestant now the Catholic. what adversary need such a challenger who is so great an adversary to himself? what success is he like to have of a mean adversary, who hath this evil event of his own bravado?  
He promiseth to subscribe if one argument 
pag. 31. Preface to jesuits Seminary priests.  which he maketh upon S. Augustine's words be answered, or if any could convince him either to have alleged any writer corruptly or to have quoted any place guilfully, or to have charged any other falsely. But all this is fraudulently done only to gain credit with the simple, and ignorant Reader of a sincere and invincible challenger. For himself well knoweth how often that argument out of S. Austin hath been solved by catholics, against which solution because Bel could not reply he would quite dissemble it. And his allegations of 
See S. Hilary lib. ad Constant. S. Hierom cont. lucifer. vincent. lyrin. count herese.  Authors is too too shameful as shall appear in the process of this answer. Scripture he allegeth but as the Devil did, when he brought it against our Saviour, corrupting either the words, or meaning. Fathers he bringeth but quite against their will, and meaning and no marvel for he forbeareth not his professed adversaries such as in our days have written against Protestants, and will make them will they nile they turn Protestants, as he hath done, & like the spider suck poison out of sweet flowers. And I doubt nothing more, then that if he find this answer to strong for him to impugn, he will either proclaim me a Protestant as 
Daue of Recusancy. pag. 22.  his brethren do Bellarmin, or procure himself (as his Father jewel did) to be quit by proclamation, against my book. But Bel, if thou didst mean sincerely to repent if thou be'st convinced, remember whence thou 
Apoc. 13.  art fallen and do penance: or if thou intendest obstinately to fight it out, hearken to S. Hierome, 
Hieron. apolog. count Ruffinum.  and take some shame becoming a man, if thou wilt have none belonging to a Christian, and deal plainly, set down the Catholic doctrine truly, allege Authors incorruptly, cite the places rightly, answer directly yea or no to every thing objected, and then in God's name verte omnes tete in facies & contrahe 
A Eneid. 12.  quicquid, sive animo sine arte v●les: and I dare warrant thee, it shall be answered.  
But thee (my dear Countryman) seduced by Bel & such like, who walking in craftiness adulterate God's word, for whose sake all this 
2. Cor. 4. v. 2.  pain is taken, I beseech for Christ's sake, have some care of thy salvation, consider how of late your Church service and discipline hath been condemned by more than 
Petition exhibited in April. 1603.  a thousand ministers of enormities, & abuses not agreeable to Scripture, and want of uniformity of doctrine, all your English Bibles (the very foundation of your faith) adjudged to be il translated, and some to contain very partial, 
See Conference at Hampton Court.  untrue and seditious notes, and too much savouring of dangerous, and traitorous conceits, and order taken to make a new translation. Alas 
pag. 45. 46. 47.  what certainty can you have of that religion, which more than a thousand of your Ministers profess to have no uniformity of doctrine, and abuses contrary to Scripture? what goodness can there be in that faith, which is builded of an evil foundation, as by your own judgements your Bibles hitherto have been? yea what faith at all can there be in this mean time, whiles the old Bibles are condemned as nought, and a new not yet made? If these Ministers had once deceived you in a money matter, you would beware how you trusted them again, and will you believe them still, they having by their own confession, hitherto deceived you both in your Church service, & Bible, commending the one to you as divine service, and the other as God's pure word, and now condemning them both. Open your eyes for the passion of Christ, and seeing public conference will not be granted, where we might lay open unto you the deceits of your Ministers, help yourselves as well as you may, read with indifferency such books as are written for this purpose, make earnest intercession to God to see the truth, & grace to follow it when you have found it, which God of his goodness grant. Farewell. 2. Februar: 1605.  
Thy servant in Christ JESV S. R.   

A TABLE OF THE ARTICLES AND CHAPTERS.  



ARTICLE I. Of the Pope's Superiority.  
BELLS argument against the Pope's superiority answered, divers his untruths and dissimulations therein discovered. Chapt. 1.  
The opinion of Protestants touching Princes supremacy set down. Chapt. 2.  
The opinion of Protestants touching deposition of Princes. Chapt. 3.  
The practice of Protestants touching deposition of Princes. Chapt. 4.  
Bells proofs of his assumption against the Pope's superiority answered: Chapt. 5.  
Bells answer to an argument of catholics for the Pope's superiority confuted: Chap. 6.  
Some of Bells slanderous untruths disproved: Chapt. 7.  
Certain false steps of a ladder which Bel imagineth the Pope had to climb to his superiority disproved: Chapt. 8.  
The rest of Bells falls steps, and slanderous untruths in this article disproved: Chap. 9    


ARTICLE 2. Of the Mass.  
Bells reason against the real presence of Christ in the B. Sacrament answered, his untruth and dissimulation therein discovered: Chapt. 1.  
Authorities alleged by Bel against the real presence answered: Chapt. 2.  
Mass proved, Bells argument against it answered, & his manifold untruths therein disproved: Chap. 3.  
The rest of Bells arguments against the Mass confuted: Chap. 4.  
Berengarius his recantation explicated and S. Augustine's authority answered: Chap. 5.  
Bells imaginary contradictions in the Mass answered, and true contradictions in his communion showed: Chap. 6.    


ARTICLE III. Of the Pope's Dispensations: Chapt. 1.  
    


ARTICLE FOUR Of original concupiscence in the regenerate.  
The Catholic doctrine touching concupiscence explicated and proved: Chap. 1.  
divers untruths of Bel disproved, his arguments out of S. Paul against the doctrine of the former Chapter answered: Chap. 2.  
Bells arguments out of S. Austin touching concupiscence answered: Chap. 3.  
Bells arguments out of S. Ambros, S. Bede, & S. Thomas touching concupiscence answered: Chap. 4.    


ARTICLE V Of the merit of good works.  
Of the Protestanis enmity to good works, and friendship with evil: Chap. 1.  
Of Bells positions touching good works: Chap. 2.  
The catholics doctrine touching merit particularly set down and proved: Chapt. 3.  
Bells arguments out of Scripture against condign merit answered: Chap. 4.  
Bells arguments out of holy Fathers against condign merit answered: Chap. 5.  
Bells arguments out of late Catholic writers against condign merit answered: Chap. 6.    


ARTICLE VI Of the distinction of mortal and venial sins.  
The true distinction proved, and Bells objection answered: Chapt. 1.  
A text of S. John epist. 1. explicated: Chap. 2.    


ARTICLE VII.  
The Catholic doctrine touching sufficiency of Scripture propounded, & proved certain untruths of Bel disproved: Chap. 1.  
Bells arguments out of the old testament, concerning the sufficiency of Scripture answered: Chap. 2.  
Bells arguments out of the new testament, touching sufficiency of Scripture answered: Chap. 3.  
Bells arguments out of Fathers, touching sufficiency of Scriptures, and Traditions answered. Chap. 4.  
Bells arguments out of late Catholic writers, touching sufficiency of Traditions and Scripture answered: Chap. 5.  
Of the difficulty or easiness of Scripture: Chap. 6.  
Of the vulgar people's reading Scripture: Chap. 7.  
Of the translation of Scripture into vulgar tongues: Chap. 8.  
Of Apostolical Traditions whether there be any or none: Chap. 9  
Of the certainty of Apostolical Traditions: Chap. 10.  
Of the examination of Traditions: Chap. 11.  
Bells arguments out of Fathers about the examination of Traditions answered: Chap. 12.  
Of the authority of late general Counsels: Chap. 13.  
Of the oath which Bishops use to make unto the Pope: Chapt. 14.    


ARTICLE VIII. Of keeping Gods commandments.  
The possibility of keeping Gods commandments explicated and proved out of Scripture: Chap. 1.  
The possibility of keeping Gods commandments proved out of Fathers and reason: Chap. 2.  
Bells arguments out of Scripture against the possibility of keeping Gods commandments answered: Chapt. 3.  
Bells arguments out of Fathers against the possibility of keeping Gods commandments answered: Chapt. 4.      

THE FIRST ARTICLE OF THE POPE'S SUPERIORITY.  

CHAPT. I. Bells arguments against the Pope's Superiority answered, divers his untruths and dissimulations therein discovered.  
BELL like a man in great choler and very desirous to encounter with his enemy beginneth his challenge very abruptly & hastily, yet not forgetting his scholerschip or ministery he giveth the onset with a syllogism full charged with untruths & dissimulations. You Papists (saith 
3. Untruths. 2. dissimulations.  he) tell us that the Pope is above all powers and potentates on earth, that he can depose Kings & Emperors from their royal thrones and translate their empires and regalities at his good will and pleasure: But this doctrine is false, absurd, & nothing else but a mere fable: And conseqently Romish Religion consisteth of mere falsehoods, fables & flat leasings.  
2. Not without cause (gentle Reader) hath Bel proposed these bloody questions of the Pope's supremacy and deposition of Princes in his first article, and placed them in the forefront of his battle, for he hopeth that they will be his best bulwark and surest defence in the combat, & that in such lists he shall not fight alone, but assisted with the Prince's sword, wherein he dealeth with Catholics as Puritans (which 
Conference at Hampton Court. pag. 82. 83.  his Majesty prudently observeth) do with protestants, who because they could not otherwise make their parts good against protestants, appeal to his supremacy. And as the old Arians 
Ambr. epist. 32. victor lib. 1. de prester. vandol.  did, who evermore accused the Catholics as injurious to the Prince, which they all learn of the jews, who being unable to disprove Christ's doctrine endeavoured to bring him into the compass of treason, and 
Matth. 22. v. 17.  at last procured his death as enemy to Cesar. Wherefore ymitating the example of our Saviour, when the like question was propounded to seek his blood, I answer Bel briefly. That what is Caesar's, we ought to 
Luc. 20. v. 25.  give to Cesar, and what is Gods, to God, and what is God's Vicars, to God's Vicar. Only because Bel in his said syllogism chargeth Catholics most falsely, & withal dissembleth the opinion of protestants touching the supremacy and deposition of Princes. I will disprove his untruths, and discover his dissimulations; and afterward compare the opinion and practice of Protestants & Catholics touching this matter together: whereby the indifferent Reader may, by Bells evil and corrupt dealing in the very beginning of his challenge take a taste of the rest of his proceed. for, as Tertullian saith well, what truth do they 
Tertull. l. do prescript.  defend who begin it with lies?  
3. I demand therefore of Bel who they are whom he challengeth, to whom he speaketh, and whom he understandeth by, You Papists; Surely I suppose he writeth in English to none but such as understand English, whom in his preface he termeth English jesuyts, Seminary Priests, & jesuyted Papists. If these (Master Bel) be they whom ye mean, I tell you in their name, that as your proposition hath two parts, viz. the Pope's Superiority over all Princes and of his power to depose them, so it containeth three (to use your own term) flat leasings.  
For though, concerning Christians, they believe the Pope to be spiritually superior above all whatsoever according to Christ's words spoken to the first Pope S. Peter, Matth. 16. viz. Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church, and Io. 21. v. 17. Feed my sheep, which sheep contain and include as well Christian Princes and potentates as subjects and underlings. And, concerning infidels, they also believe that the Pope ought to be spiritually above them, and they under him in that they be bound to be Christians: nevertheless, until these be Christened, he is not actually their superior: until they be made members of Christ's Church, he is not de facto their head: until they be in Christ's fold, he is not their shape heard. For, as Bellarmin writeth; 
Bellarm. lib. 5. de Rom. Pont. c. 7. Bel p. 29. 125.  whose testimony (saith Bel) is most sufficient in all Popisshe affairs, Christ was above as well infidels as faithful; But to S. Peter he committed only his sheep, that is the faithful. Wherefore S. Paul as not acknowledging that he had any superiority or jurisdiction over infidels said, what belongeth it to me to judge of them that are without? 1. Cor. 5. And although the Pope may preach himself or send others to preach to infidels without their licence, yet this argueth no more but that the commission which he hath from God to preach the Gospel unto all nations is independent of the infidels, and that they ought to be under his jurisdiction. Wherefore until Bel do prove that there are no powers or potentate's on earth which are infidels, I must needs tell him that he untruly avoucheth us to say that the Pope is spiritually above all powers and potentates on earth.  
4. And much less did we ever tell you that the Pope hath temporal superiority over all Princes on earth, but teach the quite contrary with, Walden, Bellarmin, and 
Walden. tom. 1. lib. 2. art. 3. c. 78. Bellarm. lib. 5. de Rom. Pont. c. 4. Gelas. 1. de vincul. Anathematis. Nicol. 1. de 96. Can. cum ad verum.  others. For as two most ancient Popes, Gelasius 1. and Nicolaus 1. taught us, the Pope by his Pontifical dignity challengeth neither royal sovereignty, nor imperial name. But what royalties he hath either in the Popedom or else where, he challengeth by the gift of Christian Princes whereof. Some (as yourself confess) have yielded 
Pag. 17.  up their sovereign rights, unto him. And what superiority we think him to have over Christian Princes, he should have though he were not Lord of one foot of land, but as poor, as he that said Math. 19 v. 27 Behold we have forsaken al. For his 
S. Matthew  Papal superiority and authority is not temporal or of this world, nor the weapons of his warfare carnal, but (as S. Paul speaketh) 
S. Paul. 2. Cor. 10.  mighty to God, unto the destruction of munitious destroying Counsels, and all loftiness extolling itself against the knowledge of God, and having in readiness to revenge all disobedience. Whereupon P. Innocent. 
Cap. per venerab. extra qui filii su●● legitimi.  3. professeth that the Pope hath full power in temporal matters, only in the Popedom, and that Kings acknowledge no superior in temporal affairs. And this also teach S. Ambros de Apol. David c. 4. & 10 Gloss. 
S. Ambros. tom. 4.  Lyra in psalm. 50. and others. By which it appeareth how much he is abused who is made to believe, That the Pope present, challengeth an imperial civil power over Kings, & Emperors, or that English Papists do attribute unto him any such power. For neither doth Paulus 5. challenge more authority, then Innocent 3 did, not English Papists attribute unto him other authority over Kings then spiritual. But do with tongue, and heart, and with the Pope's good liking profess: That our Sovereign Lord King james hath no superior on earth in temporal matters. If Bel reply that some Canonists have affirmed the Pope to be temporal Lord over the world, let him challenge them & not like a wise man strike his next sellows the English Papists, who maintain no such opinion.  
5. The second part of his Proposition touching the Pope's deposition of Princes 
pag. 1. 4. 17.  at his pleasure, though he repeat it thrice is most untrue. For no Catholics, English or strangers, teach that the Pope can depose Princes but for just causes, yea ordinarily (saith Bellarmin) not for just causes, but when 
Bellarm. lib. 5. de Rom. Pontif. c. 6.  it is necessary for the saving of souls. And surely otherwise Princes should be but his tenants at will, and he have more power over them, than they have over their subjects▪ which is far from all Catholics imaginations, let us see therefore how Bel proveth us to teach 
Bel p. 1.  this doctrine.  
6. Because (saith he) Bellarmin setteth it down 
Bellarm. de Rom. Pontif. lib. 5. c. 7.  in these words, If therefore any Prince, of a sheep or a ram become a wolf, that is to say, of a Christian be made an heretic, than the Pastor of the Church 
4. untruth.  may drive him away lie excommunication, and withal command the people not to obey him, and therefore deprive him of his dominion over his subjects. Behold (good Reader) the foresaid untruths proved with an other. Because Bellarmin calleth the Pope Pastor of the Church, Bel avoucheth him to think the Pope to be above all Princes, & Potentates on earth; as if there were no Princes infidels, or out of the Church: and because he teacheth that the Pope may excommunicate, and depose Princes for Heresy, that he may depose them at his pleasure, as if matters of Heresy (which is one of the greatest sins that is) were the Pope's pleasure. An indifferent reader would rather have inferred, that because the Pope is Pastor of the Church, he is not above any infidel, Prince, or subject; which Bellarmin teacheth in 
Bellarmin.  express words in the same book c. 2. etc. 4. And because he can not excommunicate, so neither depose Princes for his pleasure, which Bellarmin every where supposeth, yea in the same book c. 6. avoucheth. That ordinarily he can not depose Princes even for just causes.  
7. But let us hear Bel disprove himself; 
Anatomy of Popish tyranny in the Caveat to the Reader and lib. 2. cap. 4. §. 10. etc. 9 1. Contradiction.  Secular Priests (saith he) writ plainly and resolutely that the Pope hath no power to deprive Kings of their royal Sceptres, and regalities, nor to give away their Kingdoms to an other. In which opinion likewise the French Papists do concur, & jump with them. Item. The Seculars, although they acknowledge the Pope's power supereminent in Spiritualibus yet do they disclaim from it in temporalibus when he taketh upon him to depose Kings from their empires and translate their Kingdoms. And lest we should think these few Priests, who wrote so, were no Papists, Bel himself testifieth that they are the Pope's dear Vassals and profess the self same religion with 
Epistle to the King.  other Catholics.  
8. The third untruth contained in the proposition is that we teach the doctrine of his proposition as a point of our faith: whereupon he inferreth in his conclusion, our religion and faith to be false. Because we teach no such doctrine at all and much less as a point of our religion or faith. And the gravest & best learned amongst Catholics attribute to the Pope only spiritual superiority over Princes, and power to depose them in that case wherein our Saviour said Math. 18. that it were better for a man to be cast into the sea then to live, to wit, when they so scandalise others as their deposition is necessary for the salvation of souls as I have already showed out of Bellarmin, 
Bel. parag. 29.  whose testimony in this matter Bel can not refuse seeing he calleth him the mouth of Papists and avoucheth his doctrine to be the Pope's own doctrine. And this doctrine good Christian Princes account no more prejudicial or injurious to their estates, than they do the like doctrine of S. Paul 2. Cor. 10. where he professeth himself to have power to destroy all loftiness extolling itself against the knowledge of God, & to be ready to punish all disobedience.  
9 Wherefore, to requite Bel with a syllogism like unto his own, I argue thus: you Bel tell us that we Papists say, the Pope is above all powers and potentates on earth, that he can depose Kings and Emperors, and translate their empires at his good will and pleasure, But this your tale is a very tale false, absurd, and nothing else but a mere fable: and consequently your late challenge consisteth of mere falsehoods fables & flat leasings. The proposition is your own words, the truth of the assumption appeareth by my answer to your argument. And thus much touching Bells untruths uttered in his proposition and proof thereof, now let us come to his dissembling.   

CHAP. II. The opinion of protestants touching Princes Supremacy, set down.  
LUTHER an Evangelist (as he termeth himself, or as other account him, 
Luther. lib. count stat eccles. in prologo, & in glossa cont. decreta Caesar. Ex Sur. An. 1531. 1539. Pope of Recusamy p. 31. 32. Magdeburg. praefat. Centur. 7. Caluin in c. 7. Amos.  an Apostle, a prophet, a third Elias, a beginner of protestantisme, in his book of secular power condemneth those Princes, who prescribe laws to their subjects in matter belonging to faith and the Church. Magdeburgians his first, and chiefest children writ thus. Let not Magistrates be heads of the Church, because this Supremacy agreeth not to them. Caluin saith, they were blasphemers who attributed the supremacy, to King Henry 8. And lest we should think that only foreign Protestant's are of this opinion. Antony Gilby in his admonition to England and Scotland 
Gilby.  calleth King Henry a monstrous bore for taking the supremacy, that he displaced Christ, was no better than the Romish Antichrist, made himself a God. And lately 
Willet contract 791. part. 1. and 3. p. 269. 270.  Willet avoucheth. That Bishops and Pastors have a spiritual charge over Kings, & that Kings ought to yield obedience to those that have oversight of their souls. That Heathen Princes had the same power, and authority in the Church which Christian Princes have, and yet soon after affirmeth. That heathen Princes could not be heads of the Church, that is to have the Sovereingty of external government Again. That the King is neither mystical nor ministerial head of the Church, that the name of head is unproperly given to the Prince, and if any think it to great 
Kings not so much is ministerial heads of the Church by willet.  a name for any mortal man we will not (saith he) greatly contend about it. So we see he denieth both name, and authority of the head of the Church to Kings.  
2. And his Majesty perceived that Reanolds, and his fellows aimed at a Scottish Presbitry (which agreeth with a Monarch, 
Conference p. 82 83.  as well as God, and the devil page 79.) and acknowledged his supremacy only to make their parts good with Bishops, as Knox & his fellow ministers in Scotland made his grandmother head of the Church thereby to pull down the Catholic Bishops. Yea that the whole English Clergy is in their hearts of the same opinion, appeareth by their open profession to agree in religion with foreign Protestants, who plainly deny the supremicy of Princes: by their writing and 
Apologia pag. 28.  teaching, that Christ alone can behead of the Church: by their condemning Catholics for attributing such authority to man: and finally by their Synodical explication of the article of supremacy: which they expound thus. That Princes should rule all estates 
Lib. 39 Artic. art. 37.  and degrees committed to their charge by God whether they be Ecclesiastical, or temporal, and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn, and evil doers, wherein we see no power in Ecclesiastical causes granted to Princes, but only, over Ecclesiastical persons. And we deny not that Princes have any power over Ecclesiastical persons, yea in the very canon of the Mass, as priests pray for Papa nostro N. and Antistite nostro N. for our Pope and Bishop, so they pray for Rege nostro N. acknowledging the one to be their King as the others to be their Prelates, and consequently both to have power over them. For as S. Augustin said, and it is evident, Rex à 
Augustin in Psalm. 44. & 67.  regendo dicitur, a King is so called of power to govern. And as ecclesiastical persons be civil or politic members of the common wealth. wherein they live, so have they 
See Stapelton relectione Controversiae 2. q. 1. a. 1. ad 2. Victoria relectione de potesta. ecclesiastica sect. 7.  the same politic or civil head which that commonwealth hath: for otherwise either civil members should have no civil head at all, which were monstrous, or not be under the head of that body, whereof they be members, but only under a civil head of an other body, which is impossible. Wherefore, what some say that Clergy men be exempted from the power of Princes, is not to be understood universally but of their coactive power which they have to punish the laity. And of late Bilson superintendant of Winton confessed to certain Catholics, (if I be not misinformed) that the King is but a ceremonial head, that is either a head only for fashion sake, or only in matters of ceremonies, not in all ecclesiastical causes. And albeit they subscribe 
Supplicat. to the King in April 1603.  to the supremacy, yet perhaps they do that only in respect of time, as a thousand ministers testify, that diverse of them did to the communion book, some upon protestation, some upon exposition, some with condition, albeit it contained (as they say) enormities, and abuses not agreeable to Scriptures, rather (forsooth) than the Church should be deprived of their labours, but in deed rather than they should be deprived of the Churches livings.  
3. The true difference therefore betwixt Catholics and English Protestants (if these durst utter their minds as strangers do) would not be, whether the Prince or Pope, but whether the Pope or ministers ought to be head of the Church, wherein I appeal to any indifferent man's judgement, whether be more agreeable to God's word, that the successor of S. Peter, upon 
Matth. 16. joan. 21.  whom Christ built his church and committed his sheep unto, should be head of the Church, or they who are successors to none but beginners of themselves, who (as S. Cyprian writeth) no man creating them 
Cyprian. lib. de simple. praelat.  bishops, made themselves bishops. And weather be more secure to Princes that he should be accounted head of God's Church 
Constant. in edicto Constant. 5. Phocas. justinian. C. de summa Trinit. l. vlt. Valentinianus epist. ad Theodosisi. See cap. 6. parag. 6. 7. Conference p. 79. 4. and 20.  whom the whole Christian world hath ever acknowledged for such, and under Whom the mightiest monarchs have and do live as securely as any Protestant Prince whatsoever; or they, who if they were permitted would erect such a Presbitrie, as agreeth with a Monarchy no better than the devil with God, who have kept Kings without state and honour etc. and of whom some beardless boys have braved Kings to their faces, and excommunicated them when they came within their parish.   

CHAP. III. The opinion of Protestants touching deposition of Princes.  
LIKEWISE touching the deposition 
Germany. Luther. See Surius An. 1525. Prodromun Staphil. p. 75.  of Princes, Luther as Sleidan testifieth wrote to Princes: That subjects neither cold, nor would, nor ought any longer, to suffer their government. And benig asked his opinion touching the league of Protestans against their Emperor Charles 5. answered. Because at this time so 
Sleidon l. 8. Sur. An. 1531.  doubtful, & perilous, many things may happen, that not only right itself, but necessity of conscience may reach us weapons, we may make league for defence, whither the Emperor himself, or any other make war. And a little before his death said; Who 
Sur. An. 1546.  takes not arms whiles he may, useth not things given him by God. And the Protestant Princes in their rebellion against the Emperor, set forh Proclamation wherein they writ; Because the Emperor endeauoreth to destroy religion & 
Sleidon l. ●●.  liberty, he giveth us cause to assail him with good conscience And again we renounce (o Emperor) 
lib. 17.  the faith and duty wherewith we are bound unto thee. This did Germane Protestants.  
2. In Swiserland Zwinglius teacheth us. 
Swiserland. Zwingl. to. 1. art. 42.  That when the King shall deal perfidiously and beside the rule of Christ, he may in God's name be deposed. Again While naughty Kings are not deposed the whole people is punished of God. And as for the Protestants of Sweveland their opinion 
Sweveland.  is manifest by their excluding the Catholic King of Poland from succeeding his 
Mercur. Gallobelg. An. 1603. Holland.  late father: And the Holandish Protestants wholly, or chiefly defend their long rebellion against their Prince by colour of religion. 
France. Caluin. in epist. ante lib. institut.   
3. In France Caluin their Arch-maister teacheth that who reigneth not to serve God's glory, ruleth not but playeth the thief. And in an other place. Earthly Princes depose them 
In cap. 6. Daniel.  selves while they rise against God, yea are unworthy to be accounted men. And his scholar Beza accounteth them Martyrs who died 
Beza in Praefat. Bibl. 1564. Pantaleon. Responsum trium ordinum Burgundiae 1563. Michael Fabritius ep. de Beza fall. 62. Goodly Canons of Ministers. Protestants sworn to rebel & depose Princes.  in battle against their King for religion, and at Cabilon in France 20. Ministers in a Synod decreed to destroy the Church, Nobility, & Magistrates. And again at Berna 1572. set forth Canons of this matter and decreed Can. 3. That in every City all swore that they & their posterity shall observe firm and inviolated the points following. Can. 40. Until it shall please God in whose hands are the hearts of Kings to change the heart of the French tyrant, and restore the state of the Kingdom to better order, & raise up some neighbour Prince, whom we may know by his virtue & notable marks to be the deliverer of this miserable people, in the mean time every City shall choose a mayor to govern them as well in war as peace Can. 40. Let all the Captains & leaders have this axiom, as an undoubted and most certain Oracle, never to trust to them (the King and his) who so often, and so notoriously have broken their promise, the public peace and quietness. Nor ever let them lay down weapons, as long as they shall see them persecute the doctrine of salvation, and the disciples of the same. Item But if the evil be incurable, if Gods willbe to root them (natural Princes) out, then if it please God to raise some Christian Prince to take revenge of their sins, and deliver his people, let them subject themselves to that Prince, as to an other Cyrus sent to them from God. In the mean space let them govern themselves by these rules which we have prescribed unto them as laws. Behold the verdict of French ministers assembled in Council. O if such rules had been made in Seminaries, what traitors and rebels had the authors been? What exclamations would Bel and his fellow ministers have made against them?  
4. In Scotland Knox uttereth his, and 
Scotland.  his fellow ministers mind herein, in his appellation to the nobility & people of Scotland. 
Knox. p: 36.  That I may say boldly, the nobility, governors, judges, and people of England ought not 
Protestant's bond to kill Princes by Knox.  only to resist, and withstand. Mary jezabel, whom they call their Queen, but also put to death her, her Priests, and all others that aided her, as soon as openly they began to suppress Christ's Gospel. And he setteth down titles of books which he would after publish, whereof the 
p: 78.  third is this. If the people have rashly preferred one manifestly wicked, or ignorantly chosen, such a one, who afterward showeth himself unworthy of government over Christian people (for such are all Idolaters and cruel persecutors) the same people may most justly depose, and punish him.  
5. Finally in England if we had asked 
England.  our ministers of what mind they were, while the Sceptre and sword was in Catholic hands. Goodman in his book entitled 
Goodman c. 9 p. 118.  how we ought to obey superior Magistrates, telleth us: But if they (Prince & Magistrates do boldly transgress God's laws, and 
See Covel of Church government. cap. 4 p. 35. how this doctrine vas Caluins & the learn l●st Protestant's of that tyme. c. 13. p. 180. 181. 184.  command the same to others, then have they lost that honour, and obedience which otherwise subjects were bound to give them, nor are hereafter to be accounted Magistrates, but to be punished as private men. But who must punish them? he answereth the common people. If the Prince and all Magistrates do resist God's law, you people have express testimony of God's word for your part, and God himself willbe your Captain, & leader, who commandeth not only Peers, and Magistrates to take every evil from themselves, whither idolatry, blasphemy or open injury, but requireth this of the whole multitude to whom the sword of justice is in part committed. Wherefore if all Magistrates together will despise justice and Gods laws, it is your part (o common people) to defend and conserve them with as much violence and strife as you can against Magistrates, and all others. For this God requireth of you. Exod: 17. this burden lieth upon the whole people to punish every idolater whatsoever none is excepted, whither 
Prince's must be hanged according to Goodman.  King, Queen, or Emperor. And a little after That fact is recounted number 25, it is a perpetual example for all eternity, and a certain and sure denouncement to the people that in like reuoult from the worship of God, they do carry to the gallows, and hang their governors, who lead them from God.  
6. And in particular touching Wyat's rebellion 
l. 14 p. 203.  he saith. None but Papists can accuse Wyatt of treason, or disobedience, it was the duty of 
Protestant's duty to rebel according to Goodman.  Wyatt & all others that amongst you profess Cbrists' Gospel, to take in hand that war, and they were true traitors, who either kept not promise to him, or aided not his part. O most noble Wyatt thou now livest with God, and these noble men who died with thee in that cause. Yea noble men and Counsellors 
Traiters who do not rebel according to Goodman.  did not you condemn yourselves as manifest and base minded traitors not only to Wyatt, but even to God himself? O Gospelers is this the love of God's word you pretend, have you so learned the Gospel?  
7. And albeit ministers having now gotten the Prince on their side, do in words condemn Goodman, yet that their mind abhorreth not from this opinion, may appear by the partial, virtue and seditions notes, & to much favoringe of dangerous, and traitorous conceits 
Conference p. 47.  as of allowing disobedience to Kings, and taxing Asa for deposing his mother, and not killing her which his Majesty observed in their English bibles, And thus I hope the Reader seethe that Bel had little cause to charge Papists alone with deposition of Princes, but much better will he see it, if we compare Papists and Protestants opinions herein together.  
8. Catholics say, Kings may be deposed, 
Knox Good man. sup:  Protestants say, they may be deposed and hanged: Catholics say, it should be done after due time, and admonition given, & the Lateran Council prescribeth a years 
Lateran ●3. c. 3. de Haer●: Knox sup:  respite: Proetstants say, so soon as they begin to suppress Christ's Gospel: Catholics say, it must be done by the Pope the King's spiritual Pastor and Father: who as a Father lovingly, and as a Prince advisedly, and as a stranger dispassionatly, will proceed in so weighty a matter; Protestants say, it may 
Goodman. sup:  be done by common people the Kings own subjects, who as common people rashly and headely, and as subjects insolently and passionately, are like to behave themselves in controlling and correcting their Princes as the lamentable examples herefter touched can testify. Besides what Catholics say of Kings, the same they say of the Pope, that he may as well be deposed for heresy, or infidelity, as Princes; and what they say under 
Note this in difference of Catholics and partiality of Protestants.  an heretical Prince. they defend under a Catholic. Whereas Protestants change their tune according as the Prince favoureth or disfavoreth their religion. Now let us see the practice of Protestants.   

CHAP. FOUR The practice of Protestants touching deposition of Princes  
CONFORMABLE to their doctrine have been the practices of Protestants. For in Germany under pretence of religion, 
Germany.  first the common people being Protestants 
Sleidon. l. 4. 17. 19 Sur: An: 1522. 1525.  rose against the nobles, in which insurrection there were an hundred thousand of the common people slain, many castles and towares spoiled, and burnt. And soon 
Sur: An: 1530. 1534.  after the nobles rose against their Emperor, gathered an army of eighty thousand foot, 
Apud Sleid. Et sur: 1526.  ten thousand horse, and 130. field pieces. And George Duke of Saxony wrote to Luther, that there was never more rebellions against Magistrates then through his Gospel: 
Erasmus l. 3. de lib: arbit:  And Erasmus a holy Confessor in Fox's calendar, giveth this testimony of them. Many disciples of Luther are so unapt to public quiet, as the Turk is said to detest the name of Luthereans for sedition: Testimonium hoc verum est?  
2. In Swiserland Zwinglius together 
Swiserland. Sur. An: 1531.  with Protestantisme sowed sedition, and brought his country to three pitched battles in one month, and was himself slain in one of them. In Denmark Protestantisme 
Denmark.  was no sooner settled, than the Commons 
Staphil. apol. art. 3.  rose against the nobles & the nobles against their King, whom they deposed, and after 
Sur. An. 1532.  long banishment cast into prison, whereas it is reported they poisoned him. In Sweuland 
Sweuland. Mercur. Gallobelg. An. 1603.  the Protestants have lately excluded their natural, lawful, and crowned Prince, the present King of Poleland, and chosen his uncle. In Flanders, they elected Francis 
Holland.  Duke of Alencon for their Prince, and have deprived two of their lawful Princes, from a great part of the Low countries, & made war against them almost 40. years.  
3. In France Protestants have rebelled 
France.  against three of their natural and anointed Kings, Francis 2: Charles. 9 Henry 3. they 
Genebrard. chron. Sur. An. 1563. Furores Gallici. Michael Fabritius in epist. de Beza.  took by treason, or force, many of their chiefest cities, Roan, Orleans, Lions and others, made league with the enemies of France, and given towns into their hands, they have levied great armies of subjects, brought in great bands of Strangers, and fought four main battles against their King, they deposed their King and chose an other, and coined money in his name with title of the first Christian King of France, They 
Sur. An: 1560.  opened the tombs of two of their Kings & burned their bones. They conspired to murder the King & two Queens, his wife and his mother, with his brethren & nobility, and had executed their designments, if they had not been prevented by their massacre. They slew the King of Navarre, Father to the 
Fabritius sup. fol. 61. 66.  French King now regnant. And their horrible outrages in all kind of dishonesties cru●●ties, and Sacrileges are unspeakable.  
4. In Scotland the Protestants first took 
Scotland.  arm against the Queen dawager, Grand 
Sur. An. 1560.  mother to his Majesty, than regent of Scotland, and by their rebellions, and tumults hastened her death, which his Majesty great 
Conference p. 81.  lie lamented in the conference. Likewise after infinite indignities, and perils they drive Queen Mary of blessed memory his Majesty's Mother, their natural and lawful Prince o●● of her kingdom, and country, forced her to surrender her crown and Sceptre to a bastard, murdered her husband his Maiestes' Father, and thereof infamed her wrongfully (as was proved at her judgement in England) had murdered both herself and his Majesty then in her womb, if a charged pistol put to her womb would have given fire. And at last by Protestants she was put to death against law of nations, And his Majesty confesseth of himself that in Scotland he was a King without state, without 
Conser. p. 4. and 20.  honour, without order, where beardless boys would brave him to his face, and kept for the most part as a ward. And in what present danger he was of being murdered by the Protestant Earl Gowry and his brethren, no man is ignorant. And otherwhere graciously acknowledgeth, 
Basilicon doron.  That he found none more faithfil to himself, than such as had been faithful to his mother (who were Papists) and them he found faithless to himself, who had been such to his mother: and an honourable person yet living and 
Q. Elizab. words & confidence of catholics.  worthy of credit, and hard it, can testify that Queen Eelizabeth did oftentimes say to my Lord Montague a famous Catholic of worthy memory. That if she ●el into danger, she would sooner put her life into his hands, and others of his profession, the● of any other subject she had. And if Queen Elizabeth (though she were far more severe towards her Catholic subjects th●n all Protestant Princes together have hi●erto been towards theirs) did nevertheless put more affiance and trust in them, even after she had been deposed of the Pope, then in any Protestant, what assurance may that Prince 
His majesties speech to the Parliament 19 Mart. 1603. England.  have of the loyalty and fidelity of Catholics, who hath used great lenity towards them, and neither is, nor like to be deposed of the Pope.  
5. Finally in England Protestants rebelled twice, & that in one year against their Queen Mary; once under the conduct of the Dukes of Northumberland, & Suffolk, erecting a false Queen, & so excluding as much as lay in them, the Succession of his Majesty. And again under wyatt, and at both times she was defended by catholics. The things I rather touch then relate, because they are fresh in memory of many, or to be found in many histories.  
6. Now let us compare the practice of 
Protestants and Catholics practise compared. 1 Carolus 5. 2 Francis 2. 3 Carolus 9 4 Henricus 3. 5 Philippus 2. 6 Philippus 3. 7 Christiernus. 8 Sigismundus. 9 Maria Ang. 10 Maria Scot  Protestants touching the deposition of Princes, with the practice of the Pope, since the time that Protestants began. They have within this 70. years partly deposed partly attempted, as far as lay in their power, one Emperor, three French Kings, two Kings of Spain, one of Denmark, one of Poleland, one Queen of England, and one of Scotland. They have slain one King of Navarre, one of Denmark, one Queen of Scotland, one Queen's husband, and burned the bodies of two other Kings, & attempted to murder one French King, two French Queens, & one King of Scotland. Whereas the Popes never slew any Prince at all, but have saved the lives, & kingdoms of many, & since Protestant's began, have deposed one only King Henry 8. and one Queen Elizabeth and spared both King Edward, the 6 & many Kings of Demmark, & Swe●land, besides a great number of Germane Princes. And his Majesty is so far from danger of being deposed by him, as he hath already censueed 
See D. Giffords' commission and Mons. Bethunes' letters. Proclamation 22. Februar. anno 1. Note this.  all those that molest, or disturb his majesty; and his majesty, gratefully acknowledgeth himself beholden to the Pope for his temporal carriage, and divers kind offices towards him, even then when there was less cause of such kindness, than now is. Yea which is a point worthy of consideration. Never did any Pope depose any King, or Prince merely for not professing the Catholic religion, if he had not before embraced it; If any object, that the Pope hath beside King Henry, and Queen Elizabeth deposed the present French King, I answer that it was before he had the Crown of France, and was only titulo tenus King of Navarre; besides that the Pope upon his amendment hath both restored him to his dignity, and showed him many great, and extraordinary fovors. And thus much of Bells dissembling the opinion, and practise of Protestants, touching the Supremacy or deposition of Princes. Now let us come to his proofs of his Assumption.   

CHAP. V Bells proofs of his Assumption answered.  
BELL'S proofs of his Assumption. I might let pass, as nothing pertaining to us, seeing we teach no such doctrine as he therein affirmeth to be false: Nevertheless because the Reader may judge, whither he be a more fond disputor or false reportor, I will set them down and answer them severally. His first proof is out of their famous 
Bel p. 2.  (saith he) Pope Gregory the great lib: 2. epist. 61. where writing to the Emperor Mauritius, he calleth him. Sovereign Lord, and professeth himself subject to his command, and to owe him obedience. Whereupon Bel inferreth that for 600. years after Christ, Popes lived under Emperors in all dutiful obedience, that is (as he understandeth) in all causes Ecclesiastical and civil.  
2. Mark (good Reader) how many and how gross errors he committeth in this one silly proof. First he showeth small skill in choosing Authors for his purpose, because none make more against him in this matter then S. Gregory. For he is the first P. whom we find to have made a flat decree touching the deposition of Princes in these words. If any King, Prelat, judge, or secular person 
lib. 12. epist. vlt. lib. 11. epist. 10.  of what degree or highness soever (do violate the privileges of S. Medards monastery) let him be deposed. And upon the 4. all: 5. poenit: psalm he writeth that no reason alloweth him to be King who alienateth men from Christ and enthralleth his Church: and sharply inveigheth against the Emp: for usurping right of earthly power over the Church of Rome, which he calleth the head of all Churches and Lady of Nations, and telleth him that it were better for him to acknowledge her his Lady, and submit himself to her according to the example of godly Princes.  
3. And as for the place which Bel citeth he speaketh not there of the subjection, duty, or obedience of a subject to his Prince, but of a servant to his Master (as he had been to Mauritius whiles they were both private men) which himself plainly professeth in the beginning of his letter in these words. In this suggestion I speak not as Bishop, nor as subject, by reason of the common wealth, but by private right of my own, because you have been my Lord since that time when as yet you were not Lord of al. And therefore by the foresaid words he meaneth no otherwise, than a loving servant doth, when upon courtesy to his old Master though he have left him, yet he still calleth him Master, and offereth himself and his service at his command. His second error was, in inferring upon the bare words of one P. speaking of himself alone, not only his dutiful obedience, but also of all his Predecessors for 600. years together. He would espy his error, if I should infer the same o● al. S. Greg: his successors for 600. years after him. And though every English Priest do call his Majesty Sovereign Lord, profess themselves subject to his command, and to owe him obedience, as far as Bel can show that ever S. Gregory did to the Emp: yet will he not suffer me to infer that they live in all dutiful obedience to their Prince, but will condemn them all of high treason. For with him (as of old with Donatists) Quod volumus Sanctum est.  
4. His 3. error is, in granting that Popes 
Contradict. Gelas. epist. ad Anastas. Theodoret. lib. 5. cap. 18. Sozom. l. 7. c. 24. Paulin. in vit. Ambros. Lib. count Gentil. Euseb. lib. 6. c. 26. Niceph. lib. 13. c 39 Gelas. d. 96. con. Duo sunt. Georg. Patriarcha in vit. Chrysost. Symach. ep. ad Anastas. Stapleto. de Eccl. Rom. Platina i● Gelasio.  for 600. years after Christ, lived in all dutiful obedience to Emperors, wherein he quite overthroweth what he meant to prove in this Article. For if that be true, he can not think that to excommunicate or depose Princes upon great causes, is against the duty of Popes. Because (to omit S. Ambrose his excommunicating of the Emperors Theodosius & Maximus, & S. Babilas his excommunicating an other Emp: whom he drove (saith S. Chrisost) out of the Church as if he had been a base slave & of no account) no fewer than five or six Popes have excommunicated their Emperors in that time. As S. Fabian excommunicated Philip the first Christian Emperor S. Innocent 1. the emperors Arcadius and Eudoxia, P. Symachus & P. Anastasius, and (as some say) P. Gelasius excommunicated the Emperor Anastasius, and P. Vigil 
Baron. An. ●84. Contradict.  the Empress Theodora. And S. Gregory himself proceeded further (as you heard) even to depose Princes. Moreover Bel Writeth p: 8. that Barbarians possessed all Italy from the year 471. until Charles the great 801. How then saith he here that Popes lived under Emperors until 603.  
5. His fourth error is in confessing S. Gregory the great to be ours, that is, a Papist, whereupon follow many things to his utter confusion. First that the old Rom, religion (for I hope what is above a 1000 years old is old) which himself p: 83. confesseth to be Catholic, sound, & pure, is Papistical. 2. That the first Christian religion which our English Anceitours (having been ever before bondslaves (saith S. Bedal. 2. c. 1. of Idols) received from S. Gregory by his legate S. Austin, was Papistical. 3. That all Christendom was in S. Gregory's time, Papistical, because it communicated with him in faith and religion as is evident by his Epistles written to all parts of Christendom. Thus we see this man's small wit in proving his untruths: Now let us see his good wil  
6. Very loath he is to grant the Pope the 
Bel pag. 3. S. Ignat. ep. ad Mariam Cassab.  name of Pope, which Saints, Counsels, Princes, Catholics, & schismatics have ever given him. Bishops of Rome (saith he) 
S. justin. ep. ad zenam & serens. S. Aug. epist. 92. 95. 261. S. Hiero. ep. ad Damas'. Amb. ep. 81▪ Vincent. count haeres. liberatus in breuiar. cap. 22. Concil. Chalcedon. as. 16. Carthag. & Milevil. apud August. ep. 90. & 92. Epirot. ep. ad Hermis. Constantin. in edicto. Galli Placidici epist. ad Pulcheriam Choniatas. Vide epist. trium Concil. Africon. ad Damas'. to. 1. Camil. Protestants call us Papists of the Pope & yet will not call him Pope. Victor de persecut. vandalica. lib. 1. Bel p. 3. Gregor. Turon. de glor. mart. cap. 25. 30. & 79.  now called Popes. And when not Sir? did not S. Ignatius who lived in the Apostles time call S. Anaclerus Pope? did not also S. justin even as the Magdeburgians confess? did not S. Austin, S. Hierome, S. Ambrose, Vincent: Lirin: & others above a thousand years a go? did not the Council of Chalcedon, of Carthage, of Milevi of Epirus? do not the Grecians call the Bishop of Rome Pope. Was he not always called Pope as well in England as in all Christendom else until the 26. year of Henry 8. when having revolted from the Pope's obedience, he commanded this name to be razed out of all writings calendaties, & Holy Doctors whatsoever.  
7. And a marvelous thing it is to consider the contradictious spirit of Protestants. They will call us nothing but Papists (as Arians called Catholic Romans) and our religion Popish, which are bynames invented of themselves, and derived from the name of Pope; and yet will they not call him Pope, which hath been his name ever since the Apostles time. And thus much touching Bells proof of his Assumption out of S. Gregory.  
8. Next he allegeth S. Ambrose saying David being King was subject to no human law. But (besides that the word (human) is not in that place) S. Ambrose freeth Kings only 
Bonus impetator intra non supra ecclesiam est. Ambr. epist. 32. Theodoret. lib. 5. cap. 18. Sozomen. l. 7. c. 24. Paulin. in vita Ambros. Ruffin. lib. 1. c. 2. Theodoret. lib. 4. cap. 5.  from penalty of civil or temporal laws. For how subject he thought them to be to Ecclesiastical laws, appeareth by his excommunicating the Emperors Thodosius, and Maximus; beside that Constantin and Valentinian professed themselves to be under Bishops. And doubtless the human laws enacted by the Apostles Act: 15. v. 18. and 1. Cor: 7. v. 12. exempted no more Princes then private persons; S Hierome, Bel affirmeth to teach the same that S. Ambrose: but neither allegeth his words, nor quoteth either book, or chapter, perhaps because he made less show for him.  
9 Euthimius he citeth because he writeth. 
Bel p. 3. Euthym. in Psalm. 50. Glossa ordin. & lyra in Psalm. 50. S. Thom. 2. ●. q. 12. art. 2.  That David as a King had God only judge over his sins. But he meaneth of a temporal judge as do also the Gloss, and lita cited by him. And though S. Thomas prove of set purpose. That the Pope may depose Princes, yet is not Bel ashamed to cite him because he saith 1. 2. q. 96. art. 5. That a King is not subject to compulsion of his own laws. As if therefore he were subject to no law. Hereafter the Reader need not marvel to see Bel citing Scriptures, and Fathers for his purpose, seeing he abstaineth not from his professed adversaries. For with him all is fish that comes to net, and as little make the one for him, as the other. Lastly he citeth Hugo Card: writing. That God alone is above all 
Hugo Card. in psal. 50. cap. 1.  Kings. But this is meant in temporalibus as before we cited out of Innocent. 3.  
10. After these proofs of his Assumption 
Bel p. 4. 5.  Bel hudleth up six untruths together saying. The good Kings joshua, David, Solomon, 
Untruths 5. 6. 7. 8. 9 10.  josaphat, Ezechias, and josias knew right well they had authority above all Priests: and therefore took upon them not only to command & control them; but also to depose even the high Priests themselves. For proof of these untruths he referreth us to his Golden Balance, and I refer him for confutation of them, to Doctor Stapletons' Conterblast against Horns vain blast, & his Relection con: 2. q: 5: ar. 1. Only I say that joshua was no King, nor the Scripture affordeth any colour of saying that any high Priest was deposed by any of the said Kings, except Abiathar by Solomon 3. reg: c. 2: v. 35. et. 27. And yet (as it is gathered out of the 
3. Reg. 4. v. 4.  4. chapter where he is accounted Priest in salomon's reign) Solomon deposed him not, but only for a time confined him to his house for his conspiracy with Adonias, and so debarred him from executing his Priestly function. And though he had deposed him he had not done it as King, but as Prophet fulfilling as the Scripture testifieth the Prophisy against the house of 
3. Reg. 2. v. 27.  Hely, from whence Abiathar descended. And this is all which Bel objecteth against the Pope's superiority over Princes Now let us see how he answereth one objection of Catholic in answers whereof he spendeth the rest of this article.   

CHAP. VI Bells answer to an argument of Catholics for the Pope's authority, confuted.  
BELL for better satisfaction (as he saith) 
Bel p. 5.  of the vulgar sort propoundeth one objection of Catholics, but yet so nakedly, and without all form or fashion of argument (setting down an Antecedent without any consequent) that thereby one may guess ●e meaneth nothing less than to frame (as he promisseth) a plain, and sincer solution unto it. And yet the objection though so sillily propounded, not only much troubleth many vulgar people (as he saith) but pusleth himself so, as after seven leaves spent to divert the Readers mind, & to make him forget (as Heritiks 
The manner of Protestants in answering catholics.  use to do) the argument, which he can not answer, he findeth no better solution, then to grant what the Antecendent containeth and to say nothing to the consequent following thereof.  
2. Wherefore because Bel was so troubled with the matter of this objection, as he forgot the form, I will supply his default, and argue thus in form. He by whose authority the Empire was translated, the electors of the Emperor appointed, and the elected is confirmed, and whose superiority over them many Emperors have willingly acknowledged, hath some superiority over Emperors: but the Pope is such, as by his authority the Empire etc. Ergo the Pope hath some superiority over Emperors. The form is syllogistical and good. The Proposition is manifest, for no power or dignity can be truly translated, or confirmed by inferiors or equals, but only by superiors: none (especially) willingly acknowledge as superior, whom they think is not.  
3. The Assumption containeth three parts expressed in the Proposition, whereof the first uz. That the Empire was translated by the Pope's authority Bellarm: l. de transl:: 
Bellarmin.  Imper: c. 4 proveth by the testimony of 33. writers etc. 5. by the confession of 11. Emperors: and Princes, and c. 6. by assertion of 7. Popes. Yea Bel (though with much a do) confesseth it page. 12. saying. That Charles the great (to whom the Empire was first translated) was made Emperor by Pope Leo 3. for restoring him to his place, and dignity, being driven out by the Romans, though soon 
p. 13.  after he condemn the Pope of treason for this translation. But differing the question of treason till a non (which hindereth not the verity of the translation if the translator have power to transfer: as a soldier may by gift, or sale truly, and yet traitorously translate his arms, and munition to the Enemies) I ask of Bel, whether the Pope did truly translate the Empire, or no. If he did, then hath the Pope power to translate Empires: If he did not, then was neither Charles the great, nor any of his successors to this day true Emperors. And if the Pope be Antichrist (as Bel avoucheth) for deposing some few Emperors for just causes; Bel may be well accounted Lucifer, for deposing at once, and for no fault at all, the Emperors of the west, which have been these 800. years. But Protestants have great 
Protestants can make & unmake Emperors when they list.  cunning in making and unmaking Emperors, according as it redoundeth in their opinion to the grace or disgrace of Popes. For when the Pope deposeth them, they be true Emperors, but when he maketh, them, they have only (as Willet writeth) the name 
Willet Contract 4. q. 10. p. 178.  title, and image of Emperors. But let them answer this dilemma. These Emperors whom the Pope deposed since Carolus Magnus, 
Likewise when willet list the imperial authority is in the Pope loc. scit. But when he list not, he is no temporal Prince. ib. q. 8. p. 154 155.  were true or false Emperors? If false, he did a good deed in deposing them: If true, then hath the Pope authority to make true Emperors, and translate empires.  
4. The second part included in my Assumption uz. That the Pope appointed the electors of the Emperor, and confirmed the elected, touching the apointing of electors is confessed by Bel pag. 14. and touching the confirmation is contested by many historiographers, and practised by as many as are crowned Emperors. The last part vz, that Emperors have acknowledged the Pope's superiority Bel himself confesseth page 17. where he saith, That some Cbristian Kings and Emperors have upon a blind Zeal humbled themselves to the Pope, yea (which is more) have yeldeed up their sovereign rights to him. And shall not the Pope be superior to them, who have humbled themselves & yielded their soveraingties unto him?  
5. But what shift hath Bel to avoid this? 
pag. 17. O dolour fraudata sunt tali magisterio tempora antiqua. August. lib. 1. cont. Gaudens. c. 19  forsooth that those Christian Princes were blind. O most blind answerer? not seeing that he granteth more than his adversary requireth. Catholics argue that Kings, and Emperors have acknowledged Popes their superiors, this Bell granteth in confessing their humiliation to Popes, which is never done, but to Superiors. and addeth that they have yielded up their Sovereign rights, which is more than the objection containeth. And what he addeth of blind zeal maketh nothing to the purpose. Because the question is not upon what cause Kings, and Emperors humbled themselves to the Popes, but whither they did or no. And because they have so done (as Bel confesseth) Catholics infer the Pope to be their Superior. Unless perhaps Bel think blind zeal to disannul every fact, or gift, and so say the jews persecuted not the Church, because they did it upon blind zeal. Ro. 10. v. 2. nor our Catholic ancestors gave any livings to Churches, because they did it upon blind zeal (as Bel must think) for maintenance of Papistry. Nevertheless because the Reader may see whither is more likely to be blind, a double turn coat Minister, or so many Princes as have humbled themselves to Popes, I will name only a few Emperors, omitting for brevity sake both Christian Kings, and the 
Cassiodor. Miscell. vid. Baron. anno 452. Euseb. lib. 6. c. 25. Nicephor. lib. 13. c. 34. Bel p. 1●3. Edictum Constantini.  heathen Attilas' miraculously made to reverence Pope Leo.  
6. Philippe the first Christian Emperor about the year 246. reverenced Pope Fabian. Constantin worthily (faith Bel) surnamed the great held the stirrup to Pope Silvester about the year 323. Soon after in 
S. Ambr. de, dignit. sacerd. c. 2. Chrisosto. hom. 4. & 5. in illud Isaiae. vidi Dominum. The l●ke S. Hilary. l. count Constant. Gelas. 1. ep. ad Anastas. S. Greg. in 4. Psal. paenit. Baron. anno 536. ex Anastas. Miscell. zonora. Naucler. General. 18. Platina in Constantino. Naucler. general. 24. Concil. Florent. per joverium. Platina in Adrian. 1. Naucler. general. 26. Centur. 8. c. 10. col. 724. Platida in Stephan. 4. Naucler. general. 28. Platina in Nicolao 1. Plat●na in Gregor. 7. Naucler. general. 36.  S. Ambrose and S. Chrisostomes' time as themselves witness Emperors bowed their necks even to Priests knees and laid their heads under their hands, the same testifieth Pope Gelasius of Anastase Emperor of his time, and S. Gregory of Emperors before his tyme. justin about the year 525. humbled himself to the ground to Pope John 1. justinian 534. humbled himself to Pope Agapet and worshipped him. justinian the second about the year 710. kissed the feet of Pope Constantin. John Paleologus would have kneeled to Pope Eugenius 4. in the year 1438. And thus did the Emperors of the East.  
7. Of the western Emperors Charles the great about the year 773. could not be held by Pope Adrian I. from kissing his feet. Lewis his sone sent the honourablest of his court to meet Pope Steven 4. himself went a mile and as soon as he saw him, lighting from his horse, with great veneration brought him into the city in the year 817. Lewis 2. went a mile to meet Pope Nicolas 1. and putting his hand to his horses bridle brought him into his Camp about the year 860 Henry 3. 1077. baresooted in the depth of winter attended upon Gregory 7 Henry 4. FOUR kissed the feet of Pope Pascal 2. Frederick 1. about the year 1155. held the stirrup to Pope Adrian 4. and 
Platina in Pascali 2. Naucler. general. 38. Platin. in Adrian. 4. Alexand. 3. Naucler. gener. 40. Onuphrius in chron. Plat. in joan. ●2. Naucler. general. 48. Surius in commentar.  1177. kissed the fear of Pope Alexander 3. Sigismond 1418. prostrate on the ground, with most great veneration kissed the feet of Pope Martin 5. Charles the 5. 1530. 1538. kissed the feet of P. P. Clement 7. & Paul 3. and would have held the stirrup of Pope Clement 7. of all these Christian Emperors it is recorded in public histories how they humbled themselves to Popes, and of no Catholic Christian Emperor is written that he refused to do the like.  
8. Let now any indifferent Reader be judge, whither the Pope have reason to think himself to be Superior to Christian Emperors, seeing so many, and they the most wise, most valiant, and most famous, of all, even the very first and last of them, have acknowledged him their Superior. And whither it be likely that. Bel should see, and all these Christian Emperors together with their Counsellors, Nobles, Prelates, Divins, & Commons, be blind; yea so blind as they should not see that their humiliation to the Pope opened the window (saith Bel) 
p. 17.  to all Antichristian tyranny.  
9 Usual it is for Heretics to condemn 
See S. Austin lib. 2. cont. jul. c. 10. to, 7.  not only former Catholics, but even heretics of blindness if they disagree from them: So the Caluinist condemneth the Lutherian, the Puritan saith the same of the Protestant, the Brounist of the Puritan. And King Edward, sixtimes condemned K. Henry's religion of blindness, and those found the like measure in Queen Elizabeth's 
Petition exhibited to his Majesty in April 1603.  time, and she had fared a like, if more than a thousand ministers, who condemn her proceeding of Enormities, Superstitions and abuses contrary to Scripture, had obtained their petition. But of them all we may say as Tertullian said of heretics in his time. 
Tertull. lib. de praescrip.  To these alone, and to these first was the truth revealed forsooth, they obtained greater favour, and fuller grace of the devil. For light they have but 
2. Cor. 11. v. 14. Conference p. 71.  such as cometh from him who transfigureth himself into an angel of light, and brag of it till as the King's majesty said of the Scottish ministers) they go made with their own light. And thus much of the Catholics objection and Bells answer thereto. Now let us come to his sleunderous untruths.   

CHAP. VII. Some of Bells slanderous untruths disproved.  
BELL perceiving that the slightness of his foresaid answer would have easily appeared, if it had been set down immediately after the Catholics objection, without dazzling the Readers eyes before with some other matter, though best before he answered it to slander both Pope and Papists, and to tell the Reader a long tale of steps devised by himself, in an imaginary ladder of his own. Many absurd things (saith he) have 
pag. 5.  been affirmed by Pope's parasites for advancement of his primacy. I● one ask him? what these absurd things are, & who were these parasites. He nameth none. For dolosus versatur in generalibus. But let us hear him prove his saying 
11. untruth. Victoria de potestate ecclesiae relect. 1. sect. 6.  As Victoria doth testify in these words. Sed glossatores juris hoc dominion etc. The glossors of the law have given this dominion to the Pope, they being poor in substance, and learning.  
2. Here in steed of proofs I find an untruth. For neither doth Victoria in these words speak of many things, but only of this dominion (meaning temporal over the world) neither yet doth he call it absurd. This want therefore Bel thought to supply 
When he spealeth a lie he speaketh of his own. joan. 8. v. 44. 12 untruth.  of his own store, and therefore Englishing Victorias words, he addeth (and these lordly titles) and then as having a sure foundation, he raiseth his lie somewhat higher, saying. That Victoria affirmeth, ignorance and poverty were the beginning of all lordly Popery. Whereas Victoria speaketh only of temporal dominion over the whole world, and Bel himself 
Bel p. 17. 4. Contradict.  hereafter maketh Kings and Emperors authors of the Pope's dominion. 
Bel p. 7.   
3. Having thus dealt with Victoria he falleth to slander the late Pope's saying. That they have challenged more than human, and royal power even that power which is due & proper to God alone. True it is that both late & ancient 
13 untruth.  Popes have challenged more than human, & royal power. For such is all spiritual power as shall hereafter be proved. But most false it is that any Pope ancient or late, challengeth any power proper to God, or that any Catholic attributeth such power unto him. As his brother willet telleth him in these 
Willet contrad 544. prel. 3. p. 210. Caluin 4. instit. c. 20. parag. 4. Magistratus praediti sunt divina authoritate. Melancthon. apud Sur. 1501. Bel p. 6. Gerson de potest. eccl. confid. 12. p. 3.  words The Pope by their own confession can not do all that Christ did. But what say you Sir to Caluin attributing duine power to Magistrates? And to Protestants arrogating greater, more intolerable, and les excusable authority and power, than ever the Pope did, as Melanthon writeth, or to other calling Princes Gods, as you shall hear a none. Now let us see what proofs he bringeth of his slander. Gerson (saith he) reporteth that some Popish parasites say that Christ hath given all that power in heaven and earth, to S. Peter, and his successors which was given to himself, and that he hath written in the Pope's thigh King, of Kings, and Lord of Lords. And that there is no power Ecclesiastical or temporal but from the Pope.  
4. Behold good Reader Bells evil dealing with Popes. He chargeth all late Popes with challenging power proper to God, which is a most heinous and Luciferian crime, and for proof thereof bringeth not one word, or deed of any one of them, but ones report of speeches of some nameless fellows, without proving that any Pope either allowed, or liked, yea heard of such speeches. were such dealing with any private man tolerable? And how much les with so great Princes as Popes (at least) are. Suppose parasites had attributed to Pope's power 
Protestants call Princes Gods.  proper to God, doth it therefore follow that they challenge it? Do all Princes challenge what their flatterers impose upon them? Did Q Elizabeth challenge to be a Goddess because Case Cambden and other Protestants 
Case in ep. suop Policorum. Cambden in Berqueria, in Natis ad lectorem. in Cantic. & Epist. Bel in his epistles to the King & to B. of Durhom. Act. 14. v. 10. 11. 12.  called her a Goddess? She (saith Cambden) is the only Goddess of Britan's. She● shallbe my Goddess, the ground where she was borne is rather to be adored then adorned she is Numen to be worshipped of the whole word. Or doth his Majesty challenge to be head of the Church of France, or Toby Matthew to be the ornament of learning, and religion, because Bel so termeth them? did S. Paul and Barnaby challenge to be Gods, because the Licaonians did so account them? doth not the Pope profess himself to be Christ's Vicar, and servant of his servants? How standeth this with the challenge of equality.  
5. But I deny that ever any Catholic attributed to the Pope power proper to God: let us therefore consider Gersons report. The first point is, that Christ hath given all the power in heaven and earth to S. Peter, and 
Bells slander toucheth as well S. Peter and the ancient Popes as the late.  his successors which was given to himself. But beside that, these words concern no les the Ancient than the late Popes, namely S. Peter himself, though Bel be ashamed to charge them with this staunder, are these words of Popish parasites? do they give to men power proper to God alone? Then was S. Chrisostome a Popish parasite, and 
S. Chrysost. lib. 3. de sacerdot.  gave to Priest's power proper to God, when he said. Priests have all power of heavenly things, and the very self same all kind of power which Christ had of his Father. S. Basil saith, 
S. Basil. homil. de penitent. S. Leo serm. 2. de Natali Pet. & Pauli.  that Christ gave this authority to others. S. Leo writeth that S. Peter had those things by participation, which Christ had proper by power. or doth Bel think that our King in creating a deputy in Ireland, and giving him authority to govern that Kingdom, giveth him power proper to Kings? Are deputies Kings are they no more subjects? True it is that the power which Popes have, came from God alone as the authority of deputies cometh from Kings, but such power by commission is no more proper to God, than the like in deputies is proper to Kings.  
6. The second point in Gersons report is that the foresaid nameless persons call the Pope Lord of Lords, and King of Kings. If these be parasites words and make men equal to God then was Daniel a parasite, & he made Nabuchodonozor equal to God in calling him King of Kings. Unless Bel allow this 
Daniel. 2. v. 37.  title in a heathen Prince and account it blasphemy in a Christian. Besyds the Scripture 
Exod. 7. psal. 81. Io. 10. psal. 104. Esaiae 45. S. Bernard. l. 2. & 4. de considerate. Caluin. lib. 4. instit. c. 7. paragr. 22.  itself doth apply the very names of Christ and God unto men. And S. Bernard no parasite but a holy writer (in Caluins' opinion) calleth the Pope Prince of Bishops, leader of Christians, hammer of tyrants, father of Kings, Vicar of Christ, Christ of the Lord, and God of Pharaoh. And thus spoke S. Bernard even in those books, where (according to Caluins' 
Caluin. l. 4. c. 11. paragr. 11.  judgement) he spoke it so as truth itself seemed to speak. And albeit the Pope do not entitle himself King of Kings but Servant of God's servants, which is a more humble style, than any Prince useth: yet rightly might he, because he hath two Kingdoms, uz. Naples and Sicily, Feudatary, 
The Pope gave Irland to the King of England. Stow. ann. ●●71.  and temporally subject unto him, as he had also Ireland, before he gave it unto the crown of England in K. Henry 2. time.  
7. But because Bel is so hard aconstruer of some Catholics words, let us hear, not a parasite, but a Protestant Prelate, speaking not in absence but in presence of the King and realm. Bilson in his late sermon 
Bilson.  at the King's coronation saith Kings be Gods by office, they have the society of his name, are in his place, their very robes are sanctified, every thing belonging to them is sacred, are partakers, with Christ in the power, honour, and justice of his Kingdom on earth, and partake with God's homage, Behold he calleth King's Gods, and partners with God in his name, power, honour, and homage, and yet no Catholic chargeth Protestant's that they attribute to the King, or that he challengeth power proper to God alone.  
8. The third point reprehended by Bel in Gersons report, is that ecclesiastical and temporal power is said to come from the Pope. This (saith Bel pag. 16.) is to make the Pope author of all power, a thing proper to God. 
14. untruth. 15. untruth.  This say I is for Bel to utter two untruths at once: for neither do they speak of all power, but only of power in earth, which they divide into ecclesiastical & temporal, besides which there is power in heaven of God, and Saints: neither do they make the Pope, author of all power in earth, but only say it cometh from the Pope, which is not to make him author thereof, unless Bel will make every officer author of what he doth in the Prince's name, every instrument author of the effect it worketh by virtue of the cause. And thus much touching this slander of Popes, imposed by Bel. Now let us come to others, for no other stuff we are like to hear hereafter in this article.   

CHAP. VIII. Certain false steps of a ladder which Bel imagineth the Pope had to climb to his superiority, disproved.  
BELL having upon the foresaid words of some nameless Catholics, taken occasion 
Bel pag. 17.  to slander Popes, goeth on in like sort for many leaves together, setting down steps in a ladder, which (as he imagineth) the Popes had to climb to their superiority. The first step (saith he) was the departure of the Emperor Constantine from Rome to Constantinople: but if he had better considered, he should have found that as the city of Rome decayed by Constantine's departure, and Constantinople increased: So the Sea of Rome rather fell thereby in external 
Euseb. & Hieron. in chron. Conc. Constant. epist. ad Damasc. Gelas. ad Episcop. Dardaniae.  dignity, and the Sea of Constantinople rose, then otherwise. For whereas before Constantine's going to Constantinople (which was about the year. 330. that church was but new, and a parish of another church as Gelasius witnesseth, soon after in the year 381. it was made a Patriarchate 
Cone. Constantin. c. 5. Concil. Calced. act. 16.  next to Rome, and in the year 451. the Grecians gave it equal privileges with Rome. And not content with this, about the year 600. that Patriarch arrogated the title of Ecumenical, that is over the whole world. And finally in the year 1054. claimed 
Sigebert. in chron.  the place of the first Patriarch, alleging the Pope to have lost his primacy by adding filióque to the Nicene Creed.  
2. But Constantine (saith Bel) at his departure 
pag. 7.  did as the Pope's parasites tell us, give large gifts to the Pope, even his whole power, dominion, and territories, both in Rome, Italy, and all the west. Behold a man (as the Proverb is) having a wolf by the ear, which he dare neither hold nor yet let go. For if he grant, that Constantine gave the Pope his whole power and dominion over Rome, Italy, and all the west, he must needs grant that the Pope of right hath imperial power over all the west. If he deny it, he showeth not how Constantins departure was a step for the Pope to climb to higher authority. Besides that, not Constantins departure, but his gift should have been made the step. Notwithstanding choosing rather to condemn himself, of not showing how Constantins departure was a step for the Pope to climb, then to grant that the Pope hath so good right to imperial power over the west, he inclineth to denial of the gift, & citeth Valla, Volaterran, Cathalan & Cusan, four late and obscure writers against it, and termeth them Popish parasites who affirm it.  
3. But against these four late writers I oppose four most ancient, Isidor, Photius or Balsamon, Gratian, & Ivo, & many late writers, besides two jews Rabbi Abraham, and Aben Esra, who all avouch Constantins gift, whereof Photius and the jews were professed enemies of the Pope: and Bel himself confesseth that some Emperors have given the Pope their sovereign rights. In which kind no Emperor excelled Constantine. yet Bellarmine (saith 
Bellarmin. lib. 5. de Roman. Pont. ●. 9  Bel) seemeth to doubt of this, and such like donations. Wherein Sir? In these words (saith he) there are extant at Rome the authentical evidences of these and the like donations, and if there were not, prescription of eight hundred years would abundantly suffice. For Kingdoms unjustly gotten are in process of time made lawful. as he proveth by the Roman Empire gotten 
Prescription of 30. years sufficeth by civil la.  by Cesar, the Kingdom of England by Saxons, and others. What show is in these words of doubt? or rather not of certainty? For Bellarmin affirmeth that the Pope hath two just titles to hold his estate: The first is free gift of Princes, whereof he can show authentical evidences: the other prescription of time.  
4. The second step (saith Bel) was the fall 
pag. 8.  of the Empire in the west, in the year 471. and vacancy thereof for almost 330. years. But how this fall and vacancy of the Empire was a step for Popes to climb, neither he showeth nor any can imagine, especially if (as he writeth strait after) in this vacancy of the Empire Rome was spoiled with fire & sword, and the very walls thrown down to the ground, and all Italy possessed of the Barbares until Carolus Magnus, who was the first Emperor after the vacancy, if in this vacancy Rome was destroyed, and all Italy possessed by Barbares (who for the most part were heathens, or heretics) how could it be a step for the Pope to climb, and not rather to fall?  
5. Evident it is out of histories of those times, that Popes in that vacancy were sometime under Barbares, sometime under Emperors of the East, according as the one prevailed against the other (for false it is that Barbares possessed all Italy until Carolus Magnus yea Bel before said that Popes lived under Emperors until the year 603.) and 
pag. 2. ●.  betwixt both lived in great danger, subjection, and misery. Three of them died in 
Silverius. johannes 1. Martinus 1. Leo 3. Sergius. Gregorius 2. vid. Platinam in vit. Pont.  banishment or prison, one pitifully mangled and beaten, others should have been imprisoned and murdered, and divers were straictlie besieged of their enemies. And for a long time none could be freely elected without consent of the Barbares, or Emperors. And can we think that this was a time for Popes to climb to greater authority? I omit, that before Bel said Popes lived in dutiful obedience under Emperors until the 
5. Contradict.  year 603. how doth he now say that they climb to tyranny from the year 471.  
6. The 3. step (saith Bel) was the voluntary 
pag. 8. 9  Charter which Constantin the Emperor of Constantinople made to Pope Benedict. 2. uz. that whosoever the Clergy people and Roman souldires should choose to be Bishop, all men should believe him to be the true vicar of Christ, without any tarrying for any authority of the Emperor of Constantinople, or the deputy of Italy, as 
16. untruth  the custom and manner was ever before that day. Thus (saith he) writeth Platina. And the 
Platina in Benedict. 2.  Popes almost for the space of 700. years could have no jurisdiction, nor be reputed true Bishops of Rome, without the letter patents of the 
Vbicunque est impudentia ibi est ultio. Chrisosto. hom. 4. in illud Esai. vidi Dominun.  Emperor.  
7. Behold the impudency of this fellow. Platina saith, ut antea fieri consueverat, Bel affirmeth him to say, it was the custom ever before that day. where is in Platina the word (ever) where (till that day) Nay doth not Platina say that Pelagius the second 
Platin. in pelagio & in Siluerio. Nauclerus general. 18. Bland. De●. 1. l. 3.  was created iniussu principis without command of the Prince, that Silverius was made Pope iubente Theodohato at the command of Theodate a Gothishe King? Did not Bel himself tell us that Barbarians ruled 
pag. 8.  in Rome, and possessed all Italy for 330 years, until Charles the great? How then could it be, that before Benet the second never Popes could have jurisdiction, and be accounted true Bishops of Rome without letter patents of Emperors, who were professed enemies, and made war upon most of these Barbarians? or is Bel so mad even to imagine, that Pope Anaclete (to omit S. Peter's want of Nero's letter patents) could have no jurisdiction, or be reputed true Bishop of Rome, without letter patents of Domitian the Emperor, Clement without Traianus? Cornelius without Decius? Caius without Diocletian? or the other holy Popes that were martyred under heathen Emperors, without their letter patents?  
8. What therefore Platina saith had been wont to be done before, about expecting the confirmation of the Emperor, or his deputy in Italy, he understood of the time since Pope Vigilius (excepting Pelagius 2.) until Benedict the second; for justinian the Emperor having in the year 553. quite subdued the Goths, and recovered Rome and Italy, which had been lost to the Barbares in the year 475. or 476. (Bell wrongly saith 471.) imitating the tyranny 
pag. 8.  of the Gothish Kings, who being Arians much oppressed the Popes, appointed that they after their election, should expect the Emperor or his deputies confirmation, before they were consecrated, or used their function. And this order endured from Pope Vigilius his time, until benedict the second, for more than one hundred years, at what time Constantine the fifth, in the 
Platin. sup.  year 684. moved (say the writers) at the holiness of benedict 2. abrogated the said order, permitting as well the consecration, as the election of Popes unto the Roman Clergy, and people.  
9 Hereby we see, that the creation of Popes without emperors consent, was no new thing begun first in Benedict. 2. but an ancient liberty begun even with the Popedom itself, and continued under 
Papistry above a thousand years old yet new with Bel. pag. 2.  Constantine the great and other Christian Emperors until the time of the barbarous Gothish Kings, & restored again by Constantine the fifth. but mark good reader how Bel before confessed Gregory the great (who died about the year 604.) to have 
The same declared justinian about the year 532. epist. ad joan. P. and Valentinian ep. ad Theodosium long before. pag. 83. 2. Pet. 3. v. 8.  been a Papist, and here acknowledgeth the Emperor Phocas in the year 607. to have declared Rome to be the head of all Churches: likewise Constantine the fifth in the year 984. to have declared the Pope to be Christ's true vicar: yet nevertheless will have Papistry, and Pope's supremacy to be new things. So to him a thousand years are as one day.  
10. The fourth step Bel maketh the deposition of Childrick King of France by Pope Zacharie, which (he saith) the Pope did for hope of advancement. But as for the deposition, it was most just, for it was done, not only with the consent of the whole 
This Childrick was surnamed the Idiot or senseless. Claud. Paradin. Annal. Franc. Naucler. general. 25. Platin. in Gregor. 3.  realm of France, no man reclaiming, but at their request as testifieth Sabellius aeneid 8. & Blandus Dec: 1. lib: 10. out of Alcuin: Paul and others, at what time the Saracens possessing all Egypt, Syria, Africa, & Spain, had not long before invaded France, with many hundred thousands of men, & Childrick being extremely slothful, & careless of the commonwealth, not only France, but all Christendom was in great danger to be overrun with those Saracens.  
11. And that Pope Zacharies' intention was just, appeareth by his great holiness of life, who (as Anastasius and others writ) was so good as he would not requite evil with evil, and much less for his own advancement wrongfully depose a King, as Bel upon mere malice, without all proof doth calumniate him, taking upon him to know the secrets of hearts, and judge an others servant. 
2. Paralip. 6. Roman. 14.  Besides, that neither was he any way advanced by Pipin, nor can it be justly presumed, that he expected to be. But for what end soever it had been done, it could be no step to the Pope's superiority over Princes, but an act of such authority already gotten.  
12. Whereupon Bellarmin out of this so 
Bellarm. lib. 5. de Rom. Pontif. c. 8.  ancient example, above eight hundred years ago, proveth Popes to have such authority, whereat Bel so stormeth that he 
pag 10. 17 untruth 18 untruth  saith. jesuits teach that the Pope can set up, and pull down Kings at his pleasure, and that they are grand masters, and Architects of seditions, rebellious, and bloody treasons, which are but false slanders of his own. Et quis innocens erit si accusasse sufficiat. And adviseth Christian Princes 
pag. 11.  that if the Pope send any into their dominions, with his Bulls and excommunications, they deal with them as Philip the fair dealt with Boniface the eights Nuncio, whom he imprisoned, and burned their bulls: and as Charles the sixth, who gave sentence that the bulls of Benedic. 13. should be rend in pieces, the bearer set on the pillory, and traduced in the pulpit. But withal he forgot to tell what befell to Philip for his evil dealing with Boniface, uz. That he himself was 
Genelrard. in chron. Antonin. 3. part. art. 20. paragr. 20.  killed with a fall of his horse, his three sons untimely died, their wives shamefully taken in adultery, and the crown translated from his Issue to an other line. Of Benedic 13. no marvel if he and his messenger were so handled, because he was no true, but a false Pope; and thus much of Bells first our steps, now let us see the rest.   

CHAP. IX. The rest of Bells false steps, and slanderous untruths in this article disproved.  
THE first step (saith Bel) was the decay 
Bel pag. 11.  of the Empire in the East about the year 756, at what time Pipin being called into Italy by Pope Steeven 2. to deliver Rome from the siege of Lombard's, and overcoming them gave up the government 
19 untruth  of Italy into the Pope's hands. Here Bel hudleth up store of untruths. That the empire decayed in the East about the year 756. For it decayed long before about the year 635. under 
Onuphr. in chron. Platin. in Honorio 1. art. 623. Balmerin. in chron. 639. Onuphr. in chron.  the heretical Emperor Heraclius, when the Saracens conquered Palestin, Syria, and Egypt, and about the year 697. all Africa, & went more & more decaying according as it revolted from the faith and obedience of the Roman Sea, until in the year 1452. it was utterly extinguished, Constantinople being taken by Turks, and the Emperor slain. And about 756. whereof Bel speaketh, the Eastern Empire lost little or nothing, except a very small piece of Italy, called the exarchate which the Lombard's had conquered in the year 751.  
2. That Pipin gave up Italy into the Pope's hands. Whereas Pipin subdued only that part of Italy which the Lombard's held: that in Pipins' conquest ended the whole power of the emperors 
21 untruth.  Lieutenants in Italy. This is doubly untrue. First because Pipin conquered nothing from the Emperor but from the Lombard's, who four or five years before, had taken the exarchate of Revenna from the Empire. Secondly because, besides that which Pippin then conquered, or the Lombard's had before taken from the Empire, the Emperors had both then, and long 
Naucler. general. 27. Platin. in Leone 3. Bland. Dec. 2. lib. 1.  after great dominion in Italy, vz almost all the kingdom of Naples which he governed by Lieutenants.  
3. But what was the end of this untruth? forsooth that we should Imagine, that in Pipins' time the Pope became Antichrist. For now (saith Bel, was he taken away, who 
pag. 12. 2. Thess. 2.  as the Apostle teacheth us hindered the coming of Antichrist, meaning the emperors dominion in Italy. Mark good reader in the year 476. or as Bel saith 471. not only all 
Baron. annal. Onuphr. in chron.  Italy, was taken from the Emperor, by the Herules, but he also deposed, and the weasterne Empire utterly dissolved. And albeit in the year 553. the Grecian Emperors recovered Italy again, yet soon after in the year 568. they lost a great part thereof to the Lombard's, which they never 
Onuphr. in chron. Palmer. in chron. 572.  recovered. And in neither of these times Bel thinketh the hindrance of antichrist's coming, whereof S. Paul spoke, to have been taken away, because than he findeth no colour to make the Pope a new Antichrist.  
4. But when the Grecian Emperors lost to the Lombard's the exarchate of Revenna (a 
Naucler. general. 26.  petit dominion of five Cities, & one shire called Emilia, though they held still a good part of Italy) than the hindrance of Antechriste was taken away, because forsooth soon after, that exarchate being taken by Pippin from the Lombard's, it was by him given to the Pope, who thereby became Antichrist, as if Bishops become antichrists by temporal livings, a reason smelling ranckely of a puritan spirit, which would pull down Bishoprics; but if temporal dominion made the Pope Antichrist, he was long before Pippin: for in the year 699. Aripert King of Lombardy gave to him the Coctian Alps where Geneva is, which 
Ado in chronic. Bland. Dec. 1. lib. 10. Magdeburg. cent. 8. c. 10. Regino Ado Sigebert. in chron. Magdeburg. supra.  donation confirmed King Luithprand in the year 714. as the Magdeburgians confess. and King Pipin in the year 755. added the exarchate, and a good piece of Italy which he had conquered from the Lombard's.  
5. As for the hindrance of Antechrists' coming whereof S. Paul speaketh, it was not the petit dominion which the Emperors had in the exarchate of Revenna, but the Roman Empire itself; as testify S. Chrisostome, and others upon that place, 
S. Chrisost. S. Ciril. S. Hierom. S. August. tom. 5.  S. Ciril Catech. 15. S. Hierom q. 11. ad Algasiam: S. Augustin lib. 20. de civit. c. 19 and other fathers who out of that place affirm, that Antichrist shall not come until the Roman Empire be quite taken away, which is not yet I let pass a contradiction of Bel saying, p. 8. that Barbarians possessed all 
Contradict.  Italy unto Carolus Magnus, and pag. 11. that in Pipins' time who was Carolus his father ended the power of the emperors Lieutenants: in Italy. For how could the Emperors have Lieutenants in Italy until Pipin, if Barbarians possessed all Italy unto his sons time.  
6. But the quick sight of this fellow, who before called so many Kings & Emperors blind, I can not let pass. He writeth (pag. 11.) that Pipin gave up the government of Italy into the Pope's hands, a thing (saith he) so apparent as it can not be denied, and yet (pag. 14.) confesseth, that he can not see how the Pope was King in Pipins' time. So blind he is that he can not see, that to give up the government of a Kingdom into ones hands, is to make him King, Again he can not see, 
pag. 14. His brother willet controvers. 4. q. 10. p. 7. pag. 178. saith that the imperial authority is in the Pope. Naucler. general. 26. Palmerius in chronic. Paradin des alliances Genealogiques'.  how if Pippin as Sigebert writeth had Italy in his possession in the year 801. and Bernard made King thereof by Carolus Magnus 812. that the Pope was either then or now any King at al. Surely Bel is either shot sighted or stark blind. For what Sigebert writeth of Pippin, he meaneth not of Pippin Carolus his father and giver of the exarchate, who died 768. but of Pipin Carolus his son: and neither his possessing Italy 801. nor his son Bernard's kingdom thereof 812. doth prejudice the Pope's regality over the exarchate and Coctian Alps, given him before by King Pipin & Aripert, any more than it doth prejudice the regality and dominion which the greek Emperors had at the same time 
Naucletus general. 27. Platina in Leone 3. Bland. Dec. 1. l. 1.  over a great part of Italy, uz. From Naples and Manfredonia to the sea of Sicily.  
7. For besides that Lombardy (whereof Pippin and Bernard were kings) was then called Italy, as is evident out of Charles his 
Nauclerus general. 18.  testament, where he saith. Itali. which is also called Lombardy, because they alone in Italy were then called Kings, and possessed the best part thereof, they were entitled of the whole: as the Kings of England were before the union of Scotland by strangers called in latin Kings of Britanny. And as for Charles the great, he was so far from taking from the Pope, what his father Pipin had given, as he added thereto (saith Nauclerus) the isle of Corsica, and what is from Luna to the Alps confines of Italy, and what betwixt 
Leo Ostiensis lib. 1. chron. Cassinen.  Parma and Luca, together with the Dukedoms of Spoleto and Beneuent.  
8. But yet far greater blindness it is, not to be able to see how the Pope can be now any King at all, if others were Kings of Italy 800. years ago, can he not see how kingdoms may be altered not only to different families, but even to divers nations in less than eight hindered years? are not the Normans and their descent Kings of England because they were not 800. nay 600: years ago? are not Spaniard's Kings in Italy, because they were not 400. years ago? could not the Popes in eight hundred years' space come to a kingdom either by gift of Princes or by just ware, or at least by prescription of time, which they had not before.  
9 As for the Popes besides the gifts of Constantine, Aricthpert, Pipin, and Carolus Magnus before mentioned, Ludovic: Pius Emperor and son to Carolus Magnus 
Gratian. d. 63. can. ego Ludovicus.  confirmed the donation of his grandfather Pipin, and afterward Countess 
Leo lib. 3. chron. c. 48.  Maud, gave to the Pope Liguria and Tuscia in the year 1079. of which gifts the authentical evidences (saith Bellarmin) 
Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. c. 9  are extant in Rome. which sufficeth to let Bel see how the Pope may be now a King, though he were none in the year 812. besides that (pag. 17.) he could see how some Christian Kings and Emperors have yielded up their sovereign rights to the Pope, and (pag 11.) how Pippin gave up the government of Italy into his hand, and is he stricken blind in the midst, so that (pag. 14.) he could not see how the Pope is now any King at al. Thus much of Bells blindness out of his own confession. Now let us see as much of his small credit by the like confession.  
10. Bellarmin (saith he) must be credited at 
Bel pag. 14. Bellar. sup.  leisure, when he telleth us that Pippin gave Ravenna, and Pentapolis to S. Peter & S. Paul, meaning 
Ex Adone loc. cit. & lib. 3. c. 3. ex regione & Sigebert. ●● chron. Bland. Dec. 1. lib. 10. Magdeburg. cent. 8. c. 10.  the Pope, and yet himself telleth us (pag. 11.) that Pipin gave up the government of Italy into the Pope's hands. If Bellarmin must be credited at leisure, for saying Pipin gave to the Pope a small part of Italy, though he prove it by many witnesses, and Bel confess it to be so apparent that it can not be denied. Surely 
Bel p. 12. Bel not to be credited.  himself must not be credited at all, for saying without all testimony, yea contrary to his own testimony (pag. 13.) that he gave Italy to the Pope. I omit a petit untruth of his saying that Meroveus was the first christian King of France. So blind he is that he 
Anual. Gall. claud Paradin des Alliances Gnealogiques'. Bel pag. 12.  can not discern the grandfather from the grandchild, Meroveus from Clodoveus, a heathen from a christian.  
11. The sixth step, Bel maketh the translation of the Empire by Pope Leo 3. from the Greeks' to the French, or Germans in the person of Charles the great, of this translation we have spoken before, and it is rather a notorious act of the Pope's superiority over Emperors, than a step thereunto. But because Sigebert in recounting 
Sigeb. chronic. 801.  it saith Romani animo desciverant ab Imperatore Constantinopoli. Which Bel Englisheth 
pag. 13.  revolted from the Emperor, he inferreth divers untruths: first that Popes were subject to 
23 untruth.  emperors 800. years after Christ. Secondly that the translation of the Empire implied flat treason 
24 untruth  in the Pope, and Romans. thirdly that Sigebert 
25 untruth.  saith they surrendered the right of their sovereign to an othor.  
12. To disprove the two first untruths 
Bel disproved by himself.  I need no other witness than Bel himself, who (pag. 8.) affirmed that from the year 471. until Carolus Magnus (which was 801.) Barbarians possessed all Italy. If from 471. until 801. Barbarians possessed all Italy, how 
Contradict. 7. Contradict. 8.  were Popes 800. years under Emperors? how committed they treason against Emperors, in making Carolus Emperor, if at that time, & above 300. years before, they were not under Emperors, but under Barbarians.  
13. The truth is that Barbarians possessed 
Baron. in annal.  Italy from the year 476. for more than 80. years, after which time the Grecian Emperor in the year 553. recovered all Italy, and albeit they lost shortly after in the year 568 a great part thereof, yet they kept Rome until about the year 726. Onuph saith 731, when both Rome and 
Onuphr. in chron. Baron. in annal.  Italy revolted from Leo 3. Emperor of Constantinople for his heresy against Images, and would then have chosen an other Emperor against him, if Gregory the second than Pope had not dissuaded them. Since which time Rome was never under the Emperors of Constantinople. And therefore neither were the Pope's subject to emperors 800. years after Christ: nor did Pope Leo commit any treason against the Grecian Emperors, by creating Charles Emperor in the year 801. which was almost a hundred years after the revolt of Italy from the Greeks. As for the third untruth it is evident, because Sigebert doth not call the graecian Emperor sovereign to to the Romans: And the word desciverant signifieth any forsaking or leaving of one, whether he be his sovereign or no.  
14. But Bel goeth on in erring the Pope 
Bel pag. 13.  not to be true King of Italy, because writers agree not about the Pope to whom, or time, when this regality was first granted. Mark good reader, himself before affirmed that King Pipin gave up the government 
pag. 12. 13.  of Italy into Pope Steevens hands and that this truth is apparent by the testimoney of many renowned 
Bel denieth what himself saith cannot be denied. Onuphr. in chron. Nauclerus general. 25. An. 750. Claudius' Parad. des alliances Genealogiques'. Ado Regino Sigebert. in chron. Blond. Dec. 1 l. 10. Madge deburgens. cent. 8. c. 10. Leo Ostien. lib. 1. chron. c. 9 Onuph. sup.  Cronographes, and can not be denied, and now in the next page denieth both the fact, and contestation of historiographers. What will he not deny, who denieth that which himself saith can not be denied?  
15. The truth is that Pippin gave not the exarchate to Greg. 3 who died in the year 741 or as other writ 740, fourteen years before Pipins' entrance into Italy, neither was Pipin then a King, but made afterward by Zachary successor to Gregory as Bel testifieth page 19 but to Pope Steeven 2. as is apparent (to use Bells words) by the testimony of many renowned chronographers, though some call him Steeven 3. because they reckon his predecessor, whom others omit, because he lived but four days, likewise all writers agree that Lewes pius confirmed the donation of his grandfather Pippin 
Apud Gratian. dist. 63. can. ego Ludovicus. Leo Ostien. lib. 3. chron. c. 48.  unto Paschal. 1. and his name is in the donation, as also that Countess Maud gave Liguria, and Tuscia unto Gregory the seventh.  
16. And Bells proving the historiographers 
Bel pag. 13.  to disagree, because Blondus and Platina (saith he) writ that Pippin gave the exarchate to Gregory the third, Regino referreth it to Steeven, and Sigebert saith Pipin had Italy in his own possession in the year 801. is like the rest of his proceed. For that of Platina is a manifest untruth, for he saith 
Platina in Stephan. 2. Naucler. general. 26. Palmerius in chronic. Claud. Paradi. in Pepin. paragr. 6. 7. 8. 9  Pipin gave the exarchate in Pope Steeven the second his time, and Sigebert meaneth not of King Pipin the giver of the exarchate who died 768, but of his grandchild son to Carolus Magnus, and how his possession of Italy doth not prejudicate the Pope, is before explicated. Regino saith that which is truth, for best authors agree, that Pipin gave the exarchate in the year 755. at What time Steeven 2. al. 3. was Pope.  
17. But suppose writers did not agree about the Pope to whom, and time, when Pipin made his gift of the exarchate, must we therefore needs deny the gift in which they all agree? So we might deny that Christ Was borne, because writers agree not about the time: is it not usual for historiographers to agree in the substance of the narration, and yet differ in some circumstance of the person, or time?  
18. Last of all lest we should think the Grecian Emperors, acknowledged Charles made by the Pope to be true Emperor, 
Bel pag. 14. Sigebert. An. 805.  he telleth us out of Sigebert, that they had indignation against Charles, and therefore he with often Embassages procured their friendshipes: yea Blandus and Platina (saith he) affirm constantly that Charles agreed with Irene, and afterward with Niccphoras, that with their favours the might rule over the west. Behold the drift of Bel, to make us think that Charles became Emperor, not by creation of the Pope, but by grant of Grecian Emperors: so loathe he is to confess the Pope had so great authority above 800. years ago. Wherein the silly fool overthroweth what he before said. For if the Pope did not translate the Empire, than was it no step to his tyranny, as he imagineth.  
19 But let us hear how he proveth, that the Grecian Emperors did not achnowledge Charles the great for true Emperor, first forsooth because Sigebert saith, they had indignation against Charles; what then? are never Emperors offended for any thing lawfully done, especially if they think it prejudice their estate & dignity? and albeit Sigebert affirm, that some Grecian Emperors (who themselves came unlawfully and by tyranny to the Empire, and that after Charles was crowned Emperor) had indignation against Charles; yet none write that Irene (who was the only & lawful Empress at that time, when Charles was created) was offended with his creation, but rather content, as may be gathered by her purpose which (as Zonoras' and Cedrenus write) she had to marry him, Yea Nauclerus saith, she was deposed for 
Naucler. general. 28.  the favour she bore to Charles, besides the indignation of those Emperors uz. Nicephorus, Michael, and Leo, was not so much for the Imperial dignity taken by Charles, as because, as writeth Eginhart, Charles 
Eginhart in vita Caroli.  his secretary, they greatly suspected lest he should take the Empire from them; which they might justly fear, because by tyranny and deposition of their predecessors, they had gotten it, and yet notwithstanding their indignation, of their own accord they sent Ambassadors to Charles, and made league and friendship with him, as the same Eginhart, Ado, and others testify. Yea the Magdeburgians add, that the Grecians in a manner consented to Charles his Empire.  
20. His other proof out of Platina containeth an untruth, for Platina writeth that 
Platina in jeone 3.  Charles being made Emperor, Irene sent Ambassadors to make peace and league with him, & to divide Italy betwixt them, which league Nicephorus renewed: but he hath no word of Charles his ruling the west with their fovours, more than of their ruling the East with his. And the like saith Blondus. 
Blond. Dec. 2. l. 1. Bel pag. 14.   
21. The seventh step (saith Bel) was the constitution of the seven Prince's electors of the future Emperor by Pope Gregory 5. by the favour and free grant of Otho then Emperor. But this was rather an act of superiority in the Pope over Emperors, than a step until it. And seeing this constitution hath ever since been inviolably observed, and the Emperors so elected accounted as true Emperors throughout all Christendom, a sign it is that Christians think the Pope hath authority to appoint Electors, who may choose what Emperor they please, by the authority given them from the Pope. Wherefore I would Bel answered me this dilemma. The seven Electors have authority to choose an Emperor, or not? If they have then the Pope who gave them that authority, had the same, because none can give what he hath not himself; if not, Bel deposeth at once more Emperors and Princes, than all Popes have done.  
22. The eight and highest step of this ladder 
Bel pag. 15.  (saith Bel) d●d reach up even to the highest heaven, and to the very throne of our lord jesus. here is a great cry! now let us see quid dignum tanto fert hic promissor hiat● because (says he) 
Extravag. Bonif. 8. utiam sanctam de maioritate & obedientia▪ untruth.  they challenge the royal right of both swords throughout the Christian world, and have made thereof a flat decree. But first I deny that the Pope, as Pope, challengeth royal right of either sword. For his right to the spiritual sword is not royal, but of a different nature, as is evident, & shall be declared hereafter: and his royal right to the material sword, is neither over all christendom, as Bel untruely avoucheth, but only over the Popedom: nor he challendgeth it by his Papacy, yea (as Pope Gelasius wrote) Popes 
Gelasius de vincul. anathematis. & Nicol. 1. dec. 96. can. cum ad vetum. pag. 17. Bernard. lib. 4. de consideratione.  have not challenged royal sovereignty, but by the gift of Princes, who as Bel saith have given their rights to them. And albeit the decree do (after S. Bernard) give to the Pope right of the material sword; yet neither hath it the word royal, nor meaneth of Royal right, as is evident because it teacheth, that this sword is not to be drawn, or used by the Pope's hand (as no doubt it might, if he had royal right unto it) but by the hand of the soldier, at the commandment of the Emperor, and beck of the Pope. Whereby we see, that the decree attributeth royal right, of the material sword, only to the Emperor, who is to command the soldier to draw, and use it, and to the Pope only authority to direct the Emperor in his command and use of his sword.  
23. But suppose that Popes did challenge royal right of both swords, throughout the christian world, is this to climb to the highest heaven and to Christ's throne? doth the christian world reach to the highest heaven? or yet to the bounds of the earth? doth Christ's throne rule no more than the christian world? or doth royal authority under him, reach to his throne? surely Bel hath a base conceit of Christ's kingdom, if he imagine that Popes, or Princes by their authorities, reach to his throne, who (as S. Paul saith) is above all powers and princedoms, 
Ad Ephes. c. 1. v 21. Bel condemneth that in the Pope for blasphemy, which he judgeth treason to deny to Princes.  thrones and dominations, and above every name which is named, either in this world or in the next, but mark good reader, how Bel condemneth that for horrible blasphemy in the Pope, which himself accounteth as high treason to deny to other Princes. For what is supremacy in both ecclesiastical & civil causes, but (as he speaketh) royal right of both swords, and to deny this to temporal Princes, he deemeth no less than high treason.  
24. secondly he proveth his foresaid 
pag. 14. Dist. 22. can. omnes.  slander out of Pope Nicholas 1. his words, Christ committed to S. Peter the right both of heavenly and earthly empire. which Bel seemeth to understand of spiritual, and temporal power. Answer. Suppose the words were meant of spiritual & temporal power, they make nothing for royal right, but may be well expounded according to the meanig of the foresaid decree. That S. Peter had from Christ right to both empires, uz. to govern the one, and to direct the other, but of royal right there is no word in P: Nicholas: 
Nicol. 1. ep. ad Michael. Imper.  yea he professeth that Christ distinguished ecclesiastical and imperial power by distinct acts and dignities, that in spiritual matters the Emperor should need Bishops, & in temporal, Bishops use Emperourrs. But indeed Pope Nicholas meaneth not of temporal power at all, but only of spiritual given to S. Peter, Which he calleth both earthly and heavenly dominion, because according to our saviours Words (Math: 16. to which he alludeth what he looseth in earth is loosed in heaven.  
25. I omit a gloze cited by Bel, because it 
Glossa F. C●lestis.  only saith that the Pope hath both swords, vz, in the sense before explicated. But what he bringeth out of an obscure appendix of P. Boniface his making a constitution, 
Appendix Fulde●●s.  wherein he affimed himself to be spiritual and temporal Lord in the whole world, is untrue, as is evident by the constitution, and words before cited out of it. And Pope Clement 5. declared extrauag. 
Clemens 5.  meruit Charissimi: de priuilegij●: that Pope Boniface his constitution did nothing prejudice the kingdom of France. But what the appendix saith of Boniface his sending to Philip King of France to have him acknowledge, he held the kingdom of him, may well be expounded by that Platina writeth 
Platin. in Bonifac. 8.  uz. That Philip having against the law of nations imprisoned a Bishop, whom Boniface sent unto him to persuade him to make ware against Infidels, the Pope sent the archdeacon of Narbo to procure the Bishop's liberty, and otherwise to denounce, that the kingdom of France was fallen to the church's disposition, for the offence of the King.  
26. But let us go on with Bel. Since this 
●el pag. 16.  ladder (saith he) was thus framed. Pope's have tiranized above measure, deposed Kings and Kingdoms, and taken upon them authority, pertaining to God alone. Omitting Bells strange phrase of deposing Kingdoms: if to depose Kings for never so just cause be to tyrannize, Protestants have tiranized far more in the space of 70. years, than the Pope hath in these 300. years since that decree was made. For in all these 300. years, besides one or two Kings of Naples, who were his liege men, I find deposed by the 
How many deposed by Popes in 300. years. Clemens 5. extrauag. ad Certitudinem.  Pope one Schismatical and heretical Emperor of Greece Andronicus Paleologus, and one other doubtful Emperor Ludovick the Bavarian, two French Kings Philip. 4. and Ludovick 12. and one King of Bemeland George, and one King of Navarre, besides King Henry 8. and Queen Elizabeth, and these all for heinous crimes. whereas Protestants in 70. years (setting 
Howmany by Protestants in 70. years.  aside the injustice of their quarrel) have as much as lay them, deposed one Emperor, six or seven Kings, & two absolute Queens, slain two Kings, one Queen, and one Queen's husband, as before hath been told. c. 4. paragr. 6.  
27. And Bel who so much observeth 
Sacerdotes nunquam tyranni fuerunt, sed tyrannos saepe sunt passi: Amb. ep. 33.  the deposition of Emperors and Kings by the Pope, and omitteth both their injuries to him, and his benefits done to them, showeth himself to be no indifferent man. For omitting almost 33. Pope's put to death by heathen Emperors, Christian Emperors, 
vid. Platinam in vit. Pont. Six Popes murdered.  Princes, and others, have murdered six Popes uz. Felix 2. johannes 11. johannes 15. Benedictus 6. Clement. 2. Victor 3. besides Gregory 2. and divers other whom they have attempted to murder. They have banished four uz. Liberius, Sieverius, Vigilius, Martin I, 
Four banished.  besides many others whom for fear of their lives they drove into banishment. they have imprisoned six uz. johannes 1. johannes 
Six imprisoned.  9 Paschorlis 2. Boniface 8. Vrbanus 6. Clement. 7. besyd Sergius 1. & others whom they attempted to imprison. They have deposed as much as they could sixteen uz. johannes 12. al. 13. Benedict. 5: Gregory 5. Benedict. 
Sixteen deposed.  8. and 9 Alexander 2. Gregory 6. and 7. Gelasius 2. Innocent. 2. Alexander 3 john 22. urban 6. Martin 5. by Alphons King of Arragon, 
Platin. in Alexand. 3. Liberality of Popes towards England. Stow an. 1171. Polidorus lib. 16. Coming. ventura in relation. de Napoli. When would Luther and Caluin have given three Kingdoms to England.  Eugen. 4. by procurement of Philip Duke of Millen & julius 2. whereas on the contrary side (to omit spiritual benefits) Popes have bestowed the Empire upon almost all them Emperors whom they deposed, and have refused to take the Empire from the Germans though they have been much solicited thereto by the Grecians, and to let pass their liberality to other Princes, they have bestowed the Kingdom of Ireland upon Henry the second, and of Naples and Sicily upon Henry 3. and the most honourable title of defender of the faith upon Henry 8. Kings of England: hereby may the indifferent reader (even setting aside the justice of the cause, and considering only the fact) clearly perceive, whether Christian Emperors and Princes have more tiranized over Popes, than Popes over them, now let us come to Bells proof of his old slander here again renewed, of the Pope's taking upon them power proper to God alone.  
28. A Close (saith he) affirmeth the Pope 
Bel pag. 14. Gloss. lib. 1. tit. 7. c. 3.  to have celestial arbitrement, to be able to alter the nature of things, applying the substance of one to an other, and to make something of nothing: and the Pope (saith Bel) is well pleased there with. Answer. As for the Pope being pleased with the foresaid words, it is more than Bel knoweth, but sure I am he detesteth them, if they be meant of power to create, or proper to God alone. But well I see that which doth not displease Bel, if it be given to Princes; he condemneth as intolerable blasphemy, if it be attributed to Popes. For the foresaid words are all in the civil law, and by the Emperors applied either to themselves, or to the Pope: as the emperors Gratian, Valentinian, and Theodosius de sum. 
Three Emperors say the P. hath celestial arbitrement.  Trin. lib. 1. affirm the Popes to have celestial arbitrement, and condemn them as infamous heretics, who follow not the religion of Pope Damasus: and his arbitrement in spiritual matters, may be called heavenly, because his authority therein came from heaven. That of altering the nature of things, and applying the substance of one to an other, the Emperor justinian C. communia de leg. lib. 2. apply to himself 
Of what things Popes or Princes can alter the nature.  and meaneth of civil contracts, as legaces and feoffees in trust, which by his imperial power, he can alter and change. and the like power (saith the gloss) hath the Pope in contracts pertaining to spiritual matters. But of altering the nature of natural things, neither the Emperor, nor the gloss dreamt.  
29. But the words which Bel most urgeth are, that the Pope can make de nihilo aliquid something of nothing. For (saith he) it is a thing proper to God to make something of nothing in all cases and at all times. But besides that the gloss neither saith that the Pope can make de nihilo aliquid, but de nullo aliquid, neither yet in all cases, and all times, as Bel addeth: the foresaid words are taken out of justinian. C. de rei uxor. act. lib. 1. where the Emperor 
Of what nothing Popes or Princes can make something.  saith, that because he can make to be accounted a stipulation, where none is, much more he can an insufficient stipulation to be sufficient: & the like authority in human contracts touching spiritual matters, the gloss attributeth to the Pope? & this he meant when he said, the Pope can the nullo fecere aliquid of no contract make one. which Bel would apply to creation & making creatures of nothing as God made the world.  
30. secondly he proveth his slander, out of Gersons report before answered, and thirdly out of Gregory 9 saying. Ad firmamentum 
Gregor. 9 lib. 1. de cre●. tit. 33. c. 6.  Caeli etc. to the firmament of heaven that is of the universal church, God made two lights, Pontifical authority, and power Royal, that we may know there is as much difference between Pope & Kings, as bet wixt sun & moon. Is here any word of authority belonging to God? or yet of deposing Kings? but only a comparison, of Pontifical & Royal power with the sun & moon (allowed by the public letters 
Written 1279. and one extant in Baron. tom. 10. an. 996. Matth. 16. vers. 19 & 18. job. 21. v. 15. 16. Act. 20. v. 18. Matth. 28. v. 19  of three Princes electors) and a preferring of the Pontifical before the Royal, which if Bel had any feeling of Christianity in him he would not deny. Is not the losing and binding of sins in heaven & earth, of preaching the gospel, admnistring the sacraments, of feeding Christ's sheep, and the like, which belongeth to Bishops, as is evident out of scripture, far more excellent than Royal power? which as well women and children, as men: infidels, as Christians may have.  
31. The sun & moon are of the same 
Royal power far inferour to Pontifical  nature and quality, differing only in more or less light, but Royal power is both of nature and quality far inferior to Pontifical: that is more human and begun by 
Constantin called Bishops Gods and professed himself under them Ruffin. lib. 1. hist. c. 2.  men, this supernatural and instituted by God: that common to Infidels, this proper to christians: that passeth not earth, this reacheth to heaven: that concerneth only the body, this the soul: that helpeth men to worldhe and transitory quietness, this to heavenly and everlasting rest. Bel could not abide Pope Gregory saying Pontifical authority excelled Royal as far as the sun excelleth the moon, nor the gloss saying, it excelled it 47. times, how then will he abide S. Chrisostom saying it excelleth the kingdom 
Chrisost. l. 3. de sacerd. Ambros. lib. de dignit. sacerd. c. 2.  as much as the soul doth the body, or S. Ambrose saying that nothing can be equal to Pontifical dignity, and that Royal glory, and Princes crowns, are far more inferior to it, than lead is to glistering gold. And again nothing in this world is more 
Ibid. cap. 3.  excellent than priests, nothing higher than Bishops. or S. Ignatius saying that nothing is more honourable 
Ignat. epist. ad Smirnenscs.  in the church than Bishops, and that we own the first honour to God, the second to Bishops, the third to Kings. he exclaimed against the gloss for affirming the Pope to have celestial arbitrement, what will he say to S. Chrisostome 
Chrisosto. hom. 5. in illud Esaiae vidi Dominum, & homil. 4. item hom. 60. ad populum.  (worthily in his own judgement Surnamed the golden mouthed doctor) avouching that the Priest's throne is in heaven, that he hath authority to judge of celestial business, and that God hath put the very Prince's head under the hands of the priest, to teach us that the priest is a Prince greater than he. And in an other place affirmeth 
hom. 83. in Matth. Hom. 2. in 2. in Timoth. Gregor. lib. 4. epist. 31. S. Cyprian. lib. 3. epist. 9 noteth that the beginning of Schisms & Heresies is by contempt of Priests and Bishops. Themistius in l. consul. apud Socratem. l. 3. c. 25. Arian Bishops more for the palace then for the Church. Hilar. l. cont. Constant.  a Deacon to have greater power than an Emperor, and adviseth us that who despiseth the Priest, at length falleth to contemn God. and S. Gregory writing to the Emperor himself saith priests are certain Gods amongst men, and therefore to be honoured of all even of Kings. But Bel in debasing priesthood, and too too much exalting Princes, showeth himself to be a right Apostata from priesthood, and a right heretic, who, as Themistius said, honour not God but Princes. And thus much of Bells eight steps.  
32. Thus thou seest Christian reader that of these eight steps, which Bel imagined the Pope had to climb to his superiority over Princes, two of them to wit the first and second were steps rather to fall, then to climb by, three uz. the fourth, sixth, and seventh, were evident acts of such authority already enjoyed, & acknowledged by Princes, the third was but a recovery of his ancient liberty, the fieft is no more a step for the Pope to climb, then temporal livings are to other bishops. And the eight and last is a manifest untruth. But the true step he 
Matth. 16. v. 18. joan. 21. v. 17.  omitted, which is Christ's promise to S. Peter to build his Church upon him. and his commission to feed his sheep, by virtue whereof, all S. Peter's successors challenged to be spiritual superior to all that are in Christ's church, or be his sheep, be they Princes, or subjects, as is evident out of the 
Bonif 8. extrauag. unam sanctam. de maioritate & obedientia. Sed epist. joan. 2. ad justinianum Imper. Gregor. lib. 1. epist. 24. Bel pag. 17. Bel slandereth Princes.  foresaid decree of Boniface 8.  
33. Bel having thus (as you have heard) slandered Popes, thought not to let either Kings, or Emperors pass free, but saith that some of them have opened the window to all Antichristian tyranny. Greater injury he could not do to Christian Princes, then to accuse them of such horrible impiety of opening the window not to some, but to all Antichristian tyranny. No marvel if he spare neither Pope nor Priest, who thus handleth Princes? If one ask proof of his slander, he bringeth none, but it sufficeth that he hath said it, his word alone is sufficient to condemn many Kings, & Emperors. This is the respect Protestants bear, even to the greatest monarchs, when they are against their proceed. So Luther said Princes for 
Luther. lib. de saecular. potest. edit. 1523. lib. count duo edicta Caesaris 1524. Lib. count Henric. Regem Angl.  the most part were either the veriest fools or arrantest knaves. And again. The Turk is ten times better and wiser than the Emperor, and other Princes whom he calls idiots dolts, mad, furious, and frantic fools, and namely King Henry 8. he revileth with such shameful, such spitful, and scurrilous terms as I am ashamed to write. And amongst Protestants nothing more usual then to call Princes, Antichrists, and slaves of Antichrist.  
34. Bel not yet satisfied with injuring 
pag. 17. untruth 26.  the Pope, addeth that he hath made it sacrilege to dispute of his power, which is a manifest untruth disproved by himself art: 2. p: 26 where he affirmeth that the Pope alloweth Beauties works, who at large disputeth of his power. And because Sigebert (whom Bel untruly calleth the Pope's dear friar, 
untruth 27. Trithem. in Sigebert.  for he was his utter enemy, and to his power favoured the schismatical and Excommunicated Emperor Henry 3, in whose behalf he feigned divers things as Baron. proveth 
Baronius.  tom. 9 An. 774.) reprehendeth them, who taught the people that they own no obedience to evil Kings, Bel inveigheth against Catholics. Whereas Catholics utterly 
Art. 15. damnat. in Concil. Constantien.  defy such Doctrine, & condemned it long since in the Protestants great grandfather wiclife and have learned of the first Pope S. Peter to be subject in all fear, not only to good and modest 
1. Pet. c. 2. v. 18. Cap. 3. parag, 4. 5. 6.  masters, but also to way ward. But Protestants teach that and worse Doctrine, as appeareth by what hath been said before, and by Godman, who (as Covel writerh) published to the world, that it was lawful to kill 
Covel of Church government. c 4. p 35.  wicked Kings, and whitingham a deane of no small account, in his preface before Godmans' book, of firmed it to be the doctrine of the best learned, meaning 
Protestants think it lawful to kill evil Kings. Bel pag. 18. 28 unttuth 29 untruth 30 untruth  (as Covel thinketh) Caluin and the rest.  
35. Finally because the end of this article should not be unlike the beginning he concludeth it with three untruths as he began it, saying. That the Popish religion hath been always condemned of great learned Papists. If he had named the men, and points of religion, as he told the time, the three untruths would have appeared in their likeness. As I guess he meaneth of the Pope's power for deposing Princes, which I confess some Papists have denied, but neither were they the greatest learned men, nor always were there any such, nor hath he proved it to be a point of Popish religion; And thus much of Bells first Article. Wherefore remember (Bel) from whence thou art fallen and do penance. Apoc: 2.    

THE SECOND ARTICLE TOUCHING THE MASS.  

PREFACE.  
Bel divideth this Article into four members, in the first whereof he impugneth the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist; in the second the sacrifice of the Mass; in the third he inveigheth against the recantation which Berengarius made when he adjured Bells heresy; and in the fourth he treateth of apparent contradictions which (saith he) are in the Mass. And the like method we will keep in our answer.   

CHAP. I. Bells reason against the Real Presence of Christ in the B. Sacrament answered, his untruth and dissimulation therein discovered.  
S. Paul prophetied. That in the 
1. Timoth. 4. v. 1.  last times some shall departed from the faith, attending to the spirits of errors and doctrine of devils. Which prophecy is most manifestly fulfilled in these heretics who impugn the Catholic doctrine of the B: Sacrament. For of Berengarius 
Berengarius  (first public enemy of this Sacrament) Malmesburienses an English Chronicler 
Malmesbut. lib. 3. in Guilielmo 1. p. 114.  of his time, writeth, that when he came to visit S. Fulbert B: of Charters lying on his death bed, the holy Bishop commanded him to be put forth, protesting that he did see a huge devil standing by him, and corrupting many to follow him by his flattering hand and alluring breath.  
2. Luther himself confesseth l. de 
Luther. Saints repetit. de Euchar. c. 10. Bellarm. l. 1. de Missa c. 5. Surius in comment. 1534. Genebrard. in chron. Erasm. count epist. non sobriam Lutheri. Carolstadius. Zuinglius. Lindan. ep. dissuasor. p. 114. Occolampadius. Brent. in Recognit. jezlerus lib. de diuturn. belli eucharist.  Missa Angul: to: 7: fol: 228. to have disputed visibly with the devil and been persuaded by him to abrogate Mass. And of this his conference with the devil, besides others, Erasmus a jolly confesser in Fox his calendar is a most sufficient witness. To Carolstadius a great friend at the first of Luther appeared a devil as he was preaching as testifieth Erasmus Alberus. Zwinglius an eager enemy of the real presence testifieth of himself l. de subsid: Euchar: That about the Eucharist he was instructed of a spirit which (saith he I know not, whether it was black, or white. And Luther l. cit: writeth that he thinketh Occolampadius, & others to have been choked by the devil. And the Lutherans call the Zinglians devilish heretics, possessed and obsessed of devils and their opinions diabolical.  
3. Finally Caluin, epist: ad Bucer. confesseth 
Caluin.  that he had a familiar, to which he 
Genium.  imputeth his vain of cursing. Thus we see the very Fathers of Protestantisme to have been haunted, and instructed of devils. Who therefore can doubt but their doctrine is the doctrine of devils, and they, such as having departed from the Catholic faith, wherein they were christened, and bred, did hearken to the spirits of errors, and teach the doctrine, which they had learned of the devil appearing in visible form. Now let us see how Bel like a good scholar defendeth his black masters and oppugneth the Catholic, doctrine.  
4. He beginneth his second Article as he 
Bel pag. 19  did the first, with a syllogism with dissimulation, and untruth. Aquinas (saith he) 
31. untruth.  Bellarm: the Council of Trent, and the rest of the 
Conc. Trid. sess. 13 can 1. Aquinas 3. p. 76. art. 1. Bellarm. l 1. de Euchar. c. 2.  Romish brood hold constantly, as an article of their Christian faith, that the true organical and natural body of Christ, which is localy in haven, is also truly, and really under the form of bred and wine in the sacrifice of the mass: but this (sait● he) is impossible, as which implieth flat contradiction! ergo etc. I accept Bells confession of the Catholics constancy in their faith, which is 
Catholics▪ constant in their faith.  a virtue far from himself, who hath twice altered lies religion.  
5. Bells dissimulation is evident, for he 
3. dissimulation.  could not be ignorant that Luther, and his Lutherish brood hold the real presence of Christ's body, and blood in the Eucharist, no les than Catholics, though otherwise then they do. For Luther accurseth them 
Luther. in praefat. lib. Suevarum. In postrema confess. fidei de caena Domini. Et thesti. 15. & 27.  and accounteth them blasphemers, and damned forever, and in plain teatmes defineth them to be heretics and out of God's church, who deny the body and blood of Christ to be received with carnal mouth in the venerable Eucharist. This was Luther's sentence & judgement upon them that deny the real presence, 
joan. Lavatherus. joan. jeclerus.  which his brood defend with tooth and nail, as is evident by their endless and mortal wars against the Zwinglians and Caluinists, whereof two Protestants have written two books.  
6. Bells want of fidelity appeareth in this proposition whereof he maketh no doubt. For albeit all Catholics believe as a point of their faith, that Christ's true and natural body and the very self same which in heaven is organical, is in the B: Sacrament: yet neither the Council of Trent, S. 
Conc. Trid. sess. 13. can. 1. S. Thom. 3. p. q. 76. art. 1. Bellarm. lib. 1. de Euchar. c. 2.  Thomas nor Bellarmin in the places quoted by Bel, affirm as a point (and much less as an Article) of their faith, that it is there organical. For organization being an accident of the body depending of quantity, they hold no otherwise his organization, than they do his quantity to be in the Sacrament. The Council only defineth whole Christ, that is every substantial part of him to be in the Eucharist, without any mention of his quantity or other accidents as appeareth by the words of the Canon. If any shall deny the body and blood together with the soul & Divinity of our Lord jesus Christ, and consequently whole Christ to be in the Eucharist etc. be he accursed. And in the same sense said S. Thom: 3 p: q. 76 ar: 1. that according to the Catholic faith whole Christ is in the Sacrament. And though art: 4. he teach that Christ's quantity is also in the Sacrament, yet affirmeth he it not as a point of faith. In like sort Bellarm: in the place which Bel citeth teacheth, and truly, that Christ's quantity is in the Sacrament, but not with Bells addition, as a point of faith. And though l 3. de Euchar: c. 5. he call it the common sentence of the Schools and Church, yet condemneth he not the contrary as heretical, but only as false and erroneous. And as for Durand accom Gabriel 
Durand. 4. d. 10. q. 2. Occam 4. q. 4. & tract. de Eucharist. c. 29. maior. q. 2. Gabr. art. 2. concl. 2. & lect. 43. in Can.  Maior, and Satus also as Saints reporteth (whom Bel can not deny to be of the Romish brood as he scornfully speaketh) they thought that Christ's body had not his quantity in the Sacrament and consequently must needs think that it was not there organical. And to disprove Bel, jewel in his apology writeth, that some Papists affirm Christ's quantity to be in the Eucharist, others deny it. For some being persuaded in Philosophy, that quantity essentially requireth aptitudinal commensuration to place, so that if it be put in a place it must needs be coextended to the place, & thinking that they could sufficiently verify Christ's words by teaching the substance of his body to be in the Sacrament denied his quantity to be there, saying that God supplieth the effest thereof so far forth as is necessary for the soul to inform the body, as in all Divines opinion, he supplieth the effect of coextension to place, which also is a natural disposition required to life and information of a body or matter. But other Divines of greater learning and gravity (judging it an inconvenient thing to grant Christ's lively 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 unto it, but only a natural propriety, and therefore separable by God's power from it, as light is from the Sun) taught that Christ's hath his quantity in the Sacrament as a natural accident accompanying his body. And albeit this be a certain truth and not only the common opinion of Schools but seemeth also to be the common sense of Catholics, yet saith Suarez a learned author Tom: 3. in 3. part. 
Suarez  disput: Si stec: 2. It is to hard a censure to condemn the contrary of heresy. For (saith he) I find neither express definition nor irrefragable testimony of Scripture against it, nor yet any thing which can be convinced out of revealed principles, and all the reasons made against it, are deduced out of Philosophical Principles, true and certain but not altogether evident. In like sort Claudius de Saints repetit. 4. de Euchar: c. 4. testifieth 
Saints.  that this matter is not clearly defined by the Church or Scripture. What shame therefore must it be to Bel to avouch that all catholics hold as a point of their faith that Christ's body is organical in the Eucharist, and declining the principal question about the being of Christ's body in the Sacrament (which is an undoubted point of our faith, and against which his chief argument, which as he saith all the Papists in England can not answer taketh no hold) to impugn the being of Christ's quantity in the Eucharist.  
7. Nevertheless because it is a thing most true and most agreeable to our faith. I willingly undertake the defence thereof. Let us see therefore how Bel disproveth it. Forsooth because it implieth contradiction for a greater body as Christ's is to be contained in a lesser as in a cake. 
pag 20. Reason the ground of Bells faith.  Behold the foundation of Bells faith, the best weapon of this stout challenger, the strong reason which all 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 solve. We bring Christ's express words avouching that what he gave to his Apostle at his last supper was his body given, and his blood shed for remission of sins, which undoubtedly he meant of his true body and blood. For he never gave bred, nor shed wine for remission of sins. We object also his other words where he calleth his flesh truly meat and his blood drink, as it were, preventing 
joan. 6. v. 55.  the figurative exposition of Caluinists. Besides the words of S. paul testifying, that who receiveth unwoorthily the B: Sacrament is guilty 
1. Cor. 11. v. 29.  (not of bread and wine il received) but of the body and blood of our Lord.  
8. To these testimonies of holy writ 
Fathers.  we adjoin the uniform consent of Fathers, who not only continually call 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 affirm that it is no bare figure, but the very body, and damn the contrary, as abominable and extreme madness, contrary to tradition of Apostles, and Fathers, and against the 
Chrysosto. hom. de Euchat. in Eucenijs. Cyril. catech. 3.  verity and propriety of Christ's words. Others deny it to be bread albeit our taste so judge. 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 jejune. 7. mensis. Aug. serm. 1. in psalm. 33. tom. 8. Hilar. 8. de Trinitat.  that bread changed in nature, not in show; is by the omnipotency of God made flesh: that bread and wine are turned supernaturally into the verity of Christ's proper flesh. Others say we eat Christ's flesh and drink his blood with our mouths, that what we believe with faith we receive with mouth. Others avouch that Christ at his last supper carried himself secundum literam (that is truly & really) in his hands. Finally others say that as Christ is the true son of God, so is it true flesh & blood which we receive and drink. These kind of speeches and many other of the like sort can never be verified, unless the real presence of Christ in the B. Sacrament be defended.  
9 Against all these irrefragable testimonies 
Quod intelligimus debemus rationi quod credimus authoritati. Aug. l. de util. cred. c. 11. Heretics shift to expound scripture figuratively. joan. 10. v. 30. Heretics be figure slingers. 10. 1. v. 14.  of God's word, and holy Fathers, Bel opposeth human reason, though he expound them figuratively, because he dare not deny them in bare words which hath been ever the shift of heretics. For so the Arrians being urged with these words, I and the Father are one expounded them figuratively, because they durst not deny them, and their reason could not conceive how two persons should be one nature. Likewise the Marcionits understood those words. The word was made flesh figuratively because by reason they could not understand how two natures should 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 prescript. Scripture teacheth more plainly Christ's real presence in the Sacrament than it doth his Godhead and humanity. S. Augustin. lib. 3. de doctrine. Christian. cap. 10. tom. 3. Caluin. 4. instit. c. 17. parag. 20. & 23.  understand these words, This is my body given for you, my blood shed for you in remission of sins, figuratively. For these words do as plainly teach the verity of Christ's 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, uz. that which was given for us and shed in remission of sins, which kind of addition is not in those other words.  
10. But as S. Austin saith If an opinion of error have preoccupated the mind, whatsoever is otherwise affirmed in Scripture men will understand it figuratively. Hereupon Caluin said that the reverence of God's word was no sufficient pretence to reject his reasons: And calleth it foolish stubbornness to contend upon the words of Scripture, and them catchers of syllables, foolish, superstitious, who stick fast to Christ words. What is this good Reader but to make reason the rule of faith, and not to captivare our understanding to God's word, but to captivate it to our reason, and make it speak properly, or figuratively, according as reason 
Magdeburg. in praefat. centur. ad reginam Elizabeth.  can comprehend it. Truly therefore wrote the Magdeburgian Protestants of such as deny the real presence. With philosophical reasons they so make void the testament of God, that the body and blood of Christ concerning the presence and communication thereof according to Christ's own most clear, most evident, & most powerful words, they wholly remove, & with marvelous perplexity of words do coulorably deceive.  
11. But to come to Bells reason. How proveth he it to be contradiction for a greater 
S. Aug. l. 14. cont. Faust. c. 9 S. Ambros. l. de initiatis. c. 9 tom. 4. joan. 6. v. 52. Omnes haereticorum & Gentilium quaestiones eaedem sunt quia non Scripturarum auctoritatem sed humanae rationis sensum sequuntur. Hieron. in Oseae 7. S. Chrisost. hom. 60. ad populum & 83. in Matth. S. Ephren. lib. de natura Dei minime scrutanda. Chrisosto. sup.  body to be contained in ales. Surely not at all, but as Pythagoras autos epha or as Faustus the Manichist who as S. Austin writeth said it, and away. Should not he want all reason, who for such a reason proposed without all proof, should forsake Christ's express words, and plain testimonies of holy Fathers? Briefly I might answer with S. Ambrose. What seekest thou the course of nature in Christ's body, seeing he was against nature's order borne of a virgin, and admonish Bel of the faithless Capharnaits ask. How can he give his flesh to be eaten? For to what other end tendeth Bells reason then to ask. How can God give us his flesh? Let him hearken to S. Chrisostome, S. Ephrem and others, advising him not to be curious but faithful, not to trust to human sense, and reason, which is oftentimes deceived, but to Christ's word. He hath said (writeth S. Chrisostome) This is my body, let us have no doubt, albeit it seem absurd to our sense, and reason, which he saith▪ let his word in all matters, but especially in the Sacraments overcome our sense, and reason, which is oftentimes deceived, as Bells is here.  
12. For albeit it be contradiction for a 
How it is contradiction for a greater body to be in a les, and how not.  greater body occupying a place proportionate to it greatness, to be contained in a les (for so it should be both contained, and not contained in the les:) yet no contradiction at all it is for a greater body retaining it greatness, to be so coarct by God's omnipotency, as it fill a place far les, than is naturally due, or proportionate to it greatness. For in this case it followeth not, that it should both be contained, & not contained in the lesser body (as in the former case) but contained only. And thus we say hath Christ disposed of his body in the sacrament. And that God can thus dispose of bodies, we 
Proofs that God can put a greater body in a lesser. S. Beda in Lucam. S. August. de haeres c 82. tom. 6. Ambr. ep. 81. Leo ser. 1. & 2. de natiu. Nissen. ser. de occursu Domini. Damasc. l. 4. de fid. c. 14.  do not only barely affirm, as Bel doth the contrary, but can prove by many ways.  
13. First because Christ's body in his nativity opened not his virgin mother's womb. Ergo then it occupied not a room naturally proportionat to the greatness. The consequence is evident. The Antecedent I prove, because it is a point of the Catholic faith as testify S. Bede and S. Austin, and appeareth by universal consent of all Fathers as S. Ambrose: S. Leo: S. Nissen, S. Damascen: and others, and professed in our Creed, that Christ was borne of a virgin, which undoubtedly 
Ideo clausa quia virgo. Ambr. de instit. virg. c. 7. August. sup. & l. 1. cont. jul. c. 2. to. 7. jovinian said Christ's body should be a phantasm if our lady had remained a virgin in her travail. Aug. count jul. cit. Hieron. in Ezechiel. 44. Ambros. lib. de instit. virgins c. 7. Aug. serm. 18. de tempore.  is meant of a perfect virgin, as well in body, as mind. And the contrary was the heresy of jovinian, who (as S. Austin writeth) affirmed that our Lady's virginity was lost pariendo by child bearing, which he could not otherwise understand then by the Child's opening her womb, because virginity can not be otherways lost pariendo by child bearing, and sure it is she lost not virginity by conceiving.  
14. Moreover holy Fathers prove this truth out of that prophecy of Ezechiel 44. v. 2. of a gate shut and not opened by which the Lord alone should pass understanding by this shut and unopened gate the virginal womb of our B: Lady. And Albeit some Father's use the word of opening the womb in their speech of our Lady's child birth, yet they mean not properly, but use the name of the effect for the natural cause thereof. For because children naturally do open their mother's wombs, both Scripture, and Fathers do sometimes call child bearing opening the womb, and barrenness shutting the womb. Of Scripture this is evident out of Gen: 20: 29: 30. & 1. reg: 1. of Fathers it is manifest by S. Hierome who though he 
S. Hierom. dial. 2. cont. Pelagian.  say Christ opened the gate of the virgin's womb, yet he addeth that it continually remained shut, whereby he explicateth how before he took the opening uz. of Child bearing without any proper opening, for otherwise the womb could not remain still shut.  
15. Nevertheless Protestants, because it maketh for the Catholic Doctrine of the B: Sacrament, deny the Antecedent, and Willet proveth their denial, because as S. 
Willet cont. 13. p. 453. S. Luc. 2. v. 23.  Luke saith, Christ was presented in the temple according to the la. Every male opening the matrice shallbe holy to the Lord. But by the like reason he might prove that Christ was conceived by man's seed, because S. Luke in the same chapter writeth that our Lady was purified according to Moses law, which was as we read leu:: 12. of a woman which having received seed had borne a male child. The answer to both places is the same. Because naturally women conceive by receiving seed, & children are borne by opening their wombs, therefore the law used these terms. But as the one law affirmed not, that no woman could conceive without receiving seed, so neither the other, that no child could be borne without opening his mother's womb. And as willets heresy made him to open our Lady's womb, so his conscience made him to shut it again. For why should he teach that it was shut after her delivery, if he did not think the opening did prejudice her virginity? The like proof might be drawn out of Christ's entering to his Apostles 
See S. Hilary lib. cont. Constant. prope finem.  the doors being shut saith S. Luke, and of his issuing out of the sepulchar before the Angel had removed the stone.  
16. Secondly God can by his omnipotency bring a Camel through a needle's eye as well as a rich man into heaven: but he can bring a rich man to heaven keeping his riches, Ergo a Camel keeping his greatness through a needle's eye. The Proposition is evident out of our saviours words Math▪ 19 v. 24. 26. The Assumption is manifest and approved by S. Austin epist. 89. quaest. 
S. Augustin. tom. 2.  4. And the same S. Austin lib. de spir. & lit. c. 1. and Nazian. Orat. 36. affirm that it is 
S. Gregor. Nazianz.  possible for God to draw a Camel through a needle's eye. Thirdly God made the furnace 
Daniel. 3.  of Babylon, though never so hot, not to heat, yea to refresh the three children, why then can he not make a great body to occupy but a small room? For to occupy place is an effect and accident of quantity, as to heat is of heat. Moreover nature by condensation doth make a body to occupy less room than is due unto it, as appeareth in the freezing of water, and this it doth with out destroying any quantity thereof, as many excellent Philosophers even by natural reason do gather. And can not God work the like effect without condensation by some other supernatural means? Finally Bel teacheth that every sin of it nature 
Bel art. 6. p. 81.  excludeth grace, and yet God of his power maketh some sin to stand with grace: why then can he not make quantity to exclude no body out of the place, though of it nature it should so do. And thus much touching Bells reason. Now let us see his authorities.   

CHAP. II. The Authorities alleged by Bel against the Real Presence answered.  
AFTER the foresaid reason he allegeth 
Bel pag. 20.  some few authorities. The first is of Caietan who affirmed as Angles (saith he) reporteth. That there is no text that convinceth the Reader to understand these words. This is my body properly. But Bel greatly wrongeth both Caietan and Angles, in changing the word heretic into Reader. For Angles in 4. q. 4. attributeth that opinion to Caietan only concerning Heretics, and addeth q. 5. that he seemeth to have recalled it. But how convincent 
Luther. ep. ad Argentinenses. vid. Bellarm. lib. 1. de Euch. c. 1.  the Scripture is in this point let Bel learn of Luther writing. That he was willing to deny the real presence and endeavoured withal his power, but could not satisfy the Scripture.  
2. But suppose Caietan had said as Bel allegeth. what then? Doth he therefore deny the real presence, or think those words not to be understood properly? no surely? yea he plainly avoucheth both. Or doth Bel think that evety point of faith is so evidently delivered in Scripture, as the very words suffice to convince any reader though never so obstinate? why then are not all heretics converted by reading Scripture? yea why admitteth 
Bel p. 134. 135.  he a tradition which is not at all in Scripture? If not, why inferreth he the Scripture not to teach the real presence if it teach it not clearly?  
3. The second is S. Tho: Aquinas who 
S. Thom. 4. d. 10. q. 1. art. 1. Bel p. 20.  (saith he) affirmeth constantly. Corpus Christi non esse in pluribus locis simul, secundum proprias dimensiones, that Christ's body is not in many places at once, according to the proper dimensions thereof. Whose assertion (saith Bel) is my flat position. But Bel herein 1. contradicteth him 
Contradict. 9 untruth 32.  self 2. belieth S. Thomas 3. understandeth him not. He contradicteth himself, for before he said Aquinas held constantly as an article of the Christian faith, that the true body of Christ is truly and really in the Sacrifice of the Mass: & now he saith that he affirmeth constantly an assertion which is Bells flat position to the contrary. How can Aquinas hold constantly two contradictory points? He belieth Aquinas, for he is so far from maintaining Bells position, as in the very place which Bel citeth, his conclusion is this. Under the Sacrament of the altar, is contained the true body of Christ which he took of the virgin, and to say the contrary is heresy. Lastly he understandeth not Aquinas. 
Bel understandeth not Aquinas.  For he thinketh that Aquinas by the foresaid words meaneth, that Christ's body can not be in many places at once with his proper dimensions, & thereupon inferreth, that Aquinas thinketh Christ's body can not be in many places at once, because (saith Bel) it can not be without those dimensions which naturally pertain unto it. But (to omit Bells impious assertion, that God can not keep a body without his natural appurtenances) Aquinas meaning is plain and evident uz. That the total cause of Christ's body being in two places at once, is not his own dimensions alone, but they together with the dimensions of the body converted into his body. For he thinketh Christ's own dimensions to be the cause of his being in that place where he is naturally, and the dimensions of the body which is transubstantiated, the cause of his being, where he is Sacramentally. Which opinion of his, about the cause of Christ's being in many places, maketh nothing to this purpose.  
4. Thirdly he citeth Durand whom he 
Bel p. 20. Contradict. 10. untruth 33. p. 34.  saith holdeth the very same opinion. But in this also he both contradicteth himself, & belieth Durand. For in the fourth member of this article, he telleth us, that Durand holdeth the form of bread to be changed uz. into the body of Christ. True it is that Durand (as before I cited) thinketh the quantity of Christ's body not to be in the Eucharist, yet nevertheless most constantly, he both affirmeth and proveth the substance of his body to be there.  
5▪ Fourthly he allegeth S. Austin writing. 
pag. 20. S. Aug. epist. 57 ad Dardanum. De consecrat. dist. 2. con. Prima quidem. lib. 20. cont. Faustum. c. it. tom. 6.  That Christ as man is in aliquo loco Coeli propter veri corporis modum: in some place of heaven for the manner of a true body. Again. His body must be in one place Item. He can not be at once in the Sun Moon and on the cross according to corporal presence. But in all these places he speaketh of the natural manner of bodies being in place, as appeareth both by those words (propter veri corporis modum) and because he disputeth against the Manichists, who 
Ex August. epist. cit.  doubted (as the Protestant ubiquists do now) that because Christ's body was united to his Godhead, it thereby became every where as God is, which (saith S. Austin) 
Ibid.  is to destroy the nature of a true body, neither followeth it (saith he) that what is in God be every where as God is.  
6. But that Christ's body being naturally in one place, might be Sacramentally in an other S. Austin never doubted, yea expressly 
S. Augustin. tom. 8.  affirmeth ser: 1. in psal. 33. where, he saith. That Christ at his last supper carried himself in his own hands secundum literam (that is truly and properly) and as no other man can carry himself. And lib: de cur: pro: mort. c. 16. He 
S. Augustin. come. 4.  doubteth whether Martyrs be at once in different places which argueth that he thought they could be. And S. Chrisostom 
S. Chrisost. come. 4.  hom: 17. in epist: ad hebr: In many places is offered not many Christ's, but the same Christ every where, here and there whole, one body not many bodies. And thus much of Bells first member of this article against the real presence. Now let us proceed to the second against the Mass.   

CHAP. III. The Mass proved, Bells argument against it answered and his manifold untruths therein disproved.  
S. Ignatius epist. ad Smyrnen. writeth 
S. Ignatius apud Theodorerum. dialog. 3.  of old heretics. That they admit not oblation and Eucharist, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour which suffered for our sins. And therefore no marvel if Bel having in the former member impugned the real presence, do in this inveigh against the oblation or sacrifice of the Mass, where, according to Christ's own action and institution, his body and blood under the forms of bread and wine, are offered unto almighty God. That Christ at his last 
Christ offered sacrifice at his last supper.  supper made an oblation to God is proved many ways.  
2. First because he did then give his body unto some, for his Apostles: But to no other than to God. Ergo to him he then offered his body. The proposition I prove, because he said not this is my body which is given to you, but for you, and all the Greek and English Bibles have in the present tense which is given, which is shed. Therefore then did he give his body, and shed his blood to some person for his Apostles, though soon after he gave, and shed them after an other manner on the Cross. Secondly because in S. Luke it is said of the Cup that is was powered out for remission 
Luc. 22. v. 19 20.  of sins: but at the passion there was no Cup powered out. Ergo at supper the Cup was powered out for remission of sins. The proposition is out of the Greek text, where the word powered out agreeth with the Cup, and with none else touto to poterion en to aimati mou to ecchunomenon. The assumption is plain for theridamas was no Cup at the passion. Thirdly at the same time when Christ's body was broken, it was given, and his blood shed for remission of sins 1. Cor. 11. v. 24. But it was in no sort broken on the Cross as appeareth by S. Ihon. 19 v. 36. and in some sort broken at the supper, because it was really under the form of bread which was broken, therefore than his body was given for remission of sins.  
3. Many things more might have been said in defence of Mass which are largely, and learnedly handled by Bellarm. in his 2. book de Missa to. 2. and something shallbe added hereafter as brevity will permit, and occasion shall serve. Only here because the 
Denial of Mass proper doctrine of devils. Luther. l. de Missa angul. to. 7. fol. 228. Saints repetit. 1. de Eucharist. c. 10. Bellarm. l. 1. de Missa c. 5. Surius comment. 1534. 1517. Genebrard. in chron. See Erasmus count epist. non sobriam Lutheri.  Reader may perceive from what spirit the hatred of Mass proceedeth I advertise him that Luther writeth of himself, that he had said Mass 15. years together thinking it had been a holy thing, until on a time Satan appearing visibly unto him, and disputing with him against Mass, persuaded him to detest it. From this spirit proceeded first the hatred of Mass, and this confession God would Luther should himself make, and publish in print, that all Christians who had any care of their souls, should detest such doctrine, which the chief preacher thereof professeth he learned of the devil, & highly reverence that which the devil so much hateth.  
4. On the other syd S. james his Mass 
S. james Mass.  is yet extant, and jewel in his sermon at Paul's Cross 1560. confessed that the Mass 
Rastal in confutat. p. 156.  had Ch●ists institution. Which is briefly to confess that Mass was instituted by Christ and the Apostles, and that our Mass is good, which in substance is all one with that of S. james. Likewise the Masses of S. Basil and S. Chrisostome are yet extant and 
S. Basil and S. Chrisost. Mass S Ambros Mass. S. Ambros. l. 5. epist. 33.  at this day used of the Grecians, as the Mass of S. Ambros is used in Milan where he was Bishop, and of himself he writeth thus. I abode in my function and began to say Mass. S. Augustine's use and reverence of Mass appeareth by his words serm. 91. de temp. In 
S. Augustin. tom. 10.  the lesson which shallbe read to us at Mass etc. and by his complaint ser: 251 of some that compelled the Priest to shorten the Mass and by his testimony of a miracle wrought, by offering the Sacrifice of Christ's body l. 22. de civit: c: 8: which Sacrifice saith he con: 1. in psal. 33. 17. de civit: c. 5 & li: de fid. ad Pet: is frequented in all the world.  
5. S. Gregory's devotion to Mass, him 
S. Gregory.  self testifieth in these words we every day say Mass in veneration of Martyrs. l. 7. epist: 29. 
Counsels.  Indict 1: And to omit the Counsels of Ephesus, Agatha, Milevit, & others, which 
Tom. 1. Conciliorum. S. Beda lib. 1. histor. 23. 25. & 26.  approve Mass; it may suffice for Englishmen that certain it is that S. Austin who first converted our English nation to Christ's faith, both said Mass and wrought miracles in confirmation of that faith & service of God which he preached. And in honour of Mass have our Ancestors named divers 
England nameth the feasts of the yeear of Mass.  principal feasts of the year as Christmas Candlemas Michaelmas Martinmasse, builded Churches, erected altars, founded Monasteries, and endued Bishoprics and benefices, and lived and died in use and honour of Mass. And not only they, but all the Christian world as Grecians Armenians, 
Protestants confess that all Christians use Mass. Chytreus orat. de statu Ecclesiae in Graetia. Clavin. l. 4. c. 18. & parag. 1. & 11. Lindan. ep. dissuasoria. p. 108.  Ethiopians, Moronits, Syrians, Russets & others, as testifieth Chytreus a Protestant. And Caluin confesseth that the whole world believed Mass to be a propitiatory Sacrifice, & that in this the Fathers are against him. And who is so careless of his salvation as to forsake the Fathers together with the whole world, and follow one lewd Minister condemned of buggery, as the authentical process yet extant in Noioun doth record.  
6. Now then let us hear Bells or rather 
Bel p. 22.  the devils arguments against Mass. The Apostle (saith he) telleth us that Christ rising from 
untruth 34.  the dead dieth no more: The Papists tell us that Christ dieth every day, nay a thousand times aday in the daily Sacrifice of their Mass. But better might we say that Bells tale of the Papists, containeth a thousand untruths. For Papists (as Caluin confesseth) l. 4. instit. c. 18. 
Caluin.  paragr. 5. profess. That they neither will nor can kill Christ. But say with Bellarmin. That it 
Bellarm. l. 1. de Missa. c. ultimo.  is sacrilege to say that Christ dieth at Mass. Yet will Bel wring the contrary out of Bellarm: as water out of a flint. First because he 
pag. 22. Bellar. sup. c. 2.  granteth. That a Sacrifice implieth intrinsically the consumption of the thing sacrificed. But this is answered out of Bellarmin teaching that 
Sup. cap. ultimo.  Christ hath two kinds of being to wit naturally and Sacramentally. And the consumption of his Sacramental being, in the 
August. lib. 13. de ciu. c. 3.  Mass, is no killing, because it is not by real separating his soul & body, but only by consuming the Sacramental forms in which he was Sacramentally. 
Bel p. 22. Sup. cap. 13. S. August. l. 2. q. euangel. q. 3. S. Ambros. in psal. 38. & in 1. Luc. S. Chrisost. hom. 24. in 1. loc. & hom. 17. ad Hebr. Luc. 2. v. 22. 1. Reg. 1. v. 25. Levit. c. 2. Bellar. l. 1. d● Missa c. 12.   
7. Again Bellarmin (saith Bel) telleth us that Christ's body and blood are offered truly and properly in the Mass. True: and the like saith S. Austin, S. Ambros, S. Chrisostome, and others. But doth Bel think every thing offered to God to be killed? then was Christ killed when he was offered in the temple, Samuel, when he was offered by his mother, and bread, wine, and frakincense offered in the law, were killed. Thirdly he proveth it out of Bellarmin, writing that flesh and blood are not fit for meat unless the beast (as Bel translateth) die or be slain, Here Bel could not imagine that Bellarmin spoke of Christ (as in deed he doth not) unless he think he called Christ a beast. But because flesh and blood of beasts are not fit for our meat before the beasts be killed, he proveth by parity that Christ's flesh and blood were not fit to be proposed in manner of meat before he was sacrificed. And thereupon gathereth that he did Sacrifice himself at his last supper in an unbloody manner, and after the order of Melchisedech before he gave his flesh, and blood as meat & drink to his Apostles. Which reason he took out of S. Gregory Nissen: whose words shallbe 
S. Gregor. Nissen. homil. 1. de Resurrectione. Sup. cap. vlt.  alleged hereafter. And of Christ's body Bellarm: professeth. That it taketh no hurt, nor loseth his natural being, when the Eucharist is eaten.  
8. His fourth proof is out of Bellarm: 
Bellarm l. 1. de Missa. c. ultimo.  when he saith. That a true and real Sacrifice requireth true and real kill quando in occisione ponitur essentia sacrificij, which Bel translateth 
Bel pag. 22. False translation. untruth 35.  thus Seeing the essence of a Sacrifice consisteth in killing, which (saith he) is the constant doctrine which S. Paul inculcateth to the hebrews: 9: v. 17. 25: 26. 27. 28. But this proof relieth only upon Bells false translating the word Quando Seeing which he should have translated when. And Beauties' mind is that the true Sacrifice requireth true kill, when the essence thereof consisteth in killing, as it doth in all bloody Sacrifices. But as for the Mass, he avoucheth it to be no 
Loc. iam cit.  Sacrifice but Sacrilege to say that Priests really kill Christ. And most false it is that S. Paul ever thought the essence of sacrifice to consist in killing. For beside the unbloody Sacrifice of Melchisedech, he was not ignorant of divers unbloody Sacrifices in the old law, as of incense, for which there was a special altar, and of bread and wine. And in the places quoted by Bel he affirmeth that it was necessary for Christ to die, & by once dying to redeem the world, which maketh nothing to this purpose.  
9 These proofs out of Bellarmin he 
Bel pag. 23.  confirmeth by a constant position, and general received axiom (as he saith) in the Popish 
untruth 35.  Church, that by virtue of the words of consecration Christ's body is put a part from his blood, and his blood from his body, and he so slain. But omitting Bells fond inferring Christ to be killed, if his body and blood be put a part how soever, because not to put body and blood a part where they were not before, but to separat them where they are united, is to kill: Else God should kill a man, if he created a soul and body a part. Omitting I say this fond illation, a manifest untruth it is to affirm, that to be a constant position and general axiom in the Popish Church which she condemneth as heresic in these words. Accursed be he who shall deny that whole Christ is 
●onc. Trid. sess. 13. cau. 3. etc. 3.  contained under either form of bread and wine. And the contrary is his Master Luther's doctrine as testifieth Bellarm: l. 1. de Euchar: c. 2.  
10. But let us hear what colour he hath 
Bel p. 23. Bellarm. l. 1. de Missa. ●. 12.  of this so notorious untruth. Bellarm: (saith he) teacheth. Ideo in cena seorsum consecratur corpus, & seorsum sanguis etc. which Bel thus Englisheth. Therefore is the body consecrated a part in the supper, and the blood asunder, that we may understand the presence of the body, and blood in the supper, to be there after the manner of a body slain, and dead. But what? is to consecrate a part, to put a part? But Bellarm: telleth him that it is a far different thing, and that albeit Christ's body and blood be severally consecrated, yet they are not separated, nor one without the other in the Sacrament, because as the Council of Trent 
Conc. Trid. sess. 13. c. 3.  saith, they are so naturally, and necessarily united in his resurrection, as they can be no more disjoined. Which union because they wanted in the time of Christ's death, if then Mass had been said, they had not only been consecrated severally but also put a part. But what inconvenience inferreth Bel 
S. Thom. 3. p. 476. art. 1.  hereof? None at al. And thus much of his first argument against Mass.   

CHAP. FOUR The rest of Bells arguments against Mass confuted.  
HIS second argument consisteth of 
Bel pag. 23. 24.  many absurdities, and gross impieties, which (saith he) follow of the Mass, & he reckoneth divers. First that Christ at his last supper was both sitting at table, and borne in his own hands. But if this be absurd and impious, impious, and absurd was S. Austin, 
S. Augustin. serm. 1. in psalm. 33.  when he said that Christ at his last supper carried himself in his hands secundum literam that is properly, and therein did more than any man can do. But what absurdity is it more, then for a body to be in two places? for that being once done, one may carry himself as well as an other. As the soul because it is in all parts of the body, as it is in the legs carrieth itself as it is in the body. The second absurdity is that Christ at his last supper was both living and dead. But this followeth not, for he was alive in the Sacrament, though there he showed no acts of life, and as long as he is a live according to his natural being, he is never dead in the sacrament, because his sacramental being is a memorial of his natural being representing, and depending of it.  
2. The third absurdity is that Christ was both visible and invisible. Nether doth this follow. For though he were invisible in the Sacrament, yet it is not true to say absolutely, he was invisible, because he was there visible in his proper form. But that he was visible in his proper form, and invisible in 
Math. 29. Mar. 16. Luc. 20. joan. 20. 21.  the sacrament, is no more absurd, then that after his resurrection he was visible to the Apostles, and invisible to the jews, visible to S. Paul, and not to his Companions Act. 9 v. 7. Willet saith that S. Paul did see 
Willet Controu. 4. q. 3. p. 11●.  no man. But we will rather believe Ananias saying that Christ appeared to him in the way. Act. 9 v. 17. The fourth absurdity is, that Christ was at his supper long and short, broad and narrow, light and heavy. But rather these follow, for what length breadth or weight Christ had in his proper form, the same he had in the sacrament, albeit it had not there the like effects of filling room, or weighing; as neither he had when he was 
Math. 14. Marc. 6. joan. 6.  borne, and walked upon the Sea.  
3. The fift is, that Christ was a sacrifice for our sins before he died for us. This which Bel condemneth of impiety, we have before proved it out of Scripture to be certain verity, & for such the holy Fathers avouch it, let Bel hear one or two for al. S. Gregory Nissen. orat. 1. de Resurrect. Christ offereth 
S. Gregor. Nissen.  himself an oblation and host for us being both the Priest, and the lamb of God. When was this? when he gave his body to be eaten and his blood to be drunk to his disciples. For it is manifest to every one, that man can not eat of a sheep unless slaughtering go before eating. Seeing therefore he gave his disciples his body to be eaten, he evidently showed that the sacrificing was already perfect, and absolute. S. Chrisostome also hom. de 
S. Chrysostom.  proditione judae. tom. 3. saith. On that table was celebrated both Paschaes of the figure, and of the verity. Again judas was present, and partaked of that sacrifice. And the Fathers are so plain for this matter, as Kemnitius confesseth 
Kemnitius.  they usually say that Christ's body and blood was at this supper a sacrifice, an oblation, an host and victim, and he could not escape their authorities, but by casting of a figure.  
4. The sixth and last absurdity or impiety which Bel inferreth is that all Christ's sacrifice at his supper was imperfect, or at his passion needles. But neither this followeth. For Christ's sacrifice at his supper was a most perfect unbloodly sacrifice according to the order of Melchisedech, and yet his sacrifice on the cross was needful, as the peculiar price which God exacted at his hands, for the redemption of the world, that 
Hebr. 2. v. 15.  as the apostle saith, by death he might destroy him, who had the Empire of death. For albeit not only Christ's whole body and blood in the Eucharist, but even the least drop of his blood, had been a sufficient sacrifice to redeem the whole world: nevertheless God, partly to show his great hatred towards sin (whereof Christ bore the punishment: partly to manifest his infinite love towards man kind, for whose salvation he would not spare the life of his only son: partly for many other causes, exacted of Christ the superabundant price, and ransom of his bloody sacrifice on the cross. But let us hear how Bel disproveth this.  
5. He citeth four places out of S. Paul Heb 9 and 10. to prove that one oblation of the cross was sufficient to take away all sins in the world, and that by it once made we are made holy, and after it once done Christ sitteth at the right hand of God. But what is this to the purpose. For we affirm not Christ to have offered sacrifice at his last supper, because his sacrifice on the Cross was not sufficient, or we not made holy by it: but because the scripture and fathers teach so, and Christ thereby executed the function of his priesthood, according to the order of Melchisedech, and applied unto his apostles the virtue of his bloody sacrifice, as he applieth it unto us by the daily sacrifice of the Mass: and did not make perfect and consummate his bloody sacrifice, as Bel falsely chargeth us to think. As Bellarmin (whom only I cite because Bel accounteth his testimony most sufficient) showeth at large lib. 1. de Missa cap. 25. Where also he answereth Bells arguments. But he should do well to object the aforesaid words of S. Paul against Caluin blaspheming lib. 1. instit. 16. num. 8. & 10. That nothing had been done for us if Christ 
Caluin. 2. instit. c. 16. paragr. 10.  had only suffered corporal death, but we needed a greater, and more excellent price. For this is plainly to say, that the oblation of Christ's body once was not sufficient, nor that Christ perfected all by one oblation, which is expressly against S. Paul Hebr. 10. v. 10. 
Hebr.  12. 14. And thus much for Bells second argument against the Mass.  
6. The third is this, The Eucharist is a testament. 
Bel p. 24.  ergo either no sacrifice at all, or of no value before the testators death because S. Paul Hebr. 9 
Hebr.  v. 17. denieth a testament to be of force before the testators death. Answer. The Antecedent we grant with S. Luke 22. v. 20. though Bel himself deny it soon after. The consequence we deny? for as the blood of calves, where with the old testament was confirmed, was both the people's sacrifice to God and his testament to them as appeareth Heb. 9 20. and Exod. 24. v. 8. so Christ's blood at his supper was both his sacrifice to his father, and his testament to his apostles: And as a sacrifice it took effect immediately, because a sacrifice is an absolute gift made to God, depending of no condition to come: as the sacrifice of Abel and Noah 
Gen. 4. & 8.  pleased god immediately. But as a testament it was not of force, till (as S. Paul saith) it 
Hebr. 9 v. 17.  was confirmed by death; because a testament is a deed of gift, not absolute, but upon condition that the givers death ensue.  
7. Bel having (as you have heard) laboured to prove the Eucharist to be no sacrifice, 
11. Contradict.  because it is a testament, straight after inferreth thereupon, that it is not really Christ's blood, because it is not really a testament. 
Bel pag. 25.  For (saith he) as Christ said in S. Matthew. 
Math. 26. v. 28. Luc. 22. v. 30.  This is my blood of the new testament: so he said in S. Luke this cup is the new testament in my blood: But it is not really the new testament, because remission of sins is referred to shedding of his blood, which was on the cross, not at supper, Answer: The proposition I grant, & deny the assumption: for not only the last will of the testator, but even the authentical evidence thereof is properly called a testament. So we call the Bible the testament, and Circumcision is called a testament, Ecclesiast. 44. v. 21. and a covenant Gen. 17. And Christ's blood is the authentical evidence of his last will, or else he made none.  
8. And Bells reason maketh quite against 
Bel reasoneth against himself.  himself. For Christ's blood was shed at his supper for remission of sins, as we proved before, and himself testifieth saying then in the present tense, which is shed for remission of sins, as the Evangelists both in Greek and English bibles testify. But because it was not shed or powered out then in a bloody manner, and proper form, Bel 
How Christ's blood was powered out at the last supper.  will not verify Christ's words in that tense wherein he spoke them, not considering that even than Christ's blood being in a chalice in form of wine, was in that form powered out into the mouths of the Apostles for remission of their sins; and 
Exod. 24. v. 8. Hebr. 9 v. 20  his testament thereby made, as the old was by the sprinkling of calves blood upon the jews: though the ratifying and confirmation thereof, was afterward by his death.  
9 Bulls fourth argument is out of S. Paul 
Bel pag. 25.  Heb. 10. v. 18. ouc eti prosphora peri hamartias. There is not hence forth an oblation for sin, Some Catholics answer that the Apostle meaneth an other oblation in substance, as the oblations of the jews were, who offered daily different beasts, and the oblation of the Mass is in substance all one with the oblation of the Cross. This Bel impugneth, because then the Mass sacrifice should be of infinite value, which no Papist dare avouch. Here is an 
untruth 36.  untruth for many learned Papists avouch it, as Caietan, Silvester, Canus, Ruard, Soto: 
Caiet. 3. part. q. 79. art. 5. silvest verbo Missa. q. 9 Can. 12. de locis. c. 13. ad 10. Ruard. art. 16. parag. 2. Soto 4. d. 14. q. 2. art. 2. S. Thom. 4. d. 45. q. 2. a. 4. Scot quodl. 20. Gabriel lect. 26. in Con. Bellarm. l. 2. de Missa c. 4. Scholastici 4. d. 45.  and others, though they grant the effect thereof to be finite, as the passion, and intercession of Christ are of infinite value, though the effect they work be but finite, because few are saved. But others as Thomas, Scotius, Gabriel, Bellarmin: and divines commonly deny Bells illation, for though the host offered in Mass be of infinite value, yet the offering of it by men, is of finite value. Because all men's actions have that value which God by his grace giveth to them, which is but sinit. And Bel by the widows offering Luc. 21. might know that the value of the offering is not always correspondent to the value of the thing offered. For rich men's gifts exceeded her 2. mites, and yet their offering was inferior to hers. And much more inferior is men's offerings to the offering of Christ, though they offer the self some host.  
10. But in deed the Apostle in the place cited by Bel, doth not so much deny an other oblation in substance, as an other full and perfect partaking of Christ's oblation, teaching the Hebrues (as he had done before and as again in this Chapter v. 26.) that if after they have been baptised they return again to the old law and Apostatate from Christ, they cannot have the like abundant remission of sins applied to them as was in baptism. And this he meant by those words, where there is remission of those (sins) now there is not an oblation for sin, which he uttereth more plainly v. 26. If we sin willingly after the knowledge of the truth received, now there is not left an host for sins, but a certain terrible expectation of judgement. Because God having once pardoned by baptism both offence and punishment, afterward useth not the like mercy, but punisheth sin.  
11. After this Bell turneth to his old custom 
Bel pag. 26.  of iniuringe his Master Bellarmin, charging him with denial of the Mass to be truly and properly propitiatory, because 
Bellarm. l. 2. de Missa c. 4.  he saith, that Christ being now immortal can neither merit nor satisfy. Whereas Bellarmin 
cap. 2.  spendeth one whole chapter of that book to prove Mass to be a propitiatory sacrifice. And straight after those words which Bel citeth aproveth Mass to be a satisfactory 
cap. 4. cit.  sacrifice, because by it, Christ's passion according to his institution, is applied to take away the temporal pains of the live and dead. And by the words which Bel citeth, only meaneth that Mass is not properly propitiatory as it proceedeth from any act which Christ now hath, because now he can neither merit nor satisfy. Wherefore falsely Bel doth accuse. Papists that with them Mass is one while a propitiatory sacrifice and an other while not. For the Tridentin Council whom they all follow, 
Conc. Trid. sess. 22. c. 2. & can. 3. Bellarm. c. 2. cit.  hath defined it to be truly a propitiatory sacrifice. And Bellarmin proveth it at large out of Scripture, Fathers, and councils. See Origen hom. 13. in Levitt. S. Chrisostom. 
Origen. to. 1. S. Chrysost. tom. 5. & tom. 3. S. Augustin. tom. 4. Bel pag. 26.  lib. 6. de sacerd. & hom. de prodit. judae S. Austin q. 57 in Leuit. S. Beda lib. 4. Hist Chap. 22.  
12. His fift and last argument against Mass is taken out of the decree & gloss de consecrat D. 2. Can. Hoc est thus translated by Bel. As therefore the heavenly bread, which is the flesh of Christ, is after it manner called the body of Christ, when in deed it is the Sacrament of Christ's body, of that body which is visible, which is palpable, mortal, & nailed on the cross. And that oblation of flesh, which is made by the hands of the priest is called Christ's death, and Crucifixion, and not in truth of the thing, but in a mystery signifying the thing: so the Sacrament of faith by which baptism is understood is faith. Hitherto the decree now the gloss thereof: The heavenly Sacrament which representeth Christ's flesh truly, is called the body of Christ, but improperly, wherefore it is said after it manner, but not in the truth of the thing, but in the thing: signified that this may be the sense, it is called Christ's body (that is to say) it signifieth his body. These (saith Bel) are golden words (as God would) by pens of Papists delivered.  
13. I accept his confession. First then S. 
Cratian. de consecrat. d. 2. can. Hoc est.  Austin and S. Prosper are Papists, for (as Gratian out of whom the decree is taken testifieth) the words of the Decree were first delivered by S. Augustine's pen, and after recorded 
S. Austin and S. Prosper Papists. Sacrificing of flesh by Priests hands allowed by Bel. 2, False translat.  by S. Prosper. Secondly I hope Bel hereafter will allow of sacrificing or offering flesh by the hands of the priests, because these are part of the golden words of that decree. For this so gentle confession, I will dissemble with a little fault of Bells translating, quoth visible quod palpabale mortale in cruse positum est. Thus, which is visible palpable mortal & nailed on the cross. When he should have said, which being visible palpable mortal was nailed on the cross. Now let us hear what he gathereth out of the aforesaid words to the confusion (as he saith) of Papists but he should have said to his own.  
14. 1. That the blessed bread of the Eucharist is 
pag. 27.  called the Body of Christ. What is here against Papists? who willingly so call it, but rather against Protestants who seldom or never call it so. 2. That it is also called the passion and 
37. untruth  death of Christ. This is an untruth: for not bread of the Eucharist, but the sacrificing of flesh with Priests hands is so called. 3. That it is not Christ's body truly. This is most true, for the bread or rather the form thereof, in the Eucharist, is not Christ's body truly & properly 4. That it is Christ's body as the Sacrament of Baptism is faith. This is nothing against us, who confess bread (or rather the form thereof, called bread because it so seemeth to sense) to be but a Sacrament of Christ's body.  
15. 5. That it is not Christ's body in truth but in signification. This S. Austin saith not but only that the oblation of the flesh of Christ by the priest is his death and passion not truly but in a mystery signifying his death, which maketh nothing against us or to this purpose. The gloss in deed saith that the Sacrament is not Christ's body in truth, but in signification and the same say all catholics namely Bellarmin 
Bellarm.  l. 1. de Eucha. c. 14. The Sacrament of the Eucharist is not Christ's body but containeth Christ's body, for a Sacrament is asensible sign, and this sensible sign of bread and wine, is that which the gloss said is not in truth Christ's body but is improperly so called: which is so far from being the upshot of the controversy, or not admitting any solution, (as Bel fond boasteth) as in man's sight that 
Bel pag. 27.  hath eyes, it requireth no solution. For who will think that one denieth Christ's body to be truly in the Sacrament, because he denieth the Sacrament (which is the sensible signs of bread and wine) to be truly his body? So Bel may gather that a body containeth not a soul, nor a place a body, because the continents, are not the thing contained. But (saith Bel) if Christ's body were in the Sacrament really it should be there in rei veritate truly. As if the gloss had denied that Christ is in the Sacrament in rei veritate. surely this showeth that Bel never meant to deal in rei veritate. And thus much of the 2. member of this Article. Now let us go to the third.   

CHAP. V Berengarius his Recantation explicated and S. Augustine's authority answered.  
POPISH decrees (saith Bel) tell us a long 
Bel pag. 28.  tale of one Berengarius some time Deacon of a church in Gaunt. No marvel if this tale seem long to Bel, which recounteth the foil of his heresy against the real presence, 
Berengar. condemned of 113. Bishops. Lanfranc. de Sacram. Eucharist.  in Berengarius the first broacher thereof, in a general council at Rome under Pope Nicholas the second, about the year of Christ 1060. where he recanted publicly and (as himself saith) willingly, denouncinge all such to deserve eternal curse, who denied Christ's body and blood to be really in the Eucharist. Bel maketh him Deacon of Gaunt, whereas 
Bel lacketh latin.  he was Archdeacon of Angiers in France, not being able to distinguish Andeawm from Gandawm Angiers from Gaunt; and because he abjured his heresy, Bel termeth him a silly Deacon, though his brother Buckly call him an excellent and holy man. In deed 
Bucleis' answer to 8. reasons p. 62.  he found more mercy at God's hands then I read of any Archhereticke, and died a penitent Catholic. For dying on twelve day said (as Malmesbur. an English author 
Malmesbur. l. 3. histor. Angl. in Gabriel. 1. p. 114.  at that time writeth.) In this day of his apparition my lord jesus will appear to some, to glory as I hope for my repentance, or to punishment as I fear for others seduced. The like repentance I pray God send to Bel ere he die, that as he hath imytated Berengarius in heresy, and in abjuration also of it at Rome (if I be not deceived) he may likewise imitate him in repentance and penance.  
2. But because Berengarius in his recantation, which was afterward put amongst 
Distinct. 2. ●it.  the Decrees, professed that Christ in the Eucharist sensualiter manibus sacerdotum tangitur, frangitur, & dentibus fidelium atteritur, is sensibly touched with hands of Priests, broken, and chewed with the teeth of the faithful, Bel exclaimeth mightily, calling his recantation (but yet without all proof) cruel, barbarous, villainous, blasphemous, and horrible impiety. Gladly he would have the reader believe, that Catholics profess Christ's body to be in itself broken, and torn in pieces one member from an other, though himself soon after not only allege Bellarmin to the contrary, but confess also that by the Pope's 
p. 29.  doctrine Christ's body can not be broken or torn truly, and in deed, and cite the Gloss upon the said decree saying, that it were a worse 
pag. 30.  heresy to think we made parts of Christ, then to deny him to be in the sacrament. And this is evident by the Mass itself where we say, Christ neither broken, nor divided is received 
Missa de corpore Christi.  whole, and no cutting is of the thing, the breach is only in the sign.  
3. Nevertheless Christ's body is said to be touched, broken, and chewed in the Eucharist, because the sign of bread in which it really is, is so used. As God is said to have been crucified, because the humanity in which he was, was so handled, and Christ touched when his garment was touched. And these kind of speeches we learned of the holy Fathers. For S. Chrisostom. speaking 
S. Chrysost. hom. 24. in 1. Cor. to. 4. Hom. 83. in Math. to. 3.  of the sacrament saith expressly that Christ's body is broken, In other place we see, feel, eat, and have Christ within us. Again Christ gave himself to us to touch, to eat, and 
Hom. 46. in jer. to. 3. & 61. ad populum to. 5. Tertul. l. de Idolatria.  fasten our teeth (mark Bel) on his flesh. Tertullian inveighinge against unworthy receivers saith Corpus Christi lacessunt. They vex Christ's body. S. Cyprian of the same affirmeth: They use violence to Christ● body and 
S. Cyprian. serm. de lapsis.  blood and with their mouths do offend him. And they learned these speeches of Christ himself saying: This is my body which is broken. 
1. Cor. 11. v. 24. in the greeck.  Will Bel now condemn Christ and these holy fathers of wickedness, villainy, blasphemy, and horrible impiety? Surely they use the very words of touching, breaking, and fastening, or chewing with teeth. Nay 
Bel pag. 30.  will he condemn both English, and many foreign Protestants whose constant doctrine 
Bel admitteth Christ's body to be consumed.  (saith he) is that Christ's body is broken torn & consumed with mouth and teeth. Behold good reader. for Papists to say Christ's body is touched, broken, and torn, is villainy wickedness, blasphemy and horrible impiety: but for Protestants to say the same and ●dde consuming too, is good doctrine.  
4. But Bel will say that he addeth, that all 
Bel pag. 29.  these are to be understood significantly and sacramentally. True. And the same add we. For as himself citeth out of Bellarmin lib. 2. de Concil. c. 8. It is and all ways 
Bellarm.  was certain that Christ's body being now uncorruptible can be neither broken nor torn but in a sign or sacrament. But the difference is in the understanding. For we say Christ's body is 
Catholics and Protestants agreement and difference about the breaking of Christ's body.  broken in a sign, which really, and truly containeth it; and Protestants say it is broken in a sign, from which Christ is as far as heaven is from earth, and to express this difference, and to exclude the sense which Berengarius used, and the Protestants have learned of him, the Pope and Council made him to profess. That he believed this to be in rei veritate in the verity of the thing. Not as if Christ's body wear in itself so handled, for thereof there was never doubt, but that it was not handled so in a bare sign, but in such a sign as in rei veritate truly containeth Christ's body. As the woman Luc. 8. did in rei veritate truly touch Christ when she touched his garment, in 
S. Luke.  which he truly was: as appeareth by his words ib. v. 46. Some body hath touched me: But the Crucifiers, when they parted the 
S. Ihon. 19 v. 23.  same garments, did not touch him in rei veritate truly, because than he was not truly in them. And hereby appeareth how the contrariety, which Bel noteth betwixt the 
pag. 29.  Council and Bellarmine, is none at all, and how protestants can not verify the breaking of Christ's body, so well as Catholics can, and least of all can (as Bel imagineth) verify Christ's words of his body given, & blood shed for remission of sins, because never was any bare figure given or shed for remission of sins  
5, But a singular note (saith Bel) and 
pag. 30.  worthy to be marked, is gathered out of the gloss upon the foresaid decree, when it adviseth us, That unless we understand Berengarius words sound, we may fall into worse heresy. Mark these words (saith Bel) for th●y teach us plainly, that it is a most dangerous thing to rely upon Popish decrees, even then when they pretend to reform the Church and condemn heresies. But better may we say mark this note, for it discovereth Bells malice, and folly, & teacheth us plainly that it is a most dangerous thing to rely upon heretics, even when they promise to avouch no untruth of any man, as Bel did a little before. For 
pag. 22.  what adviseth the gloss, against the relying upon Pope's decrees, and not only against misunderstanding them. May we not in like manner say of the scripture, that unless we sound understand those words, ●hon 6. except you eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, you shall have no life in you, but grossly as the Capharnaits did of eating it sodde or roasted, or cut in pieces (as testify 
Cyprian. de caena Domini. S. Augustin. tract. 27. in joh.  S. Cyprian and S. Austin) we shall fall into greater heresy, then that of Berengarius was. What now Sir Thomas? may we therefore infer that it is a most dangerous thing to rely upon scripture?  
6. Finally Bel concludeth this third 
Bel pag. 30. 31. S. Augustin. tract. 59 in joan.  member of his article with an argument drawn out of S. Augustine's words: Illi manducabant panem Dominum, illi panem Domini contra Dominum. They (the Apostles) eat the bread our lord, he (judas) eat the bread of our lord against our lord. Out of which words Bel frameth an argument so invincible in his conceit, as he promiseth to subscribe, and never more to write against any part of Papists doctrine, if it be answered. Mark therefore I pray thee gentle reader his argument, and my answer, and judge, whether he be not bound to turn his coat the third time, if he will perform his promise. The argument he proposeth out of form, but it may be reduced to this. judas received but Panem Domini the bread of our lord, and not Panem Dominum the bread our lord: therefore in the Eucharist is not Dominus our Lord. The Antecedent (saith he) is plainly avouched by S. Austin, the consequence is clear, because if in the Eucharist wear our lord, doubtless judas in receiving of it should have received our lord. Before I answer this argument I must advertise the reader of three things: first ●ow slenderly this fellow is grounded in his faith, who promiseth to subscribe to the contrary, if one only argument, grounded upon one saying of one father can be solved. Evident it is that he hath neither plain scripture, nor convincent reason, nor the testimony of other fathers for his religion, who for answering of one father's word, will forsake it. Albeit this be les marvelous in Bel, because having already twice altered his religion, he will find les difficulty to change the third tyme. 2. I note the extreme blindness of this fellow, who biddeth us note and mark seriously that S. Austin 
Bel noteth a point quite against himself.  telleth us, that the bread which the Apostles eat was our lord. I would Bel had marked this himself, for it is the very upshot (to use his own term) of this controversy, and unaswerable by any Protestant. For if (as Bel noteth out of S. Austin) the bread which the Apostles eat was our lord, how can protestants deny it, and say it was bare bread? Or if (as S. Aust. speaketh) they eat bread our lord, how can Bel say they eat not our lord, but bare bread? Can one ●ate flesh mutton, if the flesh he eat be no mutton?  
7. Thirdly, I note his notorious abusing S. Augustine's authority. For first in Englishing 
Bells abusing of S. Augustine's words.  his words he addeth to them, though in a parenthesis, these words (Not our lord but) afterward he saith S. Austin telleth us, that which judas received was but the bread of 
untruth 38.  our lord, then, as emboldened to lie, avoucheth that S. Austin affirmeth most constantly, 
untruth 39  that judas received barely Panem Domini bread of our lord, and lastly as cock sure not to be tripped in lying, professeth that S. Austin plainly avoucheth that judas received not Panem 
untruth 40  Dominum bread our lord. Whereas S. Austin saith no one of all these, but only, that the Apostles received bread our lord, and judas bread of our lord, without but or barely, or denial of the other. Mark therefore good 
Bells steps of untrue dealing.  reader his steps. First his untruth is cogged into S. Augustine's words with a parenthesis, then is it put with a but, afterward with barely, and lastly plainly avouched. These steps might Bel have found in his ladder of lying, better than he devised the like before, in the Pope's ladder to his supremacy. But here may the reader take a taste of the untrue dealing of heretics. For who would not have sworn, but that Bel would have dealt truly in an argument, whereof he counteth so much, as if it be solved, he will recant the third tyme. But now to come to his argument.  
8. I answer directly by denying the Antecedent. for S. Austin said not, that judas eat but, or barely Panem Domini, bread of our lord, and much les said he eat not Panem Dominum: but only said that the Apostles did eat Panem Dominum bread our lord, & he Panem Domini bread of our lord. Wherefore the doubt can be only why he altered his speech, calling that bread our lord, which the Apostles eat, and that bread of our lord which judas eat. The reason whereof can not be, because he thought the Apostles and judas received a bread of different substance; ●or Epist. 162. he expressly 
S. Austin saith judas eat our price. to. 2. S. Chrysost. tom. 3.  writeth that judas received pretium nostrum our price which in substance is Panis Dominus bread our lord, and S. Chrysost. hom. de prodit. judae affirmeth, that Christ offered to judas the blood, which he had sold. and Theodoret. in 1. cap. 2. Cor. that he gave to judas his precious body and blood. The reason therefore is that which S. Aust. 
Buccella Dominica ven enum fuit judae. See S. Austin l▪ 2. cont. lit. Petil. c. 47. tom. 7. S. Augustin. tom. 6. Cortuptio, carni hoc nomen imponit Aug. l. 2. cont. adverse. legis. Et prophet. c. 6. t0. 6.  himself insinuateth in the words immediately following illi vitam, ille paenam they eat life, he punishment, vz because the bread had a different effect, and operation in judas, than it had in the Apostles. For as himself proveth lib. 11. cont. Faust. cap. 7. one thing of different effects or operations may have different names. What marvel then if he called that which the Apostles received bread our lord, because it was both in substance and operation food, and life to them, and that which judas received bread of our lord, because though in substance it was the same, yet through his malice, in operation it was poison and death unto him And here by the way would I propound one choice to Bel, whether he 
A choice for Bel.  will believe the Eucharist to be Panem Dominum with Catholics, or bate Panem Domini with Protestants. If the first, he may eat Panem Dominum with the Apostles, if the second, he may eat Panem Domini, but it shallbe with judas.  
9 But suppose S. Austin had said (as he hath not) that judas did not eat bread our Lord, Bel could not thereof infer that the Eucharist is not truly our Lord, seeing he avoucheth that the Apostles (who undoubtedly received the Eucharist) did eat bread our Lord: but at most, that what judas received, was not the Eucharist; which divers think, and it is a far different question, 
S. Hilar. can. 30. in Math.  and maketh nothing to this purpose: But neither could Bel infer this, because S Austin 
S. August. epist. 162 to. 2. tract. 26. & 62. in joan. tom. 9  other where affirmeth judas to have received the Sacrament, and our price which in substance is bread, our Lord, and because it is usual to him to deny the name to a thing if it want the accustomed quality or operation. So lib. 11. cont. Faust. c. 7. he saith. 
S. Augustin. tom. 6.  In resurrection there shall be no flesh, and serm. 5. de verb. Apost. c. 12. There shallbe not the same body, because it shall not be mortal. Which kind of speech he useth other where, and proveth it out of 1. Cor. 15. and 2. cor. 5. The most therefore that Bel can infer (and he may well do it) is, that the bread which judas eat was not in operation our Lord, and life to him, but judgement, and death: which I willingly grant, but it maketh nothing for his purpose. Let now every indifferent Reader judge whether this argument out of S. Austin be not sufficiently answered, and Bel if he willbe as good as his word, bound to recant yet once again. And thus much of this member.   

CHAP. VI Bells imaginary contradictions in the Mass answered, and true Contradiction in his Communion showed.  
THE fourth member Bel maketh of 
●●l pag. 32.  the apparent contradictions which are (as he saith) in the Mass. The first is that Catholics say that Christ's body is the same in the Mass which was on the cross, & yet confess it to be a figure thereof. This he proveth to be a contradiction because 
Bellarm. l. 1. de Euchar. c. ●.  a figure must needs be inferior to the thing figured as Bellarm: professeth, and S. Paul testifieth. Answer. First I deny all figures 
S. Paul. Hebr. 10.  to be inferrior to things figured: some be both figures & verity, as God the Son figure of the substance of his Father. Heb. 
What figures be inferior to th● things figured what not.  1. v. 3. and yet true God. And Seth, an image of Adam Gen. 5. v. 3. and yet true man. And such figures are equal to the things figured, and such a figure of Christ is the Eucharist; Others be bare figures, as images are of men, and the Sacraments and Sacrifices of the old law were, whereof S. Paul and Bellarmin spoke, and the Apostles Heb. 10. v. 1. calleth shadows of goods to come. And these I grant to be inferior to the things figured. But this maketh nothing against us.  
2. Secondly I deny that to be superior 
Bel ignorant in logic.  and inferior, is contradiction: for, as every logician knoweth it is relative opposition, which may agree to the same thing in different respect. As the same soul as it is in the head, is locally superior to itself, as it is in the foot; a man as he is learned, is inferior in value to himself as he is virtuous: And a token as it is from a friend, more worth than it is of itself. And hereby appeareth the error of Protestants inferring the Eucharist not to be Christ, because it is a figure or remembrance 
One thing may figure or represent itself.  of him. For well may one thing represent itself. As a King in a triumphant show may represent, how he behaved himself in Battle. And Christ's body and blood, as they are under the forms of bread and wine, which are a sunder, represent themselves as they were a sunder in their proper forms on the cross.  
3. Thirdly I return Bells argument upon himself. Figures must needs be inferior to things figured: Ergo the Eucharist is some nobler substance than bread. The Antecedent is his own, the Consequence I prove, because the Paschal lamb was a figure of the Eucharist as S. Chrisostom S. Cyprian S. 
S. Ghrysost. hom. de prodit. judae tom. 3. S. Cyprian. l. de unit. eccles. S. Hieron in 26. Math. S. August. l. 2. cont. literas Petilian. c. 37▪ to. 7. S. Leo serm. 7. de Passione. S. Gregot. hom. 22. in evang. pag. 32. Chap. 1. parag. 12. 13. Chap. 5. parag. 2. p. 33.  Hiero. S. Austin S Leo S. Gregory & others affirm, and may be gathered out of S. Paul saying Heb. 10. v. 1 That the law had a shadow of goods to come, and by Christ's instituting the Eucharist immediately after the eating of the Pascal lamb. Whereby (saith S. Chrisostome) in one table both Paschals of the figure and verity was celebrated.  
4. His second, and third contradiction is of a greater body being contained in a less, and of Christ's body broken, and not broken, which have been answered before. His fourth is, that if Christ's body be made present in the Eucharist by virtue of these words this is my body, either the body is there before the last words be pronounced, or no▪ if before? then the last is superfluous, if not? then either all the body is made by the last word, and so the three first stand for ciphers, or part of his body by one word, and part by an other? and so Christ's body is torn in 
Bel ignorant in logic.  pieces. O worthy challenger ignorant of the principles of logic. What show of contradiction is there here, though we should grant any one of the three points inferred? But this good fellow is more skilful in making contradictions, then in knowing what contradiction is.  
5. Briefly I answer, that neither Christ's whole body, nor any part thereof, is in the Eucharist before the pronunciation of the last word, yet are not the former words superfluous. For the last worketh the transmutation. not by his own virtue alone, but with the virtue of them also, or rather God worketh all when the last word is pronounced. For (as S. Chrisostom saith) It is not man 
S. Chrysost. homil. de prodit. judae tom. 3.  that by the consecration of our Lord's table, maketh the things proposed, the body and blood of Christ, but that Christ who was crucified for us. The words are uttered by the Priest's mouth, and consecrated by the power of God. And the like answer must Bel make for divers matters.  
6. For in baptism one may ask whether a child be christened, before the name of the holy Ghost be pronounced, and then it is superfluous, and may be left out; or part by the name of the father, part by the name of the son, and part by the name of the holy Ghost, and then is the child christened by piece meal: or only by the name of the holy Ghost, and then the other two names are ciphers. And the like argument may be propounded in divers other matters, but I will propound it in a matter more intelligible, and perhaps more proportionate to Bells capacity out of his own name Thomas. When one calleth him by that name, either he is all called by Tom, and then As is superfluous: or part by Tom, and part by As, and then is he called by piece meal: or all by As, & then is Tom: but a cipher, and As is all Bell, and so by conversion, all Bel is an As▪ Let Bel study to solve this argument, and I doubt not, but he will find the solution of his own.  
7. The fift contradiction which this 
pag. 34.  contradictious fellow findeth in the Mass is, that Durand, Caietan, and four Catholics more, before the Council of Trent did otherwise explicate the manner of Christ's real presence in the Eucharist, than was truth, and since the Church hath defined, and explicated in the said Council. Is not this a goodly contradiction in the Mass? did Bel find all these men's opinions there, 
Bellarm. l. 3. de Euchar. ●. 11. & 18.  or rather gathered them out of Bellarmin, as he hath done almost all his arguments? Or what maketh it against Mass, that three or four Catholics did in a difficult matter, before it was defined and explicated by the Church, descent from the rest? Let Bel if he can show this diversity now since the Council. As for Protestants, Saints above 
Lindan. Catalogo sacramentor. Saints de Euchar. Repetit. 1. cap. vlt. 1577. ex Bellarm. lib. 1. de Euchar. c. 8. S. August. l. 16. de civit. c. 6. tom. 5.  20. years ago, gathered above 80. different opinions of theirs about these four words, This is my body. And an other since hath collected two hundred. This far exceedeth the confusion of tongues at Babel, for there was but 72 tongues, but here be 80. yea 200. to express four words. There one man kept one tongue, but here they alter speaking sometimes Lutherish, sometime Zwinglianish, and otherwhile Caluinish, and yet seeing such horrible confusion, will not give over building of their Babylonian tower of heresy.  
8. The sixth contradiction is that when 
pag. 34.  the Priest proposeth the B. Sacrament to the people, they must adore it, albeit (saith 
untruth 4●  Bel) if the Priest have no intention to consecrate, or omit, or miscall any word of consecration it remaineth but bread, and the worshippers commit idolatry. A jolly contradiction no doubt, do we think Bel wanted not his wits when he proposed such matter for contradictions? Catholics think in deed that when the Priest wanteth both actual, and virtual intention, or omitteth any essential word, that there is no consecration, and the Priest 
Si conscientia propterea lae●i non potuit quia nescivit etc. Aug. lib. 2. cont. Crescon. cap. 26. to. 7. Apoc. 22. v. 8. c. 19 v 10. S. August. q. 61. in Gen. ●●. 4. Genes. 29. v. 24.  sinneth therein grievously; but the people worshipping erroneously upon invincible ignorance offend no more, than did S. John when he worshipped an Angel as God, thinking (as saith S. Austin) it had been God himself, or as did jacob, when he lay with Lia who was not his wife, thinking verily it had been his wife Rachel. But to say that there is no consecration when the Priest omitteth any word at all, or miscalleth any words, so as the sense be not altered thereby, is not Catholic doctrine, but Bells usual false dealing.  
9 His last contradiction is, that when 
pag. 34.  many Priests are made together in Rome, they all pronounce the words of consecration. This is true but what then? Papists (saith he) can not tell how many Gods, or how many times God is made in a piece of bread. O accusator fratrum. Where diddest thou hear of many Gods amongst Papists? Where of making of God? we say after S. Hierom and S. 
S. Hieron. e●ist. ad Hel●odor. S. Pontian. epist. 1. Decretali.  Pontian that Priest's conficiuni Corpus Christi make Christ's body, but dream not of making God. These be the slanders maliciously objected to Catholics against thine own knowledge and Conscience. But where is the contradiction? Forsooth because Inocentius holds that all such Priests do consecrate, Durand thinketh that he only who first pronounceth the words, and Caietan is of an other opinion. I grant these contradict one an other. But what is this to the Mass●? are these contradictions in it? You promised to show us 
Bel deceiveth his Reader.  contradictions in ●he Mass, and twice you have told us of durand & Caietans' contradictions, & as often of other matters, which had no show of Contradiction. Besides that the matter in which these three Authors contradict one an other is no point of faith. For with Catholics it is no more matter of faith, whether all the said Priests or one only consecrate, than it is with Protestants, whither all or one should christian a child, if many at once should dip him into the font, & pronounce the words of Baptism. So the letter be well sealed, it skilleth not whither one or many be thought to make the print, when many together put their hands to the seal.  
10. But if Bel when he looked upon the Mass book, had looked on his communion book, and with the like eyes and affection, 
Gilby admonition to England and Scotland. fol. 70.  he should have found other stuff in it then he did in the Mass. For beside that it is made out of our breviary and Missal (whereupon Gilby called King Edward the sixth his book, an English matins patched forth of the Pope's Portesse) more than a thousand Ministers (whom the university of Oxford acknowledged to be 
Answer to the Petition.  their brethren, and fellow labourers in the Lord's harvest) in their petition exhibited 
Exhibited in April 1603.  to his Majesty, say that they groan under a burden of humane rites and ceremonies, find enormities in their Church discipline, 
A thousand ministers censure of the communion book.  and in their Church's service, want of uniformity of doctrine, Popish opinions, and honour prescribed to the name of jesus with divers abuses, which they are able (say they) to show not to be agreeable to Scripture. Thus Sir have your own ministers diminished the credit of your communion book. And Reynolds (an excellent ornament saith 
Answer to 8. reasons. Confer. p. 63. 86. pag. 25. pag. 59  Buckley) in the conference at Hampton court 1. proved the communion book to contradict twice the Bible, & the Bishops were feign to amend it. 2. he argued it to contradict the 25. Article of their faith. 3. to contain manifest errors, directly repugnant to Scripture: 4. he requested it to be 
pag. 23.  fitted to more increase of piety. 5. professeth that urging men to subscribe unto it, 
pag. 58.  is a great impeachment to a learned ministry, whereof he giveth divers reasons, as the repugnancy therein to Scripture, the corruption of Scripture, the interrogatories, and ceremonies in baptism, and certain 
D. R●inolds censure of the communion book.  words in matrimony. Thus sir the excellent ornament of your Church hath adorned your communion book, and this black verdict hath he given thereof.  
11. And if I should but reckon the contradictions 
Protestants contradictions about their communion.  in Protestants doctrine about the Eucharist, I should never make an end, only I will requite Bel with some few. 1. how Christ's body (saith Willet) should be verily 
1. Willet Tetrostyl. col. 2. part. 3. p. 82.  present, and yet not really. Can there be verum and not res, or ens: vere, and not realiter? 2. how there can be a real presence 
2. Perkins Reform. Cath. p. 185. 189.  of Christ in the Sacrament (as saith Perkins) and yet Christ no otherwise present, than a thing to it name. 3 How God giveth Christ 
3. Perkins sup.  in this Sacrament (saith the same Minister) as really and truly as any thing can be given to man, and yet he is given by only faith 4. 
4. Caluin. 4. instit. c. 17. paragr. 10.  How (as Caluin teacheth) the Eucharist is no empty sign, but hath the verity of the thing united to it, and yet Christ is only in heaven. 5. How there is (saith Caluin) 
5. Caluin. sup. parag. 19 & 15.  a true and substantial communication of Christ's body, and blood in the Eucharist, and yet Christ no more there, than he was 
6. Saints de Euchar. repetit. 6. c. 1. p. 208. Mich. Fabrit. ep. de Beza.  in the Sacraments of the jews, which were before his body was any substance. 6. How Christ's body is truly really, and substantially in the Eucharist (as Beza wrote in his confession exhibited to the Count Palatine and uttered publicly in the disputation at 
Surius An. 1556.  Poysi) and yet withal as far from the Eucharist, as heaven from earth; Surely such fellows as these have yea, & no, in their religion, 
2. Cor. 1. v. 17. 2. Cor. 4. v. 2.  or else walking in craftiness adulterate (as the Apostle speaketh) God's word. For if their words be understood as they signify, & purport, they include manifest contradiction, and thus much of the second Article. Wherefore be mindful 
Apotal.  (Bel) from whence thou are fallen and do penance Apoc. 2.    

THE THIRD ARTICLE OF THE POPE'S DISPENSATIONS.  

CHAP. I.  
BELL beginneth this Article as he did 
Bel pag. 36.  the two former with untruths, and dissimulations. His untruths appear in that he chargeth S. Antonin, and Austin of Ancona, 
Antonin. 3. part. tit. 22. c. 5. parag. 8. untruth 42. untruth 43.  with teaching the Pope to have equal power with God. Because S. Antonin writeth. That seeing the Pope is Christ's vicar, none can lawfully withdraw himself from his obedience: And that Christ hath given him most full power, as S. Cyril (saith he) teacheth lib. thesaur. which proof out of S. Cyril this honest challenger left out. Austin of Ancona affirmeth: 
Augustin. do Ancona in summa p. 152.  that The Pope as Christ's vicar hath universal jurisdiction over all Kingdoms and empires. Did ever man see greater impudence, what word is here of equal power with God? Nay express word of inequality, if vicar's be unequal to principals: deputies to Kings. Did Christ's humanity when it received most full power. Math. 28. v. 18. and authority 
S. Matthew.  over all kingdoms, and bounds of the earth. psal. 2. v. 8. receive equal power to 
David.  God? And if the power of Christ as man (though never so full, and universal) were create, and unequal to God's power, who can imagine the power given by Christ as man to a pure man to be equal to Gods? I omit Bells error in affirming that Austin of 
joan. 12. lived 956. August. de Ancona 1305. Onuph. in chron.  Ancona dedicated his book to Pope John the twelft who was dead almost 400. years before him. But he should have said John 22. and this error can not be laid upon the Printer seeing the number is set down not in ciphers but letters.  
2. His dissimulation is evident. First because 
Dissimulati● 4.  he concealeth that the opinion (That matrimony only contracted may be upon urgent occasion dissolved) is held but of some Canonists, and of very few divines, who commonly hold the contrary. But impugneth 
Bel impugneth an opinion of Canonists and of Protestants as a matter of faith. 5. Dissimulation. Surius Ann. 1540 Vid. Lindan. l. de concordia Haereticor. p. 69.  it, as if it were held of all Catholics, and as a point of their faith. Secondly he imposeth the said opinion upon Catholics only, dissembling that Protestants think not only matrimony contracted, but also consummated by carnal copulation may be dissolved, & impugn Catholics for not admitting any cause of dissolving such matrimony.  
3. Luther the Protestants first Father writ a book 1540 where he avoucheth it to be hard, and unjust, that the innocent person may not marry an other after separation made for adultery. Caluin calleth it a 
Caluin. 4. instit. c. 19 paragr. 37.  most unjust law. Likewise Bucer in cap. 19 Math. Melancht. de loc. tit. de coniugio: Kemnitius in 2. part. exami. And Willet in 
Willet controu. 15. q. 2. p. 526. 527.  name of English Protestants. All these affirm that adultery is a just cause why even consummated marriage may be dissolved, and a new contracted. Luther addeth other 
Luther. in c. 7. ad Corinth. edit. 1523.  causes as the one persuading the other to sin: much debate between them: and long absence of the one party, which if it be done of malice seemeth just cause to willet, and thereto he citeth Beza 1. Corinth. 
Willet sup.  7. and other Protestants. And this was practised in K. Edward 6. time, when Sir Ralf Sadler having married one Matthew Baro his wife in his absence, though Baro had begotten children of her, yet could not recover her, but by Parliament she was adjudged to Sadler. Caluin addeth want of 
Caluin. Bucer. sup.  consent of parents, if the parties be young, and Bucer addeth incommodious behaviour, of either party to be a sufficient cause.  
4. Wherefore if the Pope by dissolving 
Bel pag. 37.  contracted matrimony (which he doth very seldom, and upon urgent occasion, & weighty cause) challenge (as Bel saith) power equal to God. Surely Protestant's by dissolving consummated matrimony often, and upon so many causes whereof some are very small, and not sufficient to dissolve a mere civil contract, do challenge power above God. But let us see how he against some Catholics, and generally all Protestants, proveth that contracted matrimony can not be dissolved, but by God alone for any cause whatsoever.  
5. His reason is because Christ said Math. 
pag. 38.  c. 19 v. 6. what God hath joined let not man separate, and Luc. 16. v. 18. Every one that putteth away his wife, and marrieth an other committeth adultery. And S. Paul 1. Corinth. c. 7. v. 10. Those that are joined in matrimony command not I but our lord, that the wife depart not from the husband, but if she depart, abide unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband. To this the Canonists answer. That Christ and his Apostle spoke only of consummated matrimony: because Math. 19 Christ forbiddeth separation of such, as immediately before he had said to be made one flesh, which is by consummation of matrimony. And likewise Luc. 16. prohibiteth marriage after dismission of a wife carnally known, as is gathered out of Math. 5. v. 32. where he useth the same words, and citeth the law of divorce Deut. 24. v. 1. which speaketh of a woman carnally known saying. If a man have taken a wife and had her, and she have not found favour in his eyes for some filthiness, he shall &c. And hereby are answered the words of S. Paul, in which he referreth himself to the precept of Christ. Besides that S. Thecla virgin was by him soluta à nuptijs loosed from marriage as writeth S. Epiph. haer. 78. which 
S. Epiphan.  fact S. Ambros. lib. 2. de virg. commendeth, 
S. Ambros.  and it argueth that the Apostle taught unconsummated marriage might be dissolved.  
6. Against this answer Bel bringeth many replies in number, but none of force. 1. That if contracted matrimony were not de iure 
pag. 38.  divino the greatest Popish Doctors would not deny the Pope's dispensation therein. Lo here when it maketh for his purpose, he confesseth the greatest Catholic Doctors to think contracted matrimony to be indissoluble. Why then doth he impugn the contrary as an Article of our faith? To his argument I answer, that though all Catholics believe the institution of contracted matrimony to be of God, and Divines for the most part probably think the continuance also thereof to be iure divino, and commanded by God: yet nevertheless Canonists do probably teach that the continuance of it is not absolutely, and in all cases commanded by God, but may upon great, and urgent causes be dissolved by the Church.  
7. Secondly he replieth that Christ speaketh absolutely, and maketh no mention of copulation or popish consummation. Answer. Though in that verse he spoke absolutely, yet immediately before he made mention of copulation. And will Bel forbidden us to expound a sentence of Scripture by the antecedents, or consequents? But I marvel much why he termed consummation, or copulation popish. Me thinketh he should rather call it Ministerish. For Papists can say with S. Austin lib. de bono coniug. c. 13. tom. 6. We 
S. Austin see lib. 5. cont. Faust. c. 9  have many brethren and companions of the heavenly inheritance of both sexes, who are continent, either after experience of marriage, or are free from all such copulation, such are innumerable. But for Ministers their first father Luther imitating 
Luther. lib. de vit. coniugali 1522. See S. Iren. lib. 1. c. 1. Raro haereticus diligit castitatem. Hieron. in c. 7. Oseae. pag. 38.  the beastly Valentinians, writeth that it is as necessary to have a wife as to eat, drink, or sleep: and how well ministers practice this doctrine let all England be judge.  
8. His third reply is that Papists think matrimony contracted to be a Sacrament ergo (saith he) perfect before copulation & indispensible by man. For as Canus saith: The holy Ghost and grace of 
Canus lib. 8. de locis c. 5.  Sacrament is not given by copulation. Answer, granting the Antecedent I deny the consequence. For though it have the essence, yet hath it not the perfection of the Sacrament before copulation. Because before, it signifieth only the spiritual conjunction of Christ with a soul by grace, as S. Thomas, 
S. Thom. 4. d. 27. q. 1. art. 3. q. 1. Innocent. 3. c. delictum de digamis.  and Innoc. 3. teach, which as it may by man be dissolved, so also may matrimony before consummation; but after, it signifieth also the conjunction of Christ to the Church by flesh, which as man can not dissolve, so neither can he dissolve matrimony after consummation. And as a seal is the perfection of a bargain making it more hard to be broken then otherwise it should be: so copulation is as it were the seal of the covenant of wedlock made betwixt man & woman, & maketh it more indissoluble than otherwise it should be.  
9 As for Canus he meaneth of sinful copulation betwixt persons only affianced when they (saith he) after spousals company together. But as for conjugal copulation after matrimony is contracted, if it be done in that manner and for that end it should be, it giveth grace, and is meritorius, as appeareth by S. Austin l. de bon. coniug. c. 21. 22. 
See S. Austin l. 1. de nupt. & concup. c. 12. 13. 14. 15. tom. 7.  tom. 6. where though he prefer the chastity of single life before the chastity of marriage, yet he compareth Abraham's merit in his holy usage of marriage with S. Ihons' merit in living single. Besides lawful copulation is a good work as I hope Bel will not deny, but according to his own doctrine art 5. 
Artic. 5. p. 61.  every good work is meritorius or impetratorius of God's favour, & reward. His fourh reply vz, that matrimony should not be fully perfected in the Church, if copulation do perfect it, containeth no new difficulty.  
10. Fiftly he argueth it to be absurd. That matrimony beginneth to be a Sacramant by 
pag. 39  copulation, and was not by the Priest's action. 
44 untruth  But more absurd it is to utter untruths. For Catholics say not that it beginneth to be 
See Bellar. l. 2. de Monachis. c. 38. The contrary is a particular opinion of Canus l. 8. de loc. c. 5. Conc. Trid. sess. 24. c. 1. de Reform. pag. 39  a Sacrament by copulation, or by the Priest's action: but that it beginneth by the mutual consent of the parties, and is perfected by their copulation, though that it be lawfully contracted, the Priest's ptesence be required. His sixth objection is that Matrimony was perfect in Paradise betwixt Adam and Eue. But this is to assume that which he was to prove. His seventh reply is: If contracted matrimony were not de iure divino both parties agreeing, they might dissolve it themselves, as they can dissolve spousals, because as the la saith every one may yield up his right. Answer. Contracted matrimony is a Sacrament instituted by God, and therefore can not be dissolved but by such as succeeding the Apostles are dispensers of God's mysteries 1. Corinth. 4. 
S. Paul.  v. 1. The like reason is not of spousals, nor of any other contract instituted by man.  
11. Eighthly he replieth. That marriage between the B. virgin and joseph was perfect, where doubtless wanted copulation. That it was perfect he proveth because the 
Math. 1.  angel called her joseph's wife. And S. Ambrose saith. That not deflowering of virginity 
S. Ambros. de institut. virg. ca 6. tom. 1. S. August. l. 2. de consens. evang. c. 1. tom. 4. Lib. 1. de nupt. & concup. c. 11. to. 7.  but conjugal covenant maketh wedlock. And S. Austin writeth. That we rightly understand joseph to be maries husband, by very copulation of wedlock without commixtion of flesh. Again. God forbidden that the bond of wedloock (rumpatur) be broken betwixt them, who are content upon mutual consent, to abstain for ever from use of carnal concupiscence. For it was not falsely said of the Angel unto joseph, Fear not to take thy wife mary. Answer: All these proofs convince no more, than that contracted matrimony is true marriage, as we willingly confess was betwixt joseph and our B. Lady, For the Angel calleth her not joseph's perfect, wife, but absolutely his wife. Whereupon S. Hierom l. 
S. Hierom. pr. fin.  cont. Heluid. saith S. joseph was rather a keeper, than a husband, and in c. 1. Math. When thou hearest an husband do not suspect marriage, but remember the custom of Scripture that spouses are called husbands, and spousesses wife's. And S. Basil hom. de human. Chris. gener. calleth 
S. Basil.  that dispousation wherewith S. joseph, and our Lady were married, beginning of Marriage As for S. Ambrose he denieth not that deflowering perfecteth marriage, but that it maketh it. And S. Austin in the first place affirmeth that we truly understand joseph to be Mary's husband without copulation, but addeth not that he is so perfectly.  
12. To the second place I answer that S. Austin speaketh there only of consummated marriage, both because his intention in those 
Lib. 1. c. 1.  books was as he professeth in the beginning to show against the Pelagians. That though children infected with original sin do proceed from marriage, itself is no sin, which difficulty hath no place but in consummated marriage. As also because after he had proved in the foresaid 11. chapter that the bond of wedlock is not broken by purpose of abstaining from use (as he speaketh) of concupiscence, or exercise of marigeable acts, in the next chapter he concludeth thus. Wherefore 
Cap. 22.  then may not they remain man and wife, who of consent leave of companying together, if joseph and mary remained man, and wife, who not so much as began to company together. By which Conclusion of his, it is evident that before he had spoken only of consummated marriage, and only meant to prove that it is not broken by private determination, or purpose of the parties to abstain from exercise of copulation. Which he proved by an argument a fortiori, because unconsummated matrimony of our B. Lady, and joseph was not broken by their purpose of abstaining from all carnal knowledge. But whither unconsummated matrimony which is not broken by such private purposes of the parties married, may upon just and urgent cause be dissolved by the Church's authority S. Austin there saith no word at al.  
13. Finally Bel concludeth this Article with an egregious slander of the Pope, and false dealing with S. Antonin. For he avoucheth that P. Martin 5. dispensed with one 
Bel pag. 40.  who had contracted, and consummated matrimony with his own natural, and full sister of the 
45. untruth  same father, and mother. This he proveth out of S. Antonin: saying: That P. Martin dispen. 
Antonin. 3. part. tit. 1. c. 11.  said with one who had contrasted, and consummated matrimony cum quadam eius germana. Here Bel maketh a full point and addeth no more. But S. Antonin addeth quam cognoverat Fornicarie, with a sister of hers, with whom he had committed fornication. And before the words cited by Bel he saith that seeing affinity is contracted by fornication, as by conjugal act, he that hath committed fornication with any woman can not marry cum filia eius, vel germana eius, with her daughter, or her sister. And affirmeth that Paludan thinketh the Pope can not dispense in this matter, yet (saith he) Martin 5. dispensed with one who had contracted, and consummated cum quadam eius germana quam cognover at fornicarie, with a certain sister of hers with whom he had committed fornication: What now more evident than that S. Antonin speaketh not of a man marrying his own sister, but his harlot's sister? wherein though the Pope (as he saith) made great difficulty, yet perhaps Protestant's would make small, or no scruple at al. Behold therefore gentle Reader not the excellency of holy Popery (as Bel scornfully exclaimeth) but excellency of wholly ministry which hath as I say said of some made lying 
Isai. c. 28. v. 15.  their hope. Is this M. Bel your promise, pag. 22. of avouching no untruth upon any man? Is this the sincerity you make show of pag. 5. and 221? Is this your protestation made in your preface to yield if any can convince 
Bel bound to recant the 3 time  you to have alleged any writer corruptly, quoted any place guilfully, or charged any author falsely. Let now the Reader be judge by this your dealing with S. Antonin whether you be not bound to recant the third tyme. Be mindful therefore (Bel) from whence thou art 
Apocalip.  fallen, and do penance: Apocal. 2.    

THE FOURTH ARTICLE OF ORIGINAL CONCUPISCENCE IN THE REGENERATE.  

CHAP. I. The Catholic doctrine touching concupiscence explicated and proved.  
because Bel in this Article doth after his accustomed manner, proceed confusedly, and deceitfully, before I answer his objections I will particularly by Conclusions set down the Catholic doctrine upon this matter, whereby the Reader may clearly see, both what Catholics defend, and what Bel ought to impugn. Supposing therefore a distinction of Concupiscence, which Bel himself useth pag. 49. into Habitual, which is the proneness, and inclination in the inferior portion, or powers of our corrupt nature unto disorderly actions, and Actual, which is the disordinate Acts themselves.  
2. The first conclusion, is: That habitual concupiscence in men not yet regenerate 
See S. Tho. 2. d. 30. q. 1. art. 3. S. Thomas. Bellarmin.  is materially original sin. This teacheth S. Thomas 1. 2. q. 82. ar. 3. and Bellarmin l. 5. de amiss. great c. 5. (whose testimony I the oftener, & more willingly use, because Bel accounteth it most sufficient in all Popish affairs 
Bel p. 125. ) and the Protestants deny it not, and I prove it. Because as original justice did formally consist in the conversion of the will to God, and did materially connotate the due subjection of the inferior powers: So original sin doth formally consist in the aversion of the will from God, & materially connotateth the rebellion of the said powers. And because concupiscence is thus materially original sin S. Aust. sometimes calleth it original sin, and saith it is remitted in baptism, when the guilt of Adam's sin annexed unto it (which maketh 
Cap. 2. parag. 2.  it formally sin) is taken from it, as hereafter shallbe showed.  
3. Second conclusion: Habitual concupiscence even in the regenerate is evil: This teach S. Thomas 3. p q. 15. ar. 2. and q. 27. 
S. Thomas.  ar. 3. Bellarmin l. de great. primi. hom. c. 7. and l. 5. de amiss great. c. 10. and all Catholics. And the contrary is P●lagianisme, as is evident out of S. Austin l. 6. cont. julian. 
S. Austin.  c. 5. l. 5. c. 3. tom. 7. and l. 1. de nupt. & concupis. c. 35. And the Conclusion is manifest, because Habitual concupiscence includeth 
Habitual Concupiscence both positive & privative evil.  not only prones to evil, but also difficulty to do good, and want of habitual order in the inferior powers, and therefore is both positive, and privative evil. Hereupon S. Paul Rom. v. 7. 18. calleth concupiscence 
S. Paul.  in himself not good. And v. 21. evil: and v. 16. he saith that he hateth it. And S. Austin lib. 6. cont. julian c. 15. said: who is so impudent, or mad, as to grant sin to be evil, and to deny concupiscence of sin to be evil. And because concupiscence allureth to evil, it is sometime called of the Apostle Sin, la of sin. Rom. 7. of Divines foams peccati: the fomet of sin, and tyrant, of S. Austin iniquity 
S. Austin see him lib. 2. de nupt. & concup. c. 9 S. Ambrose tom. 3.  serm. 12. de verb. Apost. c. 5. Vice. l. 2. cont. julian. c. 3. to. 7. Vicious, and culpable. l. de perfec. justit. c. 6. S. Ambrose de apolog, David c. 13. Root and seminary of sin. And because it causeth difficulty to do good, it is otherwhile called of S. Austin. l. 6. contr. 
S. Austin. tom. 7.  julian. c. 19 1. Retract. c. 15. serm. 12. de verb. Apost. l. de continent. c. 4. & others languor, sickness, defect: infirmity. As because it is in our inferior portion it is called of the Apostle. Rom. 7. v. 23. la of our members, and of others, la of the flesh. And finally because it is inflicted upon us for Adam's sin: S. Austin. 1. Retract. c. 15. calleth it punishment of sin, and also Sin because it is the effect thereof l. 1. contr. duas epist. 
S. Augustin. to. 7.  Pelag. c. 13. and l. de spirit. & lit. c. ultimo tom. 3.  
4, Third conclusion: Actual concupiscence though involuntary, is evil. This teach all Catholics with Bellarmin loc. cit. against the Pelagians, and it is manifest by S. Paul Rom. 7. v. 19 The evil which I will not, that I do: by S. Austin lib. 1. de nupt. & 
S. Augustin. to. 7. Tom. 8.  concup. c. 27. and 29. and l. 6. cont. julian. c. 16. l. 5. c. 3. in psal 118. conc. 8 and otherwhere often, and by the reason which he giveth l. 5. cont. julian c. 3. because it is a disordinate act contrary to the rule of reason: Hereupon men are ashamed of it; and S. Austin lib. 2. cont. julian. c. 5. and lib. 6. c. 19 calleth it iniquity: and lib. 1. de nupt. & concupisc. cap. 27. filthy and unlawful. Hence Bel pag. 53. inferreth involuntary 
More required to formal sin then to evil.  concupiscence to be formal, and proper sin, but he is far deceived. For formal sin beside evil, and unlawfulness requiteth voluntariness, as I shall hereafter prove, and is evident in fools, and beasts, who though they have these involuntary acts are no formal sinners.  
5. Fourth Conclusion: whensoever it is any way voluntary either in itself, or in any needle's cause thereof, it is formally sin. This is evident: because than it hath the whole essence or definition of sin: for it is a voluntary act against God's law, or right reason. I say needle's cause, because if the cause be necessary, or honest, it excuseth the actual concupiscence following thereof from fault.  
6. Fift Conclusion: Habitual, and actual 
All Concupiscence may be called sin & why.  Concupiscence whatsoever, even in the regenerate may be called sin. This is manifest out of that which hath been said in the 2 and ●. conclusion. For either it is voluntary, and then it is formal sin, & properly so called: or though it be un voluntary, it is the cause, effect, punishment, or material part of sin: and any of these reasons suffice to make it figuratively be called sin. And they all are taken out of S. Austin. For 1. de nupt. & concup. c. 23. he saith Concupiscence may be called sin, because it is the effect of sin, as writing is called a hand. And in the same place because it is the cause of sin: as coldness is called sluggish because it maketh sluggish. Likewise 1. Retract. c. 15. he calleth it sin, because it is the punishment thereof. So Zachar. vlt. v. 19 punishment of sin is called sin. And finally lib. 5. cont. julian. c. 3. he calleth actual concupiscence sin, because it is a disorderly act; and it wanteth nothing of sin, but voluntariness, and therefore may as well be called sin as a dead body is called a man. And who well remembreth what is said in these five Conclusions, need no more to answer all Bells arguments. For, as we shall see, he proveth no more than they contain.  
7. sixth Conclusion: Actual concupiscence 
Actual Concupiscence if involuntary is no formal sin.  whensoever it is involuntary is no formal or proper sin, or offence to God. This is against Bel in this whole Article. But I prove it. First because some acts of Concupiscence be but temptations to sin, and are before sin be brought forth. Ergo such are no formal sin. The consequence is evident. For what is but tentation to sin, and goeth before sin be, is no proper sin. The Antecedent I prove out of S. james saying Every one is tempted by his Concupiscence, 
S. james c. 1. v. 14. 15. See S. Austin lib. 6. cont. jul. cap. 15. to. 7.  behold an act, but a tempting of us to sin: afterwards when concupiscence hath conceived it bringeth forth sin, behold also an act of Concupiscence going before sin be brought forth. Willet saith nothing to 
Willet controvers. 17. q. 1. p. 558.  the first part of tentation, but to the second of bringing forth he answereth. That it followeth not Concupiscence to be no sin, because it bringeeh forth sin, because one viper may bring forth an other. But we infer not Concupiscence to be no sin, because it bringeth forth sin: for we well know that one sin may bring forth an other: but we gather that that act of Concupiscence, which S. james termeth conceiving of sin, is no sin, because he affirmeth it to go before the bringing forth of sin, in saying Afterwards when Concupiscence hath conceived it bringeth forth sin, and this could not be, if it were sin, itself. Caluin answereth this 
Caluin. lib. 3. instit. c. 3. paragr. 13. Bellarm. l. 5. de amiss. great. & stat. peccat. c. 7.  argument otherways, whom Bellarmin confureth.  
8. Secondly because whiles a man with the mind serveth the law of God he can not by sin serve the devil. But S. Paul even when he had involuntary motions of concupiscence, served with the mind the law of God. Therefore then he sinned not. The Proposition is evident by the saying 
S. Math. 6. v. 24. S. Paul.  of Christ. None can (at once) serve two masters. The assumption S. Paul testifieth Roman. 7. v. 25. saying, I myself with the mind serve the la of God, but with the flesh the la of sin.  
9 Thirdly nothing involuntary, or done against our will is sin, divers acts of Concupiscence be such. Ergo no sin. Bel 
Bel pag. 50. Perkins refor. Cath. tit. Of original sin.  would gladly (as some of his fellows do) deny the proposition, and therefore straight after he had propounded the argument, telleth us (though falsely) that S. Austin proveth involuntary motions to be sin indeed, and towards the end of this Article avoucheth a man to be guilty of sin in that 
pag. 57  which he doth against his will, and can not avoid, yet at last resolveth rather to deny the Assumption: 
pag. 51.  wherefore I prove them both: The proposition I prove out of that very place of S. Austin, which Bel citeth to the 
S. Augustin. to. 1.  contrary. Sin (saith he 1. Retract. c. 13.) is so far forth voluntary evil, as it is no way sin, if it be not voluntary. And this (saith he lib. de vera relig. c. 14.) is so manifest, as neither the fewnes, of learned, no● the multitude of unlearned doth deny it. And will Bel now deny that which in S. Augustine's time neither learned, nor unlearned would deny? Now let the 
46. untruth  Reader judge, with what face Bel affirmed that S. Austin in the foresaid place 1. Retract. proveth involuntary Concupiscence to be sin, where he most manifestly affirmeth nothing to be any way sin if it be not voluntary, and thereupon laboureth to show original sin in infants to be some way voluntary. And in an other place he 
S. Augustin. lib. de duab. animab. c. 1●. tom. 6. & 1. Retract. c. 23. to. 1. S. Hierom.  avoucheth it to be high injustice, and madness, that a man should be guilty of sin, because he did not that which he could not do And S. Hierom. epist. ad Damas'. de exposit. fid. Accurseth their blasphemy who say that God hath commanded any impossible thing, as no doubt he hath, if we sin in that which we can not avoid: See him dialog. count Pelag. S. Chrisostom 
S. Chrysost. tom. 4. S. Prosper. S. Augustin. tom. 10. Tom. 7.  hom. 13 ad Rom. Prosper de vita contempl. c. 4. S. Austin serm. 61. de temp. de nat. & great. c. 69. in psal. 56. and others. By reason also it is manifest. For if involuntary acts done against our will be true sins, much more the acts of fools, and mad men, yea of beasts, which are not done against will, but only without will, and they true malefactors, and sinners before God and men, which I think none, but a mad man, will grant. And I doubt not but Bel would think himself unjustly executed, if he were put to death for a thing done against his will, and which he laboured all he could to hinder.  
10. The Assumption I prove, because if 
If Concupiscence be not some times involuntary nothing is involuntary.  that be not involuntary, whereof we give no occasion, nor consent unto, yea detest and hinder all we can, (as it happeneth oftentimes in the motions of Concupiscence,) I can not see what can be involuntary unto us. And if they be Papists, (as Bel termeth them pag. 51.) who call such acts of Concupiscence 
S. Paul. S Augustin. serm. 43. de verb. Dom. See serm. 3. 5. and 12. de verb. Apost. Bel a Papist by his own judgement.  involuntary. A Papist is S. Paul saying, Rom. 7. v. 19 I do the evil which I will not. And S. Austin when he saith. I will not that Concupiscence covet. we would there were no Concupiscences, but will we, nile we, we have them. Yea Bel himself no les than they, thrice in this Article pag. 50. 51. and 57 in plain terms calleth these motions involuntary.  
11. But to this argument he answereth. 
Bel pag. 51.  That they be voluntary in their origin, and thereto citeth S. Austin affirming original sin of 
S. Austin 1. retract. c. 13. tom. 1.  infants to be voluntary in their origin, and calleth this the Gordian knot which Papists can never untie, and so clear and evident a solution of the argument, as every child may behold the weakness, falsehood, and absurdity thereof. But Bel is ignorant 
What is to be voluntary in the origen.  what it is to be voluntary in the origen. For this is nothing else but to be willed of him, from whom we took our origin, and whose will is accounted ours. As original sin is voluntary to infants in their origin, because it was willed of Adam in the eating of the forbidden Apple, and his will was in that fact accounted theirs. And this meant S. Austin loc. cit. But as for actual motions 
1. Retract. c. 13. to. 1.  of concupiscence, he never said they were voluntaty to us in their origin; neither can 
Why involuntary motions are not voluntary in their origen. S. Gregory.  they both because Adam had no will of committing these acts, as he had of losing original justice in eating the Apple; as also because his will was not accounted ours in any other act, then in his keeping, or first losing of original justice. Besides as S. Gregory writeth l. 15. moral. c. 22. Original sin being blotted out, children are not held by the iniquity of parents, and therefore Adam's will, can not make those acts in the regenerate to be sin, which of their nature are none.  
12. And though the foresaid motions were 
Inuoluntary motions though they were voluntary in their origen could be no sin.  voluntary in their origen, yet could they be neither, original, nor actual sin. Not original, because they are acts, and not common alike to all: Nor actual, because they have no actual will of the doer, and as voluntary in general is essential to sin in general, so is actual voluntary, to actual sin. Yea for an act now done to be formal sin when it is done, sufficeth not, that it was actually voluntary in the cause done long ago, if now it be against wil For albeit when I gave cause of an unlawful effect, which I did see would after ensue, I was guilty of the effect, when I did the cause: yet if after the cause done I repent & be sorry before the effect follow, I do not sin a new in the effect. As if by some thing yesterday done, I gave occasion that disordinate motions rise to day, though I was then guilty of these motions rising, yet if I since repent I do not sin a new when they rise now against my wil Else I should against my will lose that grace which I got by repentance. Wherefore well wrote S. Gregory to S. Austin our Apostle. 
S. Gregory epist. ad Augustin. Cant. c. 10.  Oftentimes it is done without fault which cometh of fault. And much les should involuntary motions be sins in us, though they were originally voluntary unto us only by the will of an other. Thus is this Gordian knot two ways untied. But himself hath with his tongue tied so fast a knot for proof 
Bel disproveth himself.  of my conclusion, as with his teeth he will not be able to lose. For pag. 48. he affirmeth S. Paul to have been most free, and innocent 
12. Contradict.  touching actual sin, and he proveth it, because he fought mightily against his raging concupiscence, and did in no wise yield thereunto: which is both to confess that S Paul had involuntary motions of the flesh, which himself acknowledgeth Rom. 7. v. 15 17. 19 23. & yet to prove them to be no sin in him, because they were involuntary, which is both my conclusion, and reason.  
13. As for S. Austin he is so far from 
S. Augustin. 10. 2. See S. Austin lib. 2 cont. jul. c. 3. & 10. l. 5. c. 3. 15.  thinking that we sin by involuntary motions of the flesh, as he saith epist: 200. ad Asellicum: That if we consent not to them we need not say: Forgive us our trespasses: which he repeateth again l. de spit. & lit. c. vlt. adding 
Tom. 3.  that if we consented not to these acts we should disprove that saying of S. John: If we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves, and proveth it l. 1. de civit. c. 15. thus. If concupiscential disobedience 
Tom. 5.  be without fault in the body of one sleeping, how much more in the body of one not consenting. And l. 1. de nupt. & concupis. c. 23. explicateth how it is called sin vz: as writing is called a hand, or cold sluggish which is figuratively, & improperly. Nay he not only excuseth us from sin, when we consent not unto involuntary motions of the flesh, but avoucheth that then we do much good, a great 
Merit in resisting Concupiscence according to S Austin. Tom. 7. Tom. 10.  matter, for which we shall be crowned: lib. 1. de nupt. & concupisc. c. 29. He doth much good who doth that which is written. Fellow not thy lusts. And serm. 5. de verb. Apost. c. 6. It is a great matter for me not to be overcome of concupiscence, and cap. 9 who consenteth not doth much, it is a great matter he doth. And lib. 2. de Gen. cont. Manich. c. 14. Sometime reason 
Tom. 1.  doth manfully refrain and bridle Concupiscence even stirred up which when it is done we fall not into sin (mark Bel) but with some striving are crowned. Wherefore if they be Papists (as Bel 
Contradict. 13.  saith pag. 46. and 49.) who say we merit when we resist Concupiscence, surely S. Austin is one. Yea Bel himself if he account it a good deed (as I hope he will) to resist lust: for art. 5. pag. 61. he granteth all good deeds to be meritorious. S. Gregory also epist. ad 
S. Gregory.  August. c. 11. teacheth, That pollution in sleep is not at all to be feared when it proceedeth of superfluity, or weakness of nature, And lib. 21. moral. c. 3. unclean cogitation defileth not the mind when it beateth, but when it subdueth the mind unto it by delight. More Fathers I might add but it were needles, because Caluin lib. 3. 
Caluin.  instit. c. 3. paragr. 10. confesseth that all the Fathers before S. Austin are of the same opinion with S. Austin.  
14. seventh Conclusion: habitual Concupiscence in the regenerate is no proper, or formal sin. This evidently followeth out of the former. For if the acts be not formal sin, but by consent of will, much les the proanes unto them: but it may be proved also otherways. First because if it be any sin, it is original (for actual it can not be, being no act) but original it is not, because by regeneration, we put of the old man. Coloss. 3. v. 9 or lay away the old man Ephes. 4. versic. 22. and put on the new: Coloss. 3. v. 9 and Ephes. 4. v. 24. And by keeping original sin we keep on the old man as by first contracting it we put him on. But it is contradiction at the same time to keep on, and put of or lay away the old man. Ergo in our regeneration we keep not original sin. And this is confirmed: because by sin we bear the image of the earthly man, by regeneration the image of the heavenly according to that 1. Corinth. 15. v. 49. As we have borne the image of the earthly (man) let us bear also the image of the heavenvly. But these two images be opposite. For what 
2. Cor. 6. v. 15.  agreement with Christ and Belial. Therefore we can not have damnable sin, as original sin is, and be regenerate.  
15. Secondly in regeneration either we remain guilty of damnable sin, or become guiltless of all such sin. If we remain guilty, then is not our sin forgiven: contrary to that article of our Creed. Forgiveness 
Symbol. Apost.  of sins. For it is impossible to be guilty of sin, and to have sin forgiven. Then remain we also guilty of damnation the stipend 
Vbicunqu● peccatum est illic se profert ira & ultio Dei. Caluin. 3. instit. c. 11. parag. 2.  of sin, Rom. 6. v. 23. For the guilt of punishment riseth of the guilt of sin, as necessarily as fatherhood riseth of begetting a child. Well may God choose whether he will punish a malefactor, or no, yet he can not make, that a malefactor remaining a malefactor, and guilty of sin, shall not be guilty also of punishment. But a justified o● regenerate man can not be guilty of damnation; because There is no damnation to 
S. Paul.  them who are in Christ jesus: Rom. 8. v. 1. And Bel pag. 45. confesseth That a man can not be 
Bel.  justly condemned for sin remitted. If in regeneration we become guiltless of all damnable sin, then have we no such sin in us. For as S. Austin saith, To be not guilty of sin 
S. Augustin. l. 1. de nupt. & concup. c. 26. to. 7.  is to have no sin: And again: Sins remain but by their guilt. As adultery once committed remaineth in the Committer, only because he is still guilty of the adultery he did, until it be remitted.  
16. Protestants answer. That by regeneration 
Perkins refor. C●thol. pag. 36. See S. Austin lib. 6. cont. julian. c. 6.  guilt is taken from us, but not from the sin which is in us. But this is contradiction: for if the guilt be in the sin, & the sin still in us the guilt is also still in us. Beside the guilt of sin (whereof we speak, and not of the guilt of punishment) can not be in our sin, which can not be guilty of itself, but in us only, who are guilty of sin, which we have committed. And the remaining of sin in us consisteth only in the remaining of this guilt (as saith S. Austin) as the remaining of adultery 
S. Augustin. 1. de nupt.  consists only in this that a man is still guilty of the adulterous fact he did. And 
What it is for sin to remain.  therefore if this guilt of the fact be taken from him, it is impossible for adultery to remain in him. Beside it is manifest contradiction to say one hath sin in him, and yet is not guilty of sin, or a sinner, as it is to say the air hath darkness in it, and yet is not dark.  
17. Thirdly God in regeneration taketh away sins: joan. 1. v. 29. Miche. 7. casteth 
S. Ihon. ●icheas v. 19 Psalm. v. 12.  them into the depth of the sea: separateth from us as far as the East is from the west: psal. 102. But concupiscence is not taken away, it is not cast into the depth of the sea, nor separated from us as far, as the East from the west. Ergo it is no sin. Again: By justification he maketh us more white than snow: psal. 50. v. 9 but how can we be whiter than snow, if the blackness of sin still remain in us? Fourthly Adam by his sin deprived of grace, and transfused sin into all them that are generate of him. Ergo: Christ by his merit expelled sin, and transfused grace into all them that are regenerate of him. The Antecedent is evident. The consequence I prove. For else Christ's merits had not been so potent and effectual to do good, as Adam's sin was to do evil, seeing Christ's merit can not as really, and truly take sin from us, as Adam's sin transfused it into us. Which is both contrary to Christ's honour, and to the Apostles doctrine Rom. 5. v. 
S. Paul. Bel disproved by himself.  17. 18 19 Fiftly how shall one be justly condemned for that which is remitted in baptism? it can not be. Ergo after baptism there remaineth no damnable sin. The Antecedent is the very words of Bel pag. 44. and 45. and agreeable to S. Paul Rom. 8. v. 1. There is no damnation to them, that are in Christ jesus. The consequence is evident for one that hath damnable sin may be justly condemned.  
18. I need not cite Fathers for proof of this Conclusion because as I said before Caluin confesseth that S. Austin had faithfully, 
Caluin. lib. ●. instit. c. 3. p●rag. 10.  and very diligently gathered the sentences of all holy Fathers, and yet disagreeth from him. For S. Austin (saith he) dare not call concupiscence sin, but is content to term it infirmity. Let now any indifferent Reader judge whither we have not reason to boast (to use Bells terms) that S. Austin is on our side. 
S. Augustin. to. 7.  And no marvel. For 1. de nupt. & concupis. c. 23. he writeth thus: Truly this same Concupiscence is now no sin (mark Bel) in the regenerate when consent is not given unto it to unlawful acts. And soon after. But in a certain kind of speech it is called sin: and he giveth there two reasons of this figurative speech, because (saith he) it was made of sin, and maketh sin if it overcome. Again: So is (Concupiscence) called sin, because it was made by sin, whereas now in the regenerate itself is no sin (mark again) as speech which the tongue maketh is called a tongue, & writing a hand which a hand maketh. So also it is called a sin, because it maketh sin if it overcome as cold is called sluggish, because it maketh sluggards. Can any Catholic now speak more plainly. In these few words all in one chapter, he twice denieth concupiscence in the regenerate to be sin, once affirmeth it to be improperly so called, and giveth two reasons, and two examples of such figurative speech: The 
S. Augustin. to. 7. Bellarm. l. 5. de amiss. Grat. & stat. peccati c. 8.  same doctrine he teacheth l. 1. contr. duas epist. Pelag. c. 13. and l. 2. cont. julian & in all his tomes as Bellarmin showeth. So that whatsoever Bel hereafter shall object out of S. Paul: S. Austin, or others calling concupiscence 
S. Austin hath prevented all Bells objections.  sin, I need not answer myself, but refer the Reader to these words of S. Austin, wherein he explicateth both why, and how, S. Paul, himself, and others mean not properly, but improperly and figuratively, when they call concupiscence sin. Yet because Bells arguments contain divers untruths requisite to be taxed, I will answer them all in such order as he proposeth them.   

CHAP. II. divers untruths of Bel disproved, his arguments out of S. Paul against the doctrine in the former chapter answered.  
BELL beginneth this Article as he did 
Bel pag. 41.  the rest with untruths 1. That S. Paul in 
untruth 47  the whole 7. chapter to the Romans proveth original concupiscence in the regenerate to be sin. This is not so: for he doth not prove it to be any sin at all, but supposing it to provoke to sin, calleth it sin. 2. That Papists 
untruth 48  can not abide the Apostles doctrine. Forsooth because we can not abide Bells exposition. 3. That the cause of our denying Concupiscence to 
untruth 49  be sin is because it overthroweth our holy so supposed justification (thus blasphemously he denieth 
Bel blaspbemeth justification.  justification to be holy) our inherent purities, condign merits, & works of supererogation. This is untrue: for it might be such sin, as Bel would have it (to wit venial) and destroy 
Bel art. 6. p. 81.  none of all these. But the true causes are Scriptures, Fathers, & reason before alleged, and Bel confesseth that the reason 
pag. 50.  which we ever have in our mouth is the involuntarines of concupiscence 4. That the Master of Sentences utterly condemneth us in calling 
untruth 50 3. sent. d. 19  concupiscence culpam. But he meaneth improperly as is evident by his own words 2. dist. 32. Concupiscence after baptism (saith he) is only (mark Bel) punishment of sin, but before baptism both punishment, and fault.  
2. Thus having made his way with untruths, 
Bel pag. 42.  he proveth concupiscence to be sin out of S. Paul. Rom. 7. v. 25. saying. I myself with the mind serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin. And hence noteth that the regenerate do serve the law of sin. But he forgot to note that it is but with the flesh, and that with the mind (without which 
Ibid.  there is no formal sin) they serve the law of God. He also noteth. That the best livers can not merit grace, and glory ex condigno: because by sin they deserve death. Which because S. Austin (saith he) at the first could not digest, he understood S. Paul in the 7. chapter to the Romans, only 
51. untruth  of the wicked, not of the godly. But remitting 
Bel forgetteth his matter.  the matter of merit, and desert of sin to their proper places art. 5. and 6. false it is that S. Austin changed his opinion about the understanding of those words of S. Paul Rom. 7. I am a carnal man sold under sin: and the like, because he saw that just men sinned. For as himself testifieth 1. Retract. 
S. Austin.  c. 23. (and Bel wrongly cited 22.) he reading other expositors, found that the foresaid words might be understood of the Apostle himself, as the word carnal may be verified of him in respect of his body, not yet spiritual, and the word sin in respect of concupiscence, which is sin vz: improperly, as the same S. Austin explicateth 
Lib. 1. de nupt. & concupis. c. 23. & l. 1. cont. duas epist. Pelag. c. 13.  in the books to which he referreth us, and we cited them before. Whereby we see, that S. Augustine's error was in understanding the foresaid words of formal, and proper sin (as Bel doth) and corrected it by understanding them of improper sin. And yet even when he was in that error, he was so far from thinking (as Bel doth) that the best livers in rigour deserve eternel death, that then he would in no wise think the Apostle to speak of a man in grace, assuring himself, that no such man is sold under sin that deserveth eternal death.  
3. His second proof is out of the 23. 
Bel pag. 42.  verse of the same chapter where S. Paul writeth I see a la in my members subduing me to the la of sin. What (saith Bel) can he 
Bel forgetteth what he is to prove.  merit who is prisoner to the law of sin. But beside that, Bel for got what he was to prove: uz. Concupiscence in the just to be sin, not their merit to be none: S. Paul by the word (me) understandeth only his flesh, as he had expounded himself before v. 18. when he said. There dwelleth not in me that is in my flesh good. And S. Austin interpreteth 1. de nupt & concupis. c. 30. and 31. And v. 23. saith that he was prisoner to the la of sin in his flesh, and in his mind served the la of God: what marvel then, that one prisoner in flesh, but free in mind (from which all our merit, or sin proceedeth) may by serving God's law, merit.  
4. His third proof is out of the 19 verse 
Bel pag. 43.  where (as he citeth) S. Paul saith. The evil which I would not that I do. Omitting the false 
False translat. 3.  translating of on thelo and Nolo: I would not: as though S. Paul had not had a present, and absolute will not to lust, but an imperfect velleity which even the wicked have, and in english we signify by would, and would not. I answer that S. Paul improperly saith; He doth that which he will not, and therefore in the very next verse, as it were correcting that speech saith. If I do that I will not, I work 
v. 20.  it not, wherein he both affirmeth & ptoveth that we do not what we will not. And the 
A man rather doth not then doth what his will doth not. See S. Thomas 1. 2. q. 74. art. 3. ad 3.  reason is evident. For as the commonwealth is principally the Prince, Pieres, and Magistrates, which govern the rest: so a man is principally his will, which commandeth the rest. And therefore as the commonwealth doth not that, which they do not, though some of the commonalty do it: so a man doth not, what his will doth not, though some of his inferior powers do it. If therefore S. Paul did but improperly say, he doth what he will not, Bel can thereof infer but improper sin. Besides though it were a proper speech, thereof can be inferred no proper sin, for want of voluntariness. And here by the way Bel straweth his 
Bel pag. 43.  flowers of leasing, saying. That the cause why S. Austin epist: 105. written that God crowned 
52. untruth  nothing but his own gifts, when he crowneth our merits, is, because the regenerate by involuntary acts of Concupiscence sin, and become guilty of damnation. For neither doth S. Austin speak there of involuntary acts, neither any where 
S. August. 2. de Cenes. contr. Manich. c. 14. tom. 1.  doth he say they exclude merit, or deserve damnation, yea plainly avoucheth that we are crowned when we have them against our will. And the true cause of his speech shall be given in the next Article of merit, and his very words convince that our merits are no sins, and much les deserve damnation: 
Why merits are no sin, out of S. Austin.  for he calleth them Gods own gifts and saith he crowneth them: but God neither giveth nor crowneth sin.  
5. Fourthly Bel alleged the Apostle 
pag. 43. Cap. 1. parag. 3. 4. 6. 13. 18.  calling Concupiscence sin: Rom. 7. v. 14. and 20. But this we answered before. Bel replieth that it will not suffice to say with Bellarmin 
53. untruth  that it is called sin only because it provoketh to sin, as a man's writing is called his hand, because 
54. untruth  it is written with his hand. Here be two untruths fathered upon Bellarmin. For neither doth he say Concupiscence is called sin only because it provoketh to sin: yea lib. 5. de amiss. great. & stat. pec. c. 8. he 
Bellarm.  giveth an other reason out of S. Austin, because it is the effect of sin. Nether doth he say that it may be called sin, because it provoketh to sin, as writing is called a hand, because it is made by a hand; for so it is a cause, and writing an effect; but as cold is called sluggish, because it maketh sluggards. But let us hear why S. Paul may not be understood of improper sin. First because 
Bel pag. 43.  the Master of Sentences granted Concupiscence to be sin. This is twice sod coleworts set again before his reader for want of other meat, but rejected before. Secondly because it maketh a man to serve the la of sin, which 
Sup. parag. 1.  service can never be but sin. Here the question itself is begged. For the question itself is, 
Bel assumeth what he was to prove, and yet concludeth nothing.  whither the service to the law of sin done by the flesh not by the mind (as S. Paul speaketh Rom. 7. vers. 23.) be proper sin, or no, and that Bel beggeth of us to grant But he must win it, ere he get it. And though we did grant it to him, yet could he no more infer thereof that habitual Concupiscence, which causeth it, is sin, than he can infer the power of our will, which is a gift of God, to be sin, when it causeth sin. Thirdly (saith Bel) because the evil whereof S. Paul speaketh he hateth and will not (Bel hath would not) do it, which must needs be meant of sin. True, but of material, and improper sin. For such also is to be hated, and not to be willed.  
6. Bel having thus sillily proved his heresy 
Bel pag. 43. 44.  out of S. Paul, endeavoureth to prove it out of our doctrine thus. All reprobataes are reprobated both negatively, and positively for original sin. Ergo: Concupiscence is sin even after baptism. The Antecedent (saith he) is a main 
untruth 55.  point, and settled ground of Papists religion, and he willingly granteth it. The consequence he proveth because some reprobates are baptised. Answer. First I deny the Antecedent. For 
1. Answer.  neither doth any Catholic affirm it to be any point at all of Popish faith, & much less a main point, or ground thereof: neither (though some believe it as a school opinion) is it true, because original sin being as truly forgiven in baptism to many reprobates, as it is to predestinates, they can be no more positively sent to hell for it, then predestinates. For as S. Paul saith Rom. 11. 
S. Paul.  v. 29. God's gifts are without repentance, so that what sin he truly forgiveth he never afterward punisheth in hell. wherefore S Prosper 
S. Prosper in resp. ad object. 2. Gallor.  writeth that who goeth from Christ, and endeth this life out of grace, what goeth he but into perdition? yet he falleth not again into that which is forgiven, nor shallbe damned in original sin. Only as all sins are said to return by 
How reprobates may be said to be reprobated for original sin.  ingratitude, according to the parable of the ungrateful servant Math. 18. because a sin, after others have been pardoned, becometh greater by the ingratitude, than otherwise it were: so original sin pardoned to some reprobates in baptism, may be said to return to them through their ingratitude in sinning after the said pardon, and they being positively damned for such sin, may in some sort be said to be positively damned for original sin. Secondly though 
2. Answer  the Antecedent were true, it could not follow thereof, that Concupiscence in reprobates is formal sin, but only that original sin is not truly forgiven in baptism to any reprobat, which though it be false, pertaineth not to this question. For as for habitual 
Cap. 1. parag. 2. & 3.  Concupiscence, it neither before baptism, nor after is formal sin, but before only materially sin, and after only languor, and weakness as is before explicated. But how Bel admitting all reprobates to be reprobated positively for sin, agreeth with his masters Caluin, Beza, and others 
Caluin, Beza Rom. 9  teaching that they are reprobated for God's pleasure, and that he made them to damn, and reprobate them, let his brethren in 
Bel contradicteth his sellow Ministers. Bel pag. 45.  the lord inquire. Now to his places taken out of S. Austin, whom he promiseth to show to be so plain for his doctrine, as none can stand in doubt thereof. But who well remembreth S. Augustine's words, and Caluins' 
Chap. 1. parag. 13. & 18.  confession before cited, can never stand in doubt but that Bell most braggeth where he hath lest cause, and like a●prating pettifogger crieth loudest, when he hath lest proofs.   

CHAP. III. Bells arguments out of S. Austin touching Concupiscence answered.  
THE first place he allegeth out of S. 
Bel pag. 45.  Austin is tom. 7. l. 6. contr. julian. c. 3. where he writeth. As blindness of heart is sin, punishment of sin, and cause of sin. So concupiscence of the flesh is sin, punishment, and cause of sin. Answer. S. Austin compareth concupiscence with blindness of heart, in the material disorder of sin. For as sin is against the rule of reason, so disordinate lust, not in formality of sin. Nether say I this only, but can prove it. And omitting that other where he 
Lib. de Spir. & ●it. c. vlt. l. 1. de nupt. & concup. c. 23. l. 1. con. duas epist. Pelag. c. 13.  plainly avoucheth it to be no formal sin, as is before showed, I prove it, first by his reason, where with he proveth it to be sin: vz because it is disobedient to the rule of reason, which convinceth it to be material sin, and a disorderly and evil thing, but not to be formally sin, for want of voluntariness, which himself necessarily requireth to formal sin as is before showed. Secondly because it sufficed to S. Austin to 
●ap. 1. parag. 9  prove concupiscence to be material sin, for to disprove julian the Pelagian against whom he there disputed, who taught, as S. Austin there and other where testifieth, 
Lib. de nupt. & concup. c. 34. to. 7. & l. 6. cont. jul. ●. ●●.  that it was laudable & good, against whom he there proveth by the example of blindness of heart, that it was not only punishment and cause of sin, but also sin; that is, nought, evil, and disorderly; because it is against the rule of reason, which is to be sin materially, though it want the form of sin which is voluntariness.  
2. Next he bringeth these words. Some 
Bel pag. 46.  iniquity is in man when the inferior parts do stubbornly 
S. Augustin▪ tom. 7.  strive against the superior, albeit they be not suffered to overcome. And quoteth for them l. 6. contr. julian c. 8. as he found it through the Printers error, falsely quoted in Bellarm: 
Bellarm. l. 3. de amiss. great. & stat. pec. c. 9 Bells challenge nothing but Beauties' objections. Sup. c. 1. parag. 3. & 4.  but they are, l. 6. c. 19 which added to that, that almost all he saith is found in Bellarmin, convinceth that he made this boasting challenge out of his objections. As for S. Austin his meaning when he calleth concupiscence iniquity is sufficiently explicated before. And the very word, Some, argueth that he thinketh it not to be formal sin, but in some sort vz: materially. Besides that himself l. 2. contr. julian c. 5. expoundeth the like words out of S. Ambrose of no sinful iniquity.  
3. The third place cited by Bel is l. 1. de 
pag. 46.  nupt. & concupis. c. 25. where S. Austin 
S. Augustin. tom. 7.  writeth. If (concupiscence) can both be in the baptised parent and be no sin, why is the self same no sin in the child? To this I answer (saith S. Austin) That concupiscence is not so forgiven in baptism, that it is no more, but that it is no more imputed to sin. Item. There remaineth not any thing which is not remitted. Whereupon Bel inferreth both that concupiscence is formal sin, else it need not be forgiven, & that it is true sin, as well after baptism, as before though it be not imputed to sin after baptism, and biddeth us mark that S. Austin said not: Nothing is sin that remaineth, or no sin remaineth: but not any thing remaineth which is not remitted. Answer. The form, & 
What is the essence of habitual sin▪ Cap. ●●.  essence of habitual sin is the guilt of actual sin before done, according to S. Austin in the same book, and next chapter, as the form of habitual sin of adultery is the guilt of actual adultery before committed: & the form of that habitual sin which we have by origin, is the guilt of Adam's actual eating the Apple, which guilt 
How Concupiscence needeth for givenes.  being annexed to Concupiscence maketh it formal sin, and to require forgiveness, but that guilt being taken away by God's forgiving the sin (as the same holy Doctor teacheth in the same place, and lib. 6. 
S. Austin.  contr. julian. c. 17. and lib. 1. Retract. c 13) Concupiscence need no more forgiveness (as the same B. Saint writeth. lib. de spirit. 
To. 3. & 1. & lib. 1. contr. duas epist. Pelag. c. 13.  & lit. c. vlt. and epist. 200.) Nor remaineth any more true sin, more than the body remaineth a man after the soul is departed. And in this very place which Bel citeth, when he asketh why Concupiscence is sin in the child, if it be in the parent baptised, and be no sin in him, evidently supposeth that it is no true sin in the baptised.  
4. As for that of not imputing sin, what S. Austin meant thereby we will rather 
What no● imputing of sin is with S. Austin.  learn of himself then of Bel, he therefore in the very words which Bel citeth having asked why Concupiscence is not sin (mark Bel) in the parent baptised as well as in the child unbaptized, answered that by baptism non imputatur 
None but an infidel will say sin is not ta●ē away in baptism S. August. l. 1. cont. duas epist. Pelag. c. 13. to. 7.  in peccatum it is not imputed for sin. In which answer unless he did by not imputing for sin, mean making no sin, he had not answered the question, why Concupiscence was no sin in the baptised parent. Therefore with him Concupiscence not to be imputed to, or for sin, is to be made no sin. And cap. 32. he saith that Concupiscence to be imputed, is to have the guilt (vz of Adam's actual sin) which it hath, with it: and consequently to be not imputed is to have this guilt taken away, but to have no guilt is to have no sin, as himself saith c. 26. therefore with him Concupiscence to be not imputed is to be made no sin. Nether indeed can God otherwise not impute sin but by taking it away. For his judgement is according to truth. Rom. 2. v. 2. and therefore if there be sin 
S. Paul.  in us, he must needs impure it to us, and account us sinners, else he should not accounted us, as we are, and according to truth. And albeit S. Austin did not in this place say in plain terms. Nothing is sin that remaineth. or: No sin remaineth yet he manifestly supposed the first, when he asked why concupiscence is not sin (mark Bel) as well in parents baptised as in the child, & affirmed them both in equivalent terms when he answered that by not imputation concupiscence became no sin in the baptised, as is already showed. And otherwhere plainly affirmeth. That all sins are forgiven (in baptism) and 
S. Austin. l. 1. contr. duas epist. Pelag. c. 13. In Psal. 72. l. 6. cont. jul. c. 16. 17. Tract. 41. in joan. serm. 6. de verb. Apost. lib. 20. de civit. c. 26.  now are no more at al. What is this but to say no sin remaineth. And nothing more usual with him then to say. That in baptism all sins are taken away, do die, are wholly forgiven, all iniquity blotted out: the baptised have no sin. Infants christened have no filth. Beside in sense all is one to say. Nothing remaineth which is sin: and nothing is sin that remaineth. For God by remitting taketh away the guilt of sin, as S. Austin saith l. 1. de nupt. & concupis. c. 26. l. 6. contr. julian. c. 17. and l. 1. Retract. c. 13. which guilt is the very form of sin as is before explicated out of S. Austin.  
5. The fourth place is taken out of S. 
Bel pag. 47. S. Augustin. to. 7.  Austin l. 1. de nupt. & concupis. c. 29. He doth much good who doth that which is written. Fellow not thy lust, but perfecteth it not because he fulfilleth not that thou shalt not covet, or lust. Hence Bel inferreth. First that the just can do no good, nor strive against lust so perfectly but it is annexed to sin. This is grounded upon S. Augustine's words of not perfecting good, and not fulfilling the law of not coveting. But the illation is quite contrary to his meaning in this place and others before cited, where he saith. That as long as we consent not, we sin 
Epist. 200. l. de Spir. & lit. c. vlt. l. 1. de nupt. & concupis. c. 29. lib. 2. de Gen. contr. Manich. cap. 14. Non est culpae deputandum si nondum potest esse tanta dilectio Dei quanta plenae perfectaeque cognitioni debetur. Aug. de spir. & lit. c. vlt. tom. 3. Aristotel. Quae participatio justitiae cum iniquitate. 2. Cor. 6.  not, we need not ask forgiveness, yea do much good and are crowned. And though he say we perfect not our good, yet not to perfect is not to sin, especially when it is against our will that we perfect it not, as it is in this case. And S. Austin is so far from saying here we sin when we perfect not this work, as he affirmeth that we do much good. And Bel can as well combine good and sin in one act, as he can annex light and darkness, heaven and hell, God and devil. For as the Philosopher saith bonum ex integra cansa, malum ex quolibet defectu. It is no good act unless it be good every way, and it is sin if it be evil any way.  
6. As for fulfilling the law: I answer that who consenteth not to Concupiscence fulfilleth it in all things which it commandeth to be performed under sin as S. Austin expressly affirmeth in many places: as lib. de spirit. & lit. c. vlt. epist. 200. lib. 1. 
Sup. c. 1. parag. 13. & 18.  de nupt. & concupisc. c. 29. lib. 2. de Genes. contr. Manich. c. 14. whose words we cited before: though if he have Concupiscence, he fulfil it not in a thing which the law, though it command not under sin 
How to have no Concupiscence is commanded by the la and how not.  to be performed, yet it commandeth as the end to which we ought, all we can to endeavour and labour to attain unto. That to have no Concupiscence at all, is commanded by the law, only as the end which we ought to endeavour unto, is manifest both by S. Augustine's affirming that there is no sin, when 
See more hereafter artic. 8 chap. 2 paragr 3. and chap. 3. parag. 2.  there is no consent, as also because in the very next words to those which Bel citeth he saith. To this end the law said thou shalt not covet, that in this precept we mihgt know both what in this mortality we ought to endeavour unto by profiting, and whither we ought to attain unto in that most happy immortality. Behold how he saith in this life we ought to endeavour, and in the next we ought to attain to have no lust. And tract. 41. in joan he saith. I can not fulfil that which is said thou shalt not covet, what 
S. Augustin. to. 9  therefore is it needful to fulfil? that. Go not after thy concupiscences. Behold he prescribeth this 
Item 10. de Gen. cap. 12. tom. 3. Cap. 5. to. 10.  only as needful to attain unto. And in the same place, and serm. 12. de verb. Apost. he noteth that S. Paul said not you shall have no ill desires, or let not sin be in your members, but let not sin reign. As if he said. We are not bidden under sin to have no lust at all: and the reason saith he, and S. Gregory after 
S. Gregor. l. ●1. Moral. c. 2.  him, is, because it is impossible.  
7. The second thing which Bel inferreth 
Bel pag. 48.  and biddeth us mark it well is, That the tenth commandment forbiddeth original lust 
Original lust made actual by Bel.  committed without consent, and habitual concupiscence. Did ever man read more markable folly? 1. He maketh original lust to be committed, which is to make original actual, because what is committed is actual, as commission is action: 2. That habitual, & original inclination to evil is forbidden by the tenth commandment, and calleth the contrary most absurd. But nothing can be more absurd then to say that original, and habitual inclination to evil is forbidden by this commandment: Thou shall not covet. For 
S. Augustin. to. 7.  to covet is to do, ipsum agere concupiscere est. saith S. Austin serm. 5. de verb. Apost. c. 7. and therefore to make habits and inclinations forbidden in these words, is to make habits doings, inclinations actions. Or who 
Peccata propria non habent unde illos merito Innocentes nuncupamus. Aug. 1. cont. jul. c. 6. to. 7.  ever heard that new borne infants sin against the tenth commandment, surely if that be so, we must call them no more Innocents'.  
8. But let us hear him prove this absurdity. For although (saith he) S. Paul were most 
pag. 48.  free, and innocent from actual sin, because he fought mightily against his raging concupiscence, and did in no wise yield unto it, yet was he guilty by reason of original concupiscence. Behold Bel proving idem per idem, and withal overthrowing 
Bel proveth idem per idem.  whatsoever he manteineth in this article. For the doubt is, whether original Concupiscence be sin, and this he proveth because S. Paul was guilty by reason of it. what is this but to prove original Concupiscence to be sin, because it is sin. And he affirmeth S. Paul to have been 
Contradict. 14.  most free, and innocent from actual sin, and proveth it because he fought mightily 
Bel overthroweth at once what he intended to prove in all this Article. Babylon is won, Bel is confounded. Heir. 50. v. 2.  against his raging Concupiscence, and in no wise consented unto it. which is in plain terms to confess that involuntary motions of the flesh are no sin, because they are not voluntary. O force of truth which breakest out of thy professed adversaries mouth. Surely Protestant's may have great joy of such a challenger. And no marvel if he be desirous of an adversary to fight withal, who for want of one falleth thus to fight with himself, and maketh his adversaries sport to laugh, & moveth his friends to compassion and shame. But let us see more of his pastime.  
9 S. Paul had not known lust to be sin except 
Bel pag. 49. Rom. 7. v. 7.  the law had said. Thou shalt not lust. But he could not be ignorant that Concupiscence with consent was sin, seeing the very heathens did know, and confess it. Again. voluntary lust is forbidden 
Math. 5. v. 22.  in the sixth, seventh, and eighth commandment as Christ himself expoundeth them. Therefore the tenth forbiddeth the very habitual desire, and inclination and fruits thereof though not consented unto: Answer. S. Paul was so far from knowing by the law that natural inclination to sin is formal sin, as neither he, nor any man of judgement could imagine it till Bel 
See S. Austin serm. 4. de verb. Apost. c. 4. & 5. to. 10.  with a new kind of philosophy taught us that habits are acts, and inclinations actions. But to the argument I deny the assumption. For he might be ignorant that lust which 
Concupiscence indirectly voluntary known of S Paul by the la to be sin.  is only indirectly voluntary, and in the cause, because it is not prevented, is sin, and this he might know by the law: neither can Bel show that ever any heathen knew this. Yea he might be ignorant, that Concupiscence directly voluntary, when it is not put in execution, is true sin & learn this by the law. For if josephus, and Kimhi 
josephus l. 12. Antiquit. c. 12. Kimhi in psal. 66.  though they had the law, and were great Rabbins in it, yet thought such concupiscence no sin: and josephus reprehended Polybius for condemning it as a sin; why might not the Apostle have been ignorant of this, if the law had not taught it him. Neither doth Bells reason convince the contrary. For though some Heathen by great study in moral philosophy came to know this truth, yet perhaps S. Paul could not or rather as he saith did not. And Bel as we shall see hereafter citeth a place out of S. Ambros where he writeth, that the Apostle 
S. Ambros. in cap. 7. ad Rom.  thought Concupiscence no sin because it delighted, and seemed a harmless thing to covet. yet better it is to say: (as I have already) that S. Paul meaneth, that by the law he came to know all voluntary concupiscence, though it be but indirectly voluntary, to be sin, and this neither he nor any Heathen could have known, but by the law, or by God's revelation.  
10. Bells second reason maketh against himself. For if involuntary motions be as true sins as voluntary, why are not they forbidden as well in the sixth, seventh, and eighth commandment as these? And albeit voluntary motions were implicitly forbidden, when the external acts were prohibited, yet it was necessary to forbid them expressly in the last commandment for to inculcat it into the hard hearts of the jews: neither yet with this express forbiddance would some of them believe voluntary concupiscence without the fact to be sin, as appeareth by the example of josephus Kimhi, and divers jews, Math. 5. v. 29. After this Bell allegeth a place of S. Austin where he calleth desires of Concupiscence ill, filthy, and not lawful, which have been explicated before, and are verified of 
Chapt. 1. parag. 2. & 3.  involuntary Concupiscence, because it is materially sin, wanting nothing to be 
Chapt. 1. parag. 2. & 3.  formally so but voluntariness, which Bel here goeth about to prove that they want 
Chapt. 1. parag. 11.  not, but his proof hath been refuted before.  
11. After the said ptoofe he avoucheth 
Bel pag. 51.  Bellarmin to confess that S. Austin acknowledgeth 
Bellarm. lib. 5. de amiss. great. & stat. pec. c. 10. untruth  even involuntary motions to be properly sin, and flatly condemned by the tenth Commandment, and in the margin biddeth us see S. Austin lib. de spirit. & lit. c. vlt. because Bellarm in writeth that S. Austin teacheth all kind of motions of Concupiscence to be aliquo modo in some sort prohibited by that la. Thou shalt not covet. Whereas Bellarmin professeth. That S. Austin not only 
Bellar. sup. c. 8.  no where in plain words saith all Concupiscence is properly sin, but also affirmeth the contrary in all the tomes of his works, and in the words cited by Bel is so far from saying, that S. Austin thinketh all motions to be flatly condemned, as he would not absolutely say they were condemned but only with this limitation in some sort, vz as far, as they lie in our power, which limitation though Bel without proof call deceitful, and contrary to S. Augustine's meaning, yet have we before showed 
Sup. parag. 6.  it out of S. Austin to be his true meaning. And I would Bel had seen that place of S. Austin to which he sendeth us: for there should he have heard S. Austin teaching him that involuntary Concupiscence is so far from sin, as if we consent not to it we need not say in our lords prayer. Forgive us our trespasses. And thus much of his proofs out of S. Austin.   

CHAP. FOUR Bells arguments out of S. Ambros, S. Bede, S. Thomas touching Concupiscence answered.  
AFTER his proofs out of S. Austin 
Bel pag. 52.  Bel very methodically (forsooth) returneth to Scripture citing a sentence of S. John in greek, pas ho poion hamartian cai ten ano mian poiei, cai he hamartia estin anomia: and translateth it thus. Every one that sinneth transgresseth the la; and sin is the transgression of the law. This place he citeth again art. 6. to prove all sin of itself to be mortal, and for that purpose it hath some show of 
Be● forgetteth his matter.  proof: but how it proveth all kind of Concupiscence to be proper sin, passeth my intelligence. For suppose that all sin were transgression of the law, (which he laboureth much to prove, & will never perform) what is this to prove. That all Concupiscence is sin? And lest of all it concerneth habitual concupiscence. For S. John speaketh only of actual sin, as appeareth by those words poiei amartian poiei anomian, committeth sin committeth iniquity. And yet spendeth he four leaves in nothing but in proving anomia to signify transgression of the law, and every sin to be transgression of the law, & saith that Papists are put to a non plus. about the 
pag. 58.  doctrine of concupiscence in the regenerate: for both anomia and adicia is truly, and fitly termed iniquity: But what shall a man say to such vanity? Be anomia, or adicia what you will, be all sin transgression of the law: prove you that all concupiscence is formal sin? The question is now, not what anomia or adicia, or sin is, but what concupiscence is, from which Bel flying into an other question, showeth himself to be at a non plus. Wherefore remitting this place of S. John with all which he bringeth to prove that every sin is transgression, to the 6. article, to which it belongeth and nothing concerneth this: I will answer only four authorities, which he abuseth to prove involuntary concupiscence to be sin.  
2. The first is of S. Ambrose in. c. 7. 
Bel pag. 56. S. Ambros.  Rom. where he saith that a man is not free from crime, because he sinneth invitus unwillingly or against his wil Where Bel noteth that he calleth concupiscence crime, or mortal sin. And, That a man sinneth in that which he doth against his wil But besides that the Author of those commentaries is not S. Ambrose: he meaneth not of concupiscence but of custom of sinning, which begun in the sinner (saith he) by his own fault, and sloth, and whereby he is laded and sooner yieldeth to sin then to the law, and though he would do good, yet is he oppressed by custom. And therefore when he saith that such a one is not free from crime in sinning against his will, he meaneth not of absolute, and resolute will to the contrary (for custom can not make a man to do a thing against his absolute will, but of an imperfect will which divers call velleity, which most sinners, though never so accustomed to sin, have to do good, and against which kind of will they sin: but are not therefore (as that Author saith truly free from crime, because (notwithstanding this imperfect will of doing well) they have an absolute and perfect will to sin. And so this place concerneth nothing acts of concupiscence altogether involuntary and against both perfect, and imperfect wil  
3. another testimony he citeth out of S. Ambrose in the same place where he saith. That S. Paul separated not this concupiscence from sin, but mingled it. But he meaneth only of voluntary acts, as is evident by the reason, wherewith he proveth that this concupiscence seemed no sin, because (saith he) it delighted, and seemed simplex causa, a harmless matter to covet a thing of our neighbour.  
4. The third authority is of S. Bede, 
Bel pag. 57 S. Beda 1. 10. 3.  whom he confesseth to have been renowned through out the christian world for learning, and virtue. And if he think as he writeth he thinketh Papistry to be true piety. For S. Bede was a notorious Papist approving Mass, honouring of relics, images, prayer for the dead, purgatory, and other such points of Papistry as is evident out of his Ecclesiastical history. Bel allegeth him because he saith. They sin who of frailty (lat: infirmitas) corrupt innocency. What is here to the purpose? who deny that sin may be done as well of frailty, as of malice? For seeing none is so frail, but he is assisted by God's grace in which he may do all: Philip. 4. v. 13. and is not suffered to be tempted 
S. Paul.  above his power. 1. Corinth. 10. v. 13. if he sin of frailty he sinneth voluntarily.  
5. His fourth authority is out of S. Thomas 
Bel pag. 59 S. Thom. 12. q. 74. art. 3.  saying. That what a man doth without deliberation of reason he doth it not perfectly, because the principal thing in man doth it not, and therefore it is not perfectly a humane act, and so perfectly neither virtue, nor sin, but imperfectly. Wherefore such a motion of sensuality, preventing reason is a venial, & imperfect sin Out of these words Bel noteth these important observations as he calleth them 1. That S. Thomas is a Popish Saint. 2. That for his great learning (and Bel to 
pag. 132.  his confusion confesseth him to have been a great Clerk indeed) he was surnamed the Angelical Doctor. 3. That P. Vrban 4. and Innocent 5. confirmed his doctrine for authentical and gave it the first place after Cononical Scripture. How well these three notes are gathered out of S. Thomas his foresaid words let every one be judge. But Bel can gather quodlibet ex quolibet, water out of a flint stone.  
6. But I must note out of Bells important observations divers important untruths. 1. 
untruth 57  That P. Vtban 4. and P. Innocent 5. confirmed 
untruth. 58  S. Thomas his doctrine for authentical. 2. That P. Vrban 4. gave it the first 
Vrban. in Confirmat. doctrinae S. Thomae.  place after Canonical Scripture. Indeed P. Vrban 4. highly admired his doctrine, as if it were sent from heaven, & P. Innocent in a 
Innocent. in sermo. Ecceplusquam Salomon hic.  sermon as a preacher by way of exaggerationn gave it the first place after Scripture, but neither did they confirm it as authentical, neither did both of them give it the next place after Scripture. The 3. untruth (which 
untruth 59  he repeateth twice in this page, & very often in his book) is. That we are bound to defend, and believe S. Thomas his doctrine, and may not in any case refuse or deny it. This is a manifest untruth. For albeit S. Thomas be, and that worthily of the greatest authority amongst schoolmen, yet his doctrine may and is often denied in schools (as Bel hath heard many times) where it concerneth no matter of faith, yea Bel himself art. 7. pag. 133. affirmeth 
Contradict. 15.  him to be commonly denied about the conception of our Lady. And P. Vrban 4. commanded only the university of Tholouse to teach, and follow, especially (saith he) his doctrine. Whereby we see he commanded them not to follow his doctrine only, and none others, but chief his, nor as an infallible truth, but as most probable. Other universities, and Catholics are left to their liberty to follow (excepting matter of faith wherein all agree, or only err of ignorance) what schoolmen they please.  
7. And this is so notorious as when we object to Protestants their dissension in matters 
The disagreement of Schoolmen far different from that of Protestants. S. Austin.  of faith, they return upon us the disagreement of schoolmen. But there is a great difference. For the disagreement of schoolmen is in things wherein S. Austin l. 1. contr. julian. c. 6. The learnedest, and best defenders of Catholic verity, may salva fidei compage, disagree, and one say better and truer than an other. And if of ignorance any of them err it is always with readiness to submit themselves to the judgement of the Catholic Church. Whereas Protestants disagree about matters, which belong (as S. Austin speaketh) ad ipsa fidei fundamenta. 
Sup.  And omitting those notorious dissensions amongst them, about the real presence, the number of Canonical books, Christ's suffering the pains of hell, his descent into hell, & the like I will propose a few other points 
Dissensions of Protestants touched in their late Conference.  of dissension amongst them, gathered out of the conference at Hampton court. as 1: whether baptism by women be allowable: pag. 8. 14. 15. 17. 18. 2. whether confirmation be lawful pag. 10. 3. whether baptism be necessary pag. 16. 4. whether after receiving the holy Ghost we may totally departed from grace. pag. 28. 5. whether the communion book contradict the 15. article of their faith. pag. 25. 6. whether there ought to be any Bishops. pag. 36. 7. whether the intention of the Minister be essential to the Sacrament. pag. 38. 8. whether a man once justified remain truly just before God, whatsoever sin he commit. pag. 41. and 14. 9 whether a justified man falling into grievous sins shall be saved without repentance for them 16. 10. whether the English Bible be truly translated. pag. 45. 46. 11. whether the communion book corrupt the Bible in two places. pag. 63. 12. whether the Cross be to be used in baptism. pag. 65. 13. Whether the Church can institute, an external significant sign. pag. 67. 14. whether the Church's institution can bind in conscience. pag. 70. 15. Whether the communion book contain errors repugnant to Scripture. pag. 59  
8. Moreover more than a thousand Ministers 
In their Supplication exhibited in April 1603. Answer to the Supplication.  whom the whole university of Oxford calleth their brethren and fellow labourers in the Lord's harvest in the supplication to his Majesty exhibited in April. 1603▪ profess. That there is not in their Church an uniformity of doctrine. This the Oxonians deny against their own knowledge, and the knowledge of all England. For what uniformity is there, where a thousand Ministers their fellow labourers profess themselves to disagree in points of religion from the rest, yea his Majesty witnesseth himself to have received 
Conference p. 5. 22.  many complaints through the dissensions in the Church, and purposeth (as he saith) to settle an uniform order through the whole Church, and to plant unity Will now the Oxonians say there are no dissensions? will they make his Majesty actum agere in settling uniformity, and planting unity where none wanteth. And in like sort of the Scottish Church he testifieth. That there is such dissension even in 
Conference p. 44.  the Catechism doctrine, as what was Catechism dostrin in one congregation was scarcely accepted as sound and orthodox in an other. And this dissension amongst Protestants about matters of religion is with such obstinacy, as notwithstanding proclamations, disputations, conferences, and decrees, or Canons of their Church it remaineth still amongst them, and will as long as heresy remaineth in them, which teacheth them to expound Scriptures according to their private spirits and to recant nothing, because (as his Majesty 
Conference p 102.  saith of the Scottish Ministers) it standeth not with their credits.  
9 The fourth note, which Bel gathereth out of S. Thomas his words, is more to the purpose uz. That motions of concupiscence preventing reason are venial sins. But if Bel had amongst his important observations observed also that S. Thomas spoke immediately before of deliberate reason, he might have noted that he meant only of such motions as prevent perfect but not imperfect deliberation, and therefore are (as he saith) imperfect or venial sins: Wherefore be mindful (Bel) from whence thou art fallen and do penance. Apocalip. 2.    

THE FIFT ARTICLE OF THE MERIT OF GOOD WORKS.  

CHAP. I. Of the Protestants enmity to good works and friendship with evil.  
BELL beginneth this Article 
Bel pag. 60.  with a grievous complaint against Papists who (saith he) most unchristianly slander the professors of Christ's Gospel, as though they were enemies to good works, of which they think, speak, teach, and write more christianly, and more religiously than Papists do. Both these points he proveth no otherwise then with an (I say) I say (saith he) that good works though they can not go before, yet do ever follow justification, are necessary to salvation, and true effects of predestination. As if Bel were all the new Ghospellers, or they all agreed with him concerning good works: We allege their words, produce their deeds, show the fruits, and effects of their enmity to good works, and Bel thinketh to answer all this with an (I say) Surely he presumeth of benevolous, and partial judges, or he would never answer thus. He with an (I say) may slander Popes, Princes & Papists whatsoever, and an I say, yea manifest proof to the contrary, will not suffice him. Such force his I says have: Dixit & facta sunt: But Sir I both say, & will prove by words, and deeds that both you, and your Ghospellers are not only enemies to good works, but great friends to evil works. And as for enmity to good works.  
2. First they bid us beware of good works. Let us beware (saith Luther) of sin, 
Luther. sermon. de novo testamento seu de Missa. Colloquium Attenburg.  but much more of laws, and good works. And some of his scholars in the conference of Altenburg teach us to pray that we persever unto the end in faith without good works: 2. they teach good works to be harmful: Good works (said the foresaid Lutherans) are pernicious to salvation. Again. Christians with good works belong to Satan: And as Surius, 
Surius comment. Ann. 1564. Staphil. in Apolog.  Staphilus and others report a Minister was not allowed in Saxony because he believed not this: 3. because they say all good works are sin, and unciean so Luther art. 23. Caluin 3. instit. c. 14. parag. 9 & 11. c. 15. parag. 3. and 4. whitaker contr. Durae. l. 1. p. 49. Bucley answer to 8. reasons p. 111. and 109. Perkins tit of merit. and Bel art. 4. pag. 48. teacheth that sin is always annexed to 
Epicure would seem to love virtue though he made pleasure his end.  good works: 4. They teach that good works of their nature deserve damnation: There was never (saith Caluin lib. 3. instit. c. 14. parag. 11.) any work of a godly man which if it were examined by God's severe judgement were not damnable. How can Protestants 
Habentes speciem pietatis virtutem autem eius abnegantes. 2. Timoth. 4. v. 5.  now be friends to good works which they bid beware of, account hurtful, sin, and damnable? Surely their friendship can be no better than joabs was to Amasa when he kissed him, but withal thrust his dagger into his body. 2. Reg. 20.  
3. And on the contrary side their friendship 
Friendship of Protestants to evil works.  to evil works is manifest. 1. because they teach that evil works make not an evil man, nor any can damn a man but incredulity: this Luther teacheth in plain 
Luther.  terms: lib. de libert. Christian. and lib. de captain. Babil. c. de baptis. 2. because they make God author of sin: Zuinglius saith. 
Zwinglius sermon. de Providentia ad Principem Cattorum 1530. c. 5. Caluin in plain terms maketh God author of sin.  Numen ipsum author est eius quod in nobis est iniustitia: God himself is author of that which in us is injustice. And Caluin lib. 1. instit. c. 18. parag. 3. After he had brought divers proofs hereof concludeth thus: jam satis apertè ostendi Deum vocari eorum omnium authorem quae isti Censores volunt otiosè tantum eius permissu contingere. Now have I plainly enough showed that God is called the Author (hear Bel, & Blush) of all these things which these Censurers will have to fall out only through his idle permission. And Melanchton wrote, That the adultery of David, 
Melanchton in cap. 8. ad Rom.  and treason of judas was the work of God like as the vocation of S. Paul. 3. Beza teacheth that our spirit must wrestle against sin, but so 
Beza Rom. 6. v. 12.  as it overcome not: Are not these (Bel) particular favours to evil works to say they make no man evil, that none but one of them damn men, that God is their author, that we must let them overcome, or were not these whom I named professors of your Gospel.  
4. But if we look into their deeds, and fruits, therein we shall clearly see how mortal foes they are to good, and great friends to evil works. For there is neither man nor nation, which of a Catholic becometh a 
Fox Considerate 3. saith English Protestant's are so ill as he thinketh they could not be worse if they would. Read considerate. 4. before his Martyral.  Protestant, but he doth fewer goodworks, les fast, and pray, seldomer give alms, do fewer works of charity then before, and more evil than before, as in riot pride avarice, injustice, & the like. For proof hereof I propose only England for example, whither there be not now les fasting, praying, alms giving, building of Churches, Hospitals, Colleges, Schools, than there was in Catholic tyme. And on the contrary side whither prisons be not fuller of malefactors, more indited of thefts, murders, rapes, and other villainies, and far more executed then in former times. And whether it be not grown almost into a common proverb that a man's obligation now, is not so good as his word was in former times. And in these 46. years of Protestantisme, when more than so many thousands of Protestants have been executed for murders, theft, robberies, rapes, coining, purse-cutting, and like villainies; let Bel name how many Catholics have been so much as called in question for such offences: yea this increase of sin, and evil works by Protestantisme is so notorious as Protestants confess it. Luther said his followers 
Luther. apud Sur. 1566. Bullinger. in Coron. Apolog. count Brent.  were become ten times worse than Sodomites: a Bullinger testifieth that in his church every where increaseth haughtiness, pride, avarice, usury, blasphemy, slander, ribaldry, drunkenness, gluttony riotousness, lechery, incest, wrath, murder, contention, and envy. Wigand confesseth that youth 
Wigand de malis Germaniae. See Sur. 1566.  grow worse, & les tractable, & dare commit those vices to which men of ripe years in times past were not subject. Erasmus writeth of Protestants that he hath seen many of them become worse but none better. Let these different fruits show 
Ex fructibus eorum cognoscetis cos. Math. 7. v. 16.  the difference of these trees, let the effects testify, whither Protestants or Catholics think more religiously of good works, whether ministers or Priests teach the people more to eschew evil, and do good. Now let 
Psalm. 36.  us come to Bells positions of good works, whereby he hopeth to wipe away this deserved name which Protestants have of being enemies to good works.   

CHAP. II. Of Bells positions touching good works.  
BELLS first position containeth two parts the first is that good works neither do, 
Bel pag. 60.  nor can go before justification. Behold Bel even where he would prove himself to be a friend to good works, showing himself to be an enemy, & excluding them from any going before, or any way concurring to justification, to which they so concurred in S. Mary Magdalen as our Saviour said many sins 
Luc. 7. v. 47.  are forgiven her, because she loved much, making her love a kind of cause, vz disponent of her justification. But because Bel proveth his position not at all, I will stand no longer to disprove it. The second part of his position is: That good works ever follow (as fruits the tree) the persons that are freely justified. This is most manifestly false in infants whereof many justified in baptism, die before they do any goodworke. And if his comparison of the tree be good, some justified, never do good work, and all want them long time, some give over doing good, as some trees are barren, some cease to bear fruit, and none bear always. And I would know of Bel, whither David were justified when he committed adultery, and murder. If then he were not just? then lost he his fruits, if just? I would know of Bel what good work he did in time of his adultery, and murder. Likewise whither Protestants be ever doing good works, or some times be not just, and become infidels.  
2. His second position is: That good works 
Bel pag. 60 72.  go so necessarily before salvation, that no man without them can attain eternal life, when possibility is granted to do them, and afterward calleth them the usual ordinary means by which God bringeth men to salvation. This is true doctrine, 
Sup. c. 1. parag. 2.  if it be meant of good works commanded, but how it agreeth with Protestants doctrine before cited, passeth my capacity, yea how it agreeth with his own doctrine that there is no good work which wanteth 
pag. 48.  sin; is think we sin necessary to salvation, or an usual, & undoubted mean to come to heaven? moreover if Protestants think their works to be the mean to salvation, they will no more charge Papists with trusting to be saved by their works.  
3. His third position is: That good works 
Bel pag. 61.  are the true effects of Predestination. This if it be so meant, that all, and only predestinate do good works, is most false: for many infants are predestinate, and yet die before they do good works, and many reprobate men do good works, as appeareth by Simon Magus who believed, and cleaved to S. Philip act. 8. v. 13. But most absurd it is which he 
Act.  addeth that the children of God by good works make their salvation sure unto themselves, and manifest to the world, if he mean as Protestants do of such security, as is void of all doubt, or fear of the contrary. Because none can be so assured of Gods will touching their salvation, but by manifest revelation from God himself; but good works are no such revelation either to ourselves, or to others. Ergo by them neither we, nor others can be assured of our salvation. The proposition is manifest. The assumption I prove: 1. because reprobates may sometimes do good works, as did Simon Magus. Ergo: good works are no revelation of salvation, 2. because 
In omnibus actionibus in quibus tibi es bene conscia numquam aude●s esse securus. Ambros. epist. 84. job v. 21.  even the worker is not assured that his work is good, wanting no condition requisite to goodness: for as job saith c. 9 although I be simple, this same my soul shall not know, and much les others can be assured of the goodness of the work: for they not knowing the purpose and intention for which the work is done (according to that of jeremy. Man's heart is inscrutable, who 
Hierem. 17. v. 9 1. Corinth. 2. v. 11.  shall know it? and that of S. Paul what man knoweth the things of man, but the spirit of man that is in him) can never be assured that the work is fully good. 3. though I and others were assured that I do good works this day, yet neither I nor others can be assured, that hereafter I shall do good works, whensoever I shall have possibility, or time, and yet Bel 
pag 61. 72.  avoucheth that unless we do good works when we have time, or possibility thereto we can not be saved. Ergo: good works make no undoubted assurance of salvation. 4. good works are sinful and offensive to God (as Protestants affirm) Ergo: according to their doctrine, they can be no evident sign of God's favour, and of our salvation: but rather of his wrath, and our damnation. And if Bel be so well skilled in men's fortunes, as by their works he can evidently foretell their salvation, let him play the Egyptian and tell Protestants whether they shall be saved, or damned. For if he can assure them of their salvation he will get more in one day then his fifty pound pension, wherewith he is hired to preach and write against Catholics: and I can send him to one Protestant noble man, who would give him ten thousand pound to be assured of his salvation. Finally this doctrine of his is not only against Catholics, but also against his Master Caluin who saith labascit 
Caluin. 3. instit. c. 11. parag. 11.  fides etc. faith quaileth if it respect good works: for none of the holiest men shall find there whereon to trust: And good reason for if good works be sin (as Caluin and Protestants teach) what assurance or confidence can sin give us of salvation.  
4. His fourth position is: That good works 
Bel pag. 61.  are neither cause of predestination, nor of justification, neither do, nor can merit ex condigno eternal life. Touching the first point of predestination, there is no controversy. For all Catholics do with S. Austin against the 
August. l. de bono perseveran. epist. 105. & alibi.  Pelagians deny predestination to grace, to proceed of our merits, and the same do Divines commonly affirm of predestination to glory, though this be no matter of faith. 
See Bellar. l. 2. de Grat. & lib. arb. c. 15.  Nether is there any difficulty about the second point concerning justification. For 
Conc. Trid. sess. 6. c. 8.  though faith and repentance dispose to justification: yet Catholics think them not to be proper cause and merit thereof. as Caluin, 
Caluin. 3. instit. c. 14. parag. 11. Perkins refor. Cathol. p. 64. Willet contract. 17. q. 3. part. ●. p. 588.  Perkins, and Willet confess. But the third point of meriting the condigno is that about which I (saith Bel) contend with the Papists at this present, and namely with the Council of Trent. But because he proceedeth in this article confusedly enough confounding 
Bel impugneth a School point for a point of faith.  many questions together, and in stead of a point of Catholic faith impugneth a school point, I will particularly by Conclusions set down the Catholics opinions concerning this matter.   

CHAP. III. The Catholics doctrine touching merit particularly set down and proved.  
AS about any matter, the first kind of question is about the existence, whether it be or no? the second about the nature, or quality, what a one it is? and the last about the causes thereof, why it is such or such? So about merit of eternal life the first kind of question is, whether there be any, or none. The second about the nature of this merit, whether it be ex condigno, and worthily deserve the reward, or de congruo, & only have a certain congruity, & agreeableness thereto. And if it be de condigno: whether it be absolute, and suppose or require no condition of God's promise to reward it: or conditional, supposing the said promise: Likewise whether it be perfect having just, and arithemetical equality to the reward, as a penny hath to a penny worth; or imperfect having only due proportion, and virtual equality to the reward, as accidents be a proportionat disposition to substance, and great labours for God's Church a proportionat desert of a Bishoprik, and seed virtually equal to the tree: The third kind of question is about the causes of this nature of merit, to wit, whether this condignity of merit rise, partly of any proportion or sufficiency which is in the merit unto the the reward, or wholly and entirely of God's free acceptation, who seeing us do the best we can to deserve heaven, accepteth it as a condign, and sufficient merit thereof, though of itself it be not. And to these questions I will answer by the Conclusions ensuing.  
2. First Conclusion: There is merit of eternal life, and our supernatural works done by God's grace (whereof only we speak in this matter) are meritorious of eternal life, and glory. This is a point of faith with Catholics, defined in the Council of Trent. sess. 6. can 32. and denied 
Concil. Trident. Bel pag. 75.  by no Catholic though Bel falsely affirm the contrary of some, and taught of holy Fathers, and ancient writers, as Bel 
pag. 61.  confesseth, and therefore granted by himself in words, though he expound merit by Impetration. This he calleth a godly sense, which is indeed his usual ungodly shift used of him hereafter art 6. & 8. & of Protestants commonly, when they dare not deny an Author's words, to deny his meaning For who seethe not that merit is a quite 
Merit quite different from impetration.  different thing from Impetration; for to merit is to deserve, to impetrate is to obtain by request, beggars may be said to impetrat but not to merit their alms, and an hired servant meriteth, not impetrateth his wages. Merit supposeth some justice, Impetration only prayers, in the obteiner, and liberality in the giver, merit may be, though the reward be not given: Impetration supposeth the grant thereof▪ Merit answereth to reward: Impetration to gift. Merit requireth at lest some proportion in the work to the reward: Impetration none at al.  
3. And evident it is that Fathers by merit understand not impetration. For S. Austin 
S. Augustin. tom. 2. Deus proposuit regnum caelorum vaenale in ep. 93. S. Ireney. S. Basil. prope fin. S. Greg. Naz. orat. 3. in bapt. S. Hierom. S. Chrysost. to. 4.  epist. 105. writeth that. As death is rendered as a stipend to the merit of sin, so is everlasting life as a stipend to the merit of justice. S. Ireney l. 4. c. 72. saith. By good works we conquer heaven: S. Basil. orat. in init proverb: By good works we buy heaven S. Gregory Nazian: For good works we may exact reward, not as grace but as plain debt. S. Hierom epist. ad Celant. God hath cause to reward us. S. Chrisostom hom. 7. in epist. Rom. calleth us. God's creditors, and usurers and him our debtor. and hom. 3. 
Tom. 2.  de Lazaro: that by good works we deserve heaven, as by evil hell. Yea Bel himself admitteth 
Bel pag. 77.  more than impetration, when hereafter he confesseth heaven to be due to good works; for where duty is there is not mere 
Contradict. 16.  impetration, & that works are to heaven as the loan of a cloak in a shower of rain upon promise of an hundred pounds, for here is some justice. And professeth to defend 
pag. 79. Durand. 2. d. 27. quaest. 2. expressly admitteth condign merit. Cap. 1. parag. 2.  Durands' opinion who undoubtedly admitteth more than simple impetration. But if Bel had remembered his own, and the common doctrine of Protestants before rehearsed that all good works whatsoever are sin, he would never have granted that they are impetratorious of God's favour, and reward. For how can sin impetrate favour, or reward, and not rather offence, and punishment? Whereupon Perkins in plain 
Perkins refor. Cathol. Of merits. p. 112. 104. Caluin. 3. instit. c. 15. parag. 4. & 2.  terms affirmeth that our righteousness is not capable of merit, and utterly renounceth all merit of man. And Caluin not only abhorreth the name of merit, affirming it to be proud, and to obscure God's grace, and to make men proud, but professeth that our good works are ever sprinkled with many filthinesses for which God may be justly offended, and angry with us: so far (saith he) are they from purchasing his favour, or procuring his liberality towards us. Thus we see how conformably Bel speaketh to his own, and his fellow 
Bel against his fellow Ministers.  Ministers doctrine.  
4. Second Conclusion. Good works done in God's grace are condignly meritorious of eternal life. This is that which Bel impugneth in this Article as a point of our faith and avoucheth it to be defined by the Council of Trent but falsely. For the Council hath no word of condign merit but only of true merit which in plain terms Bel himself dare not impugn or deny. If any shall say (saith the Council) that a justified 
Ttident. sess. 6. can. 32.  man by good works which he doth by the grace of God and merit of jesus Christ, whose lively member he is, doth not truly deserve increase of grace, eternal life, and consecution thereof, if he depart in grace, and also increase of glory, be he accursed. Here are good works defined to be true merit of glory, without determining whither they be condign merit thereof or no. Whereupon vega who was one of the 
Vega.  Divines of the council writeth de fid. & . q. 4. That some noble school divines being moved (saith he) with no light arguments and using a certain sober and prudent moderation, have denied that there is any condign merit of eternal happiness. And again. It is certain (saith he) that there is merit in our works and some of them be meritorious, but of what reward and how they are meritorious, it is in controversy, & there are divers opinions amongst the school divines. And q. 5. he affirmeth Gregory, 
Gregor. 1. d. 17. q. 1. Durand. q. 2. Marsil. in 2. Walden. de sacra. c. 7. Burgens. in psalm. 35. Eckins in centur. de predest.  Durand, Marsil, Walden, Burgensis and Eckins to deny condign merit. Satus also an other divine of the said Council l. 3. de Nat. & Grat. c. 7. saith that there is some difference amongst Catholics about condign merit, and c. 8. after he had proved condign merit out of the Council and otherways, yet concludeth not that it is a point of faith but only calleth it conclusionem probatissimam a most approved Conclusion. And Bellarmin whom Bel termeth the mouth of Papists, lib. 5. de iustific. cap. 16. after he had rehearsed two opinions of Catholics, whereof the one seemeth plainly to deny condign merit, the other admitteth it only in a large sense, proposeth and defendeth the third opinion which defendeth condign merit absolutely, only as verissimam & communem sententiam Theologorum, most true and the common opinion of Divines as indeed it is and we shall prove it anon against Bel. Hereby appeareth Bells shameful proceeding in this Article, in impugning condign merit as a point of faith defined by the Council of Trent, which hath no word of condign merit, and omitting the question of true merit which the Council defined & Catholics defend as a point of their faith against Protestants.  
5. The third Conclusion is: that This 
This seemeth defined. Conc. Trid. sess. 6. c. vlt. & in Bulla Pij 5. & Gregor. 13.  condign merit is not absolute, but supposeth the condition of Gods promise made to reward it. This is held of the best Divines and proved at large by Bellarmin. l. 5 de iustifis. c. 14. The fourth Conclusion is that This condign merit in our works, is not perfect, having actual, and perfect arithmetical equality before explicated: This manifestly 
S. August. in psal. 93. to. 8. S. Chrysost. 2. Cor. 9 S. Bernard. serm 1. de Annuntiat.  the Fathers teach with all Catholics, and Bells arguments hereafter brought convince it, and no more. The fift Conclusion is that the imperfect condign merit which is in our works to heaven, riseth not merely of God's acceptation, but partly of the due proportion, and sufficiency before explicated, in them to the reward. This likewise is no matter of faith, yet truth taught by S. Thomas 1. 2. 4. 114. ar. 1. & 3. Bonavent. 
S. Thomas. S. Bonavent.  2. d. 17. and Divines in that place commonly: Bellar: l. 5. de justif. c. 17. though Scot 1. 
Bellarm. Scotus.  d. 17. and some others deny it with whom Bel also falleth in league towards the end 
Bel pag. 7●.  of this Article. The sixth Conclusion is: that the said condignity riseth not of any due proportion, which is in the substance of our work if it be considered in itself, but as it is the fruit of the holy Ghost moving us to do it, and the effect of God's grace helping us in doing it: which grace making us partakers (as S. Peter speaketh) of divine nature, 
1. Pet. 1. v. 4. Coloss. 1. v. 10. 2. Thessal. 1. v. 5.  so dignifyeth our works, as (according to S. Paul) we walk worthily of God, and become worthy of God's kingdom. And because Bel denieth none of these Conclusions but the second and fieft, them only will I prove.  
6. That good works are a condign, or worthy merit of heaven in the sense before explicated, followeth of that they are a true merit thereof, because as I think only condign merit is true merit. For congrual merit hath no justice in it (as appeareth in good works disposing to justification, which some call congrual merits) and therefore no true merit, which can not be without some title of justice. But I prove it other ways: First because the Thessalonians suffered to 
S. Paul. ●is to cataZiothenai humas.  be made or accounted worthy of God's kingdom 2. Thess. 1. v. 5. Ergo: sufferances make men worthy or (which cometh to one purpose) to be truly accounted worthy of God's kingdom. Secondly. Apocalip. 3. v. 4: They have not defiled their garments, and 
Apocal.  they shall walk with me in white, because they be worthy Ergo: Saints are worthy to walk with God in glory. These places make Protestants confess that Saints are worthy of heaven, but have a shift of saying They are worthy for Christ's merits, not for their own. But 
Perkins refor. Cathol. Of merits. p. 113.  as plainly as S. Paul affirmeth the Thessalonians to be worthy of God's kingdom, so plainly he affirmeth their worthiness to come of their own sufferances. And likewise S. John ascribeth the worthiness of Saints, to their not defile their garments, which is their own merit. Moreover Christ speaking of man's labours, saith. The worker is worthy of his higher Luc. 10. v. 7. 
S. Luk●. S. Paul. S. Austin.  And we work our salvation. Philip. 2. v. 12. And S. Austin epist. 105. saith that Eternal life is given to the merit of our justice, as death is to the debt of our sin, and that God crowneth our merits. And in psal. 93. that we buy heaven with labour. Therefore the worthiness of Saints proceedeth from their own merits, though it proceed also from the merits of Christ. For we are branches, he 
joan. 15. v. 5.  the vine, & therefore as grapes, which spring out of the branches, proceed from the vine, which giveth them their virtue: so all worthiness, which proceedeth from Saints, riseth from Christ as the root and fountain thereof.  
7. Thirdly: condign merit requireth not perfect, and arithemetical equality in the work to the reward, but only proportion: but good works have proportion to glory. Therefore they are condign merits thereof: The Proposition Bel himself pag. 77. allegeth, and approveth out of John de Combis, and it is evident in men's deserts of a Bishopric, which being a spiritual dignity passeth all price, and yet may be worthily deserved of men: The assumption 
Infra parag. 9  shall be proved a none. Nether is our condign meriting of heaven either blasphemous against Gods free mercy, or injurious to Christ's merits, as Bel babbleth, but rather 
Bel pag 62. Rom. 6. v. 23. Math. 5. v. 12. Math. 11. v. 12. joan. 1. v. 16. S. Austin. epist. 105. Philip. 3. v. 14. 2. Timoth. 4. v. 8. S. Austin ep. 105. S. Ambros. in c. 6. Rom. S. Chrysost. hom. 7. Rom. S. Gregor. Nazianz. orat. 3. in S. lavacrum. Our merits honourable to Christ.  honourable. For though eternal life, as it is given to good works, be mercy, or grace, (as S. Paul calleth it) yet never shall Bel prove, that it is mere mercy, or grace. Our Saviour calleth it a reward, and saith we get it by violence. S. John according to S. Augustine's exposition calleth it grace for grace, that is, grace of glory not absolutely, but for grace of merits, or grace mixed with justice. S. Paul calleth it a goal, a crown of justice. The Fathers call it a stipend, a debt. And by whose authority then doth Bel call it a mere grace, or mercy. hearken to S. Paul. 1. Timoth. 6. Bel, and leave these same novelties of words.  
8. Likewise it is not injurious to Christ's merits but rather honourable to them. For as it is not injurious to Gods doing good, that we by his grace do good for ourselves, but rather honourable according to our saviours saying. In hoc clarificatus est pater 
joan. 15. v. 8.  etc. In this my father is glorified: Nor to Christ's prayer, or impetration, that we also through him pray and impetrate for our 
Our merits no more injurious to Christ's merits then our prayer to his prayer.  selves: So likewise it is not injurious to Christ's meriting, but rather honourable thereto, that we also through him, and as his lively members do in some sort merit for ourselves. What injury is it to the tree that the branch thereof bringeth forth fruit: neither are we therefore more partners with Christ in merit, than we are by prayers partners with him in impetration.  
9 That our merits have proportion, 
Merits have proportion to glory.  and virtual equality to their reward followeth also out of the former. For condign merit requireth at lest due proportion to the reward, but especially I prove it. First because the reward consisteth in the clear sight of God face to face, and in perfect love of him, and our merit consisteth principally in faith which is a sight, or knowledge of God in a glass, and in loving him above all things. But there is due proportion between the sight of a thing in a glass, and the clear sight thereof, and betwixt perfect love, and the love above all things: Ergo: Secondly good works are fruits of the holy Ghost. Galat. 5. v. 22. and of Christ's passion: for by it we do these good works. Ergo it is injury to the holy Ghost, and to Christ to say that their supernatural fruits have no proportion to a supernatural reward. Thirdly glory is grace: Rom. 6. joan. 1. and our merits are grace, but there is proportion between two graces: 4. Grace is the seed of glory according to that 1. joan. 3. The seed of God remaineth in him, therefore in virtue it containeth glory as the seed doth the tree: 5. Glory is a flood making glad the city of God psal. 45. and grace is a fountain of water leaping into eternal life. joan. 4. but there is proportion between a flood and a fountain which springeth into the place of the flood. Now let us come to Bells arguments, which beside that they impugn no matter of faith as is before said, they disprove no such condignity of merit as Catholics teach, and is already explicated, but such as is both absolute, and perfectly equal to the reward. And at last after he had run himself out of breath, confesseth that he can not impugn condign merit as it is defended by Bellarmin, who in truth teacheth no other herein then is the common doctrine of the Church.   

CHAP. FOUR Bells arguments out of Scripture against condign merit answered.  
HIs first argument is taken out of S. 
Bel pag. 62.  Paul Rom. 6. v. 23. To the Charisma tou theou Zoe aionios en Christo jesou to curio hemon: which he citeth in greek perhaps to make the Reader believe he hath great skill in that tongue though the words be in his book neither accented nor printed right; but remitting this fault to the printer, the text he englisheth thus: But the gift of God is life everlasting in Christ jesus our lord and then argueth in this manner. Eternal life is the free gift of God, therefore it can be no way due to the merit of man's works.  
2. Answer: First the consequent seemeth opposite to this other proposition of his: pag. 77. Eternal life is due to the works of Gods elect. Secondly the Antecedent is false, 
Four reasons why eternal life is grace.  and neither here, nor any where else taught by S. Paul. He calleth here eternal life grace, as it may be called for divers causes: 1. because God graciously covenanted with us to give it as a reward of our good works, which (we being his slaves by creation) he might have exacted of us without any reward at al. This is S. Thomas his reason: 
S. Thomas.  1. 2. q. 114. art. 2. 2. because the works themselves for which God giveth us life eternal, were freely given unto us by God's grace. This is S. Augustine's reason epist. 105. 
5. Austin.  3. because the works have no perfect actual equality to eternal life, but only virtual, and proportionate, and this reason giveth Theodoret. in cap. 6. Rom. where he 
Theodoret.  saith that temporal pains, and eternal joys in aequilibrio non respondent, and Bel falsely translateth, 
Bel pag. 63. Falls translation. 4.  are nothing answerable. 4. because as works are rewarded even above their virtual and proportionate equality as Divines say ultra condignum. No marvel if S. Paul called eternal life rather grace, or gift, than a stipend, seeing it hath much more of grace than it hath of justice: yet notwithstanding he no where called it mere grace, yea in 
1. Cor. 3. Philip 3. v. 14. 2. Timoth. 4. v. 8. S. Paul might have called glory a stipend. S. Austin.  calling it a reward, a goal, and crown of justice he clearly declareth that it is no mere grace, nor free gift: beside that as S. Austin writeth epist. 105. he might have called it a stipend as he calleth death in respect of sin, but forbore lest we should think it were so justly deserved by good works, as death is by evil. And perhaps he called it so in the next verse before, where he calleth eternal life in greek teloes, which as Beza 
Beza Rom. 6.  confesseth may there signify vectigal or mercedem, and is equivalent to stipend.  
3. Notwithstanding this, Bel exclaimeth 
pag. 62.  against the Rhemists that they translated Charisma grace in steed of gift, for to extenuate the clearness of this text: wherein he showeth his malice, and folly. For malice it is to accuse men to corrupt Scriptures of set purpose, and to bring no proof thereof, yea to confess (as he doth) that they follow the ancient vulgar edition, of which S. Hierom was either Author, or amender. And folly it is, to condemn that translation as done for to extenuate the clearness of Scripture, and withal to confess (as he doth) that it is according to the old vulgar edition, and that it may be here admitted, and to approve an other translation of Donation or Gift (which maketh no more for his purpose then Grace, which himself in the next page englisheth Free grace,) and finally to allege in his own behalf Theodoret. S. Chrisostom, Origen, Ambros, Theophilact 
In cap. 6. ad Rom.  and Paul of Burges, who all in the very places which he citeth for himself, read as the Rhemists translate grace, though some of them explicate it by Gift, as it is indeed, though no free gift.  
4. But let us hear why the Rhemists did not well translate the word Charisma by 
Bel sup. Perkins refor Cathol. p. 107.  Grace. Because (saith he) it signifieth a gift freely bestowed. If so Sir, why did not you, your mates, and your Bibles so translate it, but 
Bibles printed by Barker. 1584.  absolutely by gift. So you condemn other, and commit yourself the like fault. Remember what S. Paul saith to such Rom. 2. But how proveth he Charisma to signify a Gift freely given. Forsooth autos ephe This 
Lexicon Grynaei Basileae. 1539. who citeth Budaeus. Lexicon Gesneri auctum per Arlemium, junium, Hartengum, Basileae.  great Grecian hath said it contrary to the Lexicons made and printed by Protestants, who make Charisma all one with Charis, and to signify Grace, or gift without mention of Free gift; contrary to the old vulgar translation, contrary to the uniform reading of Fathers, contrary to his own, and his fellows translations. Are these your clear and evident demonstrations, which shall be able to put all Papists (as you promise) to silence for ever in this behalf? 
pag. 62.   
5. Now (saith he) let us view the judgement of holy Fathers upon this text. With a good will Sir; But mark good Readers how the Fathers are holy, their words are golden, 
See Bel p. 62. 64. 65. 71. 75. 67. 59 104. 132.  their mouths golden, and themselves glister beams and strong pillars of God's Church, when they seem to make for Bel, who otherwise amongst Protestants are but plain Austin, and Hierom, and their doctrine stubble, errors, spots, & blemishes: Likewise when Popish writers seem to favour Bel, they are with him famous, renowned, zealous, great school doctors, great Clerks indeed, who other whiles are but parasites, and dunces.  
6. First he produceth out of Theodoret 
pag. 62. Theodoret.  in c. 6. Rom. that S. Paul did not call here eternal life a reward, but grace, because it is the gift of God, and all our labours are not of equal poise unto it. This is nothing against us who neither say that S. Paul did in this verse call eternal life a reward, nor deny that it is the gift of God, nor affirm, that our labours are of equal poise unto it. Next he produceth S. Chrisostom in c. 6. Rom. writing, 
S. Chrysost. p. 63.  that The Apostle called not eternal life a reward, but grace (as Brixius translateth) or gift, (as Bel hath) to show that they were delivered not by their own strength, nor that there is debt, reward, or retribution of labour, but that all those things came by God's grace, or (as Bel hath) they received them freely by God's gift. Here S. Chrisostom at the first sight seemeth to deny 
Genes. v 1. Proverb. v. 18. 2. Paralip. v. 7. Sap. v. 16. Eccl. v. 22. Isai. v. 10. Math. v. 12. 1. Corinth. v. 8. S. Chrysost.  eternal life to be a reward or retribution of good works, which is not only contrary to Scripture Gen. 15. 2. paralip 15. proverb. 11. psal. 118. Sapient 5. Eccles. 18. Isai. 40. Math. 5. 1. Corinth. 3. Apoca. vlt. v. 12. but even to himself hom. 43. in 1. Corinth. saying, that We shall have perfect reward, and most full retribution not only for the good we do, but also for the evil we suffer. And hom. 1. de Resur. tom 3. What care (saith he) will he have of virtue, who expects no retribution of labours: And hom. 15. in Math. that we have God our debtor, when we do any good, and may exact usury of him. And the like speeches he hath hom. 3. and 36. in Math. and 42. in Gen. and in Philog. and other where, which alone might assure us, that he meaneth not to deny eternal life to be a true reward of our supernatural labours. But either by labours he understandeth natural labours done (as he speaketh there) by our own strength, of which labours doubtless eternal life is is no reward, debt, or retribution. Or rather, by eternal life he there understood not heavenly glory, but only justification, which he may call eternal life, because it causeth eternal life, as our Saviour for the same cause calleth faith so, john 17. v. 3. and for 
S. Ihon.  the contrary sin is called death, and this doubtless is no reward, debt, or retribution of any labour at all of ours. That this is his meaning I prove it: I because he saith eternal life was called grace to show that they were not delivered etc. Therefore by eternal life he understandeth some thing, which had delivered the Romans already from some thing uz. from sin 2. because he saith that they, to whom S. Paul wrote had received that eternal life, whereof he speaketh but they being yet alive had not received eternal glory, but only justification. And S. Chrisostom being thus expounded speaketh not against himself other where, nor against Scripture, and truth.  
7. Thirdly he citeth Origen saying. 
Bel pag. 63. Origen. in c. 6. ad Rom.  Deum vero non erat dignum militibus suis stipendium quasi debitum aliquod dare, sed donum, & gratiam, quae est vita aeterna: which Bel thus englisheth. But it was not a thing worthy beseeming God to give stipends to his soldiers, as a due debt or wage, but to bestow on them a gift, or free grace, which is eternal life. Here Bel translateth donum a gift, and 
False translat. A. 5.  gratiam free grace, albeit before he preferred the word donatio which is all one in this matter with donum, before gratia, because it better insinuateth the freeness of the gift. But if you ask him wherefore he translateth gratia, free grace, he can give no better reason than his Grandsire Luther did when he translated fides justificat, faith alone justifieth vz: Sic volo, sic jubeo, stat pro ratione 
Surius Ann. ●530.  voluntas. As for Origen he meaneth nothing else, but that it beseemed not God to give a stipend so due to good works, as (saith he) the king of sin payeth stipends due to them, that obey his tyranny, which is most true. For although 
S. Austin ep. 105. to. 2. S. Anselm. Rom. 6.  the just by good works deserve life, yet not so justly, as the wicked by sin deserve death, neither is life so due to them, as death to these, as is evident by what hath been said before, and Willet in affirming us 
Willet controu. 17. q. 3. art. 3. p. 587.  to teach the contrary showeth a trick of his Ministry.  
8. S. Ambrose he also allegeth, but 
pag. 63. S. Ambros. Rom. 6.  his words are rather against him, for he saith. As the followers of sin get death, so the followers of God's grace, that is the faith of Christ, which forgiveth sins shall have eternal life. What is here for Bel, or rather not against him. But most clearly doth S. Ambrose 
S. Ambros.  confound Bel immediately before the words cited. Who from hence forth (saith he) abstain from sin receive a stipend eternal life. And serm. 7. in psal. 118. affirmeth that David could say to God I am a soldier, I exact a stipend of my captain.  
9 He citeth also Theophilact because 
Theophilact. Rom. 6.  he saith S. Paul called erernal life grace, and not a reward, as if he should say, for ye receive not rewards of labours, but all these things are done by grace in Christ jesus, who worketh, and doth them. But this is nothing against us, who willingly acknowledge eternal life to be grace, and not to proceed of our own labours done by ourselves, but done and wrought also by the grace of Christ: After this he citeth Anselme, and Photius but allegeth not their words; yet confesseth that in effect they are the same with others, and therefore seeing S. Anselme upon this place 
S. Anselme.  of S. Paul teacheth plainly that eternal life is a stipend of justice, and that S. Paul might have called it so, we may be assured that in effect other Fathers do call it so, as he after S. Ambros and S. Austin doth in express 
S. Austin ep. 105. S. Ambros. Rom. 6. Bel pag. 64. untruth 60  words. Wherefore vainly doth Bel boast that it is manifest by the foresaid testimonies of holy Fathers that eternal life is the free gift of God, for rather the quite contrary is manifest, because none of them say it is a free gift, or any thing whereof it may be justly inferred, and some of them expressly say it is a 
 Retributionem non ut gratiam sed plane debitum occupas. S. Greg. Nazianz. orat. ●. in sanctum lavacrum. Burgens. addit. 2. in c. 6. Rom.  stipend, and such a one as a soldier may exact of his captain, such as death is to sin, which are evidently no free gifts. Wherefore to help up this matter he addeth these words of Paulus Burgens. He would not therefore say eternal life is the stipend of justice, because the same merits, to which it is rendered are not of ourselves, but wrought in us by God through grace. These words, make not any thing for him, but rather against him. For in that he saith, eternal life is rendered to merits, he insinuateth it to be no free grace, and in saying S. Paul chose rather to call it grace, than stipend, insinuateth that he might have called it a stipend, and in saying it is grace, because it is repaid to merits, which we do by grace, he affirmeth it to be partly grace, which no Catholic denieth.  
10. The second text of Scripture Bel bringeth out of Rom. 8. v. 18. and translateth ●hus: I account that the afflictions of this 
False translat. 6.  present time are not worthy of the future glory: Answer: Here is evil translation: for where the Apostle saith afflictions, are Non condignae ad futuram gloriam ou● axia pros ten mellousan doxan, are not condign to the future glory Bel translateth: are not worthy of the future glory. And the Apostles meaning is not to tell there whether sufferances of this life be condignly meritorious, of future glory or no, but intendeth to say that they are not comparable to future glory either in greatness, or in continuance which hindereth not their condign merit, as is evident in Christ's sufferances. For having 
v. 17.  immediately before said, that we shall be coheirs with Christ, if we suffer with him, lest we should be unwilling to attain to such glory by sufferance he addeth in the verse cited, that sufferances are not condign, (that is, not comparable in greatness, or continuance) to future glory. which meaning of his he uttereth in plainer terms: 2. Corinth. 4. v. 17. saying our tribulation which presently 
S. Paul.  is momentary, and light, worketh above measure exceedingly an eternal weight of glory in us. Where he saith our tribulations are momentary, and light, and the glory is eternal, and weighty, which he meant when he said here, they are not condign to future glory. And hereby are explicated the words both of Theodoret, and S. Anselme upon this place. For Theodoret saying the Crowns exceed the conflicts, and the labour is not comparable to the reward compareth them not in the respect of desert, and reward, but in greatness of pain, and pleasure: for (saith he) the labour is little, and the gain great. And the same comparison in bitterness of pain and greatness of pleasure made S. Anselm when he 
S. Ansolm. Rom. 8.  said. All the bitternesses of all the pains of this life should not be a dign merit to future glory: For doubtless the bitterness of all the pains of this life is not so great, as the pleasure of heavenvly joys. But this worthy Champion who challengeth all Papists to combat, showeth himself ignorant in translating Theodoret's words. Superant certamina coronae: thus: 
Bel wanteth latin.  The conflicts of the crown remain; taking the nominative case for the accusative, and the genitive for the nominative, and perhaps superant, for supersunt both contrary to the latin, and to sense. For who heard of conflicts of a crown, or that conflicts remain in heaven. Surely this challenger should rather be set to school to learn latin then to challenge Divines to disputation, rather taught to construe the Fathers, then to dispute out of them. But as S. Hierome wrote 
S. Hieron.  epist. ad evagr. Imperitia confidentiam parit. None so bold as blind Bayard.  
11. The third text he citeth is out of S. 
Bel pag. 65.  Paul Tit. 3. v. 5. Not by works of justice, which we have done, but according to his mercy he hath saved us by the laver of regeneration, and renovation of the holy Ghost. By which words (saith Bel) it is most clear that we are not only justified, but also saved by mere mercy, and consequently eternal life hath no merit upon the behalf of man. Omitting that before our good works were merit in a godly sense, & now there is no merit on man's behalf: I answer, that the Apostle meaneth only of saving from sin. vz justification. First because speaking of himself, and others then alive he saith God hath saved us: Secondly because having said in the third verse. We were sometimes unwise incredulous etc. he addeth v. 5. and God according to his mercy hath saved us, uz. from the foresaid sins. Thirdly because explicating by what means God had saved them, he saith it was by the laver of regeneration, and renovation of the holy Ghost, which most plainly expresseth justification. And no doubt but salvation from sin proceedeth of God's mere mercy but this is not to the purpose. And of this salvation speaketh S. Anselme upon this place, whose words Bel curtailed leaving out these words, By the laver of regeneration, and renovation of the holy Ghost, that is, by baptism, because they clearly show of what salvation this holy Saint did mean. And of the same meant Dionis. Carthus. upon rhis 
Carthus.  place as is plain by his explicating what the salvation was, uz. from power of the devil, and guilt of eternal torment. And thus much of Bells first reason out of Scripture now to his arguments out of Fathers.   

CHAP. V Bells arguments out of holy Fathers against condign merit answered.  
S. Austin he allegeth epist. 29. ad Hieron, 
Bel pag. 66.  whose words I will set down at 
S. Augustin. tom. 2.  large that the Reader thereby may see how falsely Bel avoucheth him to confirm his doctrine. Charity (saith he) is a virtue, with which we love that, which is to be loved. This is great in some, in others les, in others none at all, but mostful charity, which can be no more increased, is in none, whiles a man liveth here, but whiles it may be increased surely that which is les than it should be, is ex vitio, of vice. (Bel translateth sin) by reason of which vice thereiss no just on earth, which doth good, and sinneth not: by reason of which vice no living man shall be justified in God's sight. For which vice if we say we have no sin we sedute ourselves, and there is no truth in us. For which also though we have profited never so much, we must of necessity say Forgive us our trespasses, even when our words, deeds, & thoughts are already forgiven in baptism.  
2. Hence Bel gathereth 1. That S. Austin 
pag. 67. untruth 61  saith that no man can have charity in that perfect degree which the la requireth. This is untrue: for he only saith, that no man hath in this life that most full charity, which can not be increased. 2. That the want thereof proceedeth of vice. This is true, but of what kind of vice he meant, himself had explicated a little before in the same place: saying: Who therefore is without some vice, that is without some fomite, or as a root of sin. Wherefore he meant not that the want of most full charity proceedeth of formal sin, but of that which is cause, and root of sin, to wit, concupiscence. And by this are answered all the rest of Bells notes out of this place. As that by reason of this vice every man is a sinner, none justified before God, if we say we have no sin we be liars, we have need to ask God forgiveness even after baptism. For all these things are verified of Concupiscence, not formally but effectively, that is, Concupiscence (which S. Austin calleth vice, because it is the root, and cause of formal vice) causeth sin in us, which sin maketh us formally sinners, not justified before God, and to need forgiveness even after baptism. And hereby are explicated 
Bel pag. 68  the like words of S. Ambrose which 
S. Ambros. epist. 84. to. 4. prope finem  hereafter he citeth: That by reason of the rebellion of the flesh that is understood of every one, which S. John saith. If we say we have no sin we seduce ourselves.  
3. But suppose that S. Austin had said all 
Bel forgetteth his matter.  that Bel inferreth, though it would prove Concupiscence to be formal sin, yet would it not prove that our works are no condign merit, which is the question now in hand. For though Concupiscence were as Bel rhinketh venial sin, which he art. 9 calleth sin not regnant, yet might other supernatural works of ours, as faith, hope, and charity be condign merit. But Bel careth not how he speaketh to the purpose so he say somewhat: Even so in the former Article when he should prove Concupiscence to be sin, he proved our merits to be none, and now when he should prove our merit to be none he proveth Concupiscence 
pag. 67.  to be sin: After this he citeth S. Austin saying tract. 4. in 1. joan. that Our 
S. Augustin. to. 9  justice of faith is imperfect. Ergo saith Bel there is no condign merit. whereas he should have inferred the quite contrary. For if in us there be imperfect justice, there is justice, and if there be justice, there is condign merit to that whereto we have justice. And the most that Bel could infer for himself, is that there is no perfect condign merit, which I willingly grant: Albeit indeed S. Austin in that place calleth not our justice imperfect, because there is any thing wanting to itself, which is requisite to justice, for epist. 105. he calleth it true justice, but because we, who have it, delight 
S. Augustin. to. 2.  in other things, and have rebellion, which things being separated from it, our justice (saith he) 
Tract. 4. cit.  shall be perfected uz. not by any addition but by separating our injustice from the company of it.  
4. He citeth also S. Chrisostom affirming 
Bel pag. 68 S. Chrysost. l 2. de compunction. cordis.  that Though we die a thousand times, and accomplish all virtues of the mind, yet do we nothing worthy to those things, which ipsi percepimus, we have received of God: But besides that S. Chrisostome speaketh not of eternal glory, but of benefits of this life, which we (saith he) have received, and Bel falsely englished, 
False translat. 7.  we receive. He is to be understood of perfect equality, or of works considered in their own nature not as they proceed of grace, and are fruit of the holy Ghost. Next 
pag. 69.  he allegeth Theophilacts words in c. 3. Tit. He hath saved us for ever, not of works which 
The ophilact.  we did, that is, neither did we works of justice, neither by them are we saved, but all our salvation his goodness, and clemency hath wrought. But besides that these words I found not in that place, they may be understood of salvation from sin, uz. of justification: as appeareth because the text which they expound, doth so mean, as is before proved, as also speaking 
Cap. 4. parag. 11.  of men alive he saith we are saved, which he calleth salvation for ever, because justification is such in hope, according to that Rom. 8. v. 24. Spe salui facti sumus.  
5. Bel finding so few Fathers to speak 
Bel pag. 69. 70.  any thing, to his purpose, thought best to supply the rest of this chapter with the words, of S. Bernard, and Angles, whom 
Caluin lib. 4. instit. cap. 7. parag 22. Perkins refor. Cathol. Of merits. p. 109. pag 70. Bel promise●ij to yaeld if he have charged any Author falsely. Preface of his challenge. Angles ●. sent. p. 103.  he confesseth to be Papists, though his Master Caluin accounted S. Bernard a holy man, and his brother Perkins citeth him as a Father of the ancient Church such rara est concordia fratrum Protestanticorum. Angles he termeth a famous, and one of our best Doctors, though he be a very late, and mean writer, and of purpose impugned the Protestants: But let his handling of Angles be to the Reader an example and taste of his foul usage of Fathers, and other writers.  
6. All other holy Doctors also (saith Angle's according to Bells translation) considering after the same manner, the natural value only of good works, and perceiving that it is exceeding far distant from the value, and just estimation of eternal life said wisely. That our works, are not meritorious of eternal life. Yet for the covenant and promise made unto us, the good works of man with the help of God's grace are worthy of eternal life, and equal with it, which for all that, that promise of God (which is frequent in the Scripture) set aside, were altogether unworthy of so great reward. Hereupon Bel avoucheth Angles to 
pag. 70.  grant that all holy Fathers with one assent affirm (a testimony (saith he) almost incredible to 
untruth 62  proceed from the mouth of a Papist so dear to the Pope) That good works neither are meritorious, nor worthy of eternal life. And in the margin addeth this note: Lo this friar granteth that all holy Fathers are against Papists.  
7. But better may I say this is a slander almost 
A taste of Bells false changing Authors.  incredible to proceed from the mouth of a Minister, if his ministry were not in lying. Angles said that all holy Fathers affirm our good works not to be meritorious of eternal life, according to their natural value, & the same all Catholics now affirm. Is 〈◊〉, absolutely to say, that all holy Fathers affirm good works are not meritorious? So then, because one may say, that Bel according to his natural value is no better than an infidel, an other may absolutely say, he is no better than an infidel, or rather worse, because qui fidem negavit est infideli deterior: This slander is so 
1. Timoth. 5. v. 8.  evident, as himself soon after is feign to confess that Angles saith The Fathers speak of 
Contradict. 17.  good works only in respect of their natural value. So il hath he learned that first lesson of his occupation mendacen oportet esse memorem. His second 
pag. 70.  note out of Angles is: that he granteth good works considered in their own nature to be unworthy of eternal life. This is true, & taught by us before, & confirmed by S. Austin epist. 105. saying. Nothing but grace maketh 
S. Augustin. to. 2.  all our good works. Thirdly he noteth in Angles that he granteth good works even as they proceed of grace are utterly unworthy of eternal life if Gods free promise, & acceptation be set a part. True it is, that Angles, as a follower of Scotus, seemeth to think that the condignity of good works to eternal life, riseth not of any equality which is in them unto glory: but of God's promise to reward them, which is a far different question from this, 
Haereticorum frons non est frons si non membrum quod fecit Deus sed pudorem intelligas. Aug. 4. cont. jul. c. 3. to. 7. untruth 63.  as is before explicated: yet withal in the very words cited he professeth them to be, (supposing the said promise, which is every where found in Scripture) worthy of eternal life and equal unto it. Let now any indifferent Reader judge what face Bel had when upon these words of Angles he wrote that Papists grant as much as we (Protestants) desire. 
untruth 64  and that we (Protestants) defend nothing herein, but even that which their own best Doctors in their printed books do teach.  
8. Out of S Bernard he allegeth these 
Bel pag. 71. & Bernard.  words serm. 1. de annunt. The suffering of this time are not condign to future glory, no, not if one suffer all; For the merits of men are not such as eternal life is due to them ex iure, (of justice) that God should do any injury if he gave it not. Hereupon Bel inferreth divers things, but all depend of his false understanding the words justice, and injury. For S. Bernard's meaning is only to deny, that all the sufferings of this life can be absolute, and perfect equal merit of glory, depending of no grace, or promise of God to reward them: but that God of his mere justice, without all respect of mercy should be bound to repay them with eternal life, and otherwise should do absolute injury. And meaneth not to deny that supposing Gods gracious promise of rewarding works, and assistance in doing them, heaven is due to them of some justice, and that he should do some injury if he did not give heaven. For as S. Austin saith 
S. Augustin. to. 7.  l. 4. con. julian. c. 3. God himself shall be unjust if the true just be not admitted to his kingdom. And the same insinuateth S. Paul, when 
S. Paul. Heb. ●. v. 10.  writing to the Hebrews he saith God is not unjust to forget their work, as if he should do some injustice, if he should forget it.  
9 Next he citeth his words serm. 67. in 
pag. 71.  Canti: It wanteth to grace whatsoever thou ascribest to merits. I will no merit which excludeth grace. I abhor whatsoever is of mine, unless perhaps that is more mine which maketh me mine own, Grace restoreth me to myself freely justified, and so delivered from slavery of sin. Here Bel noteth divers things against all merit & 
pag. 72. untruth 65.  avoucheth most falsely S. Bernard to renounce all merit of man whatsoever. Whereas the B. Saint speaketh only against mere humane merit, done by our own power without assistance of grace, such saith he excludeth grace, and is of our own. And such indeed he and all Catholics renounce, and leave to the Pelagians, but willingly he accepteth such merit as proceedeth from grace, and (as he speaketh) maketh me mine own.  
10. Lastly he allegeth his words serm. 
pag. 71.  68 in Cant. So there is no cause, why thou shouldest now ask by what merits we hope for goods, especially seeing thou hearest the Prophet saying. Not for you, but for me I will do it saith our Lord. It sufficeth to merit, to know that merits suffice not. But as it sufficeth to merit not to presume of merits, so to want merits is enough to judgement. Bel inferreth 
pag. 72.  that the most sufficient merit in man is to 
untruth 66.  know and confess, that our merits are no merits indeed. Did ever honest man deal thus. S. Bernard speaketh not of the most sufficient merit, but only telleth what sufficeth to a merit: uz. not to presume of merits which no doubt is an act of humility, and a meritorious act. And lest of all dreamt that our merits are no merits (yea plainly affirmeth that to want merits sufficeth to be damned) but only telleth us that our merits suffice not vz: without God's mercy of pardoning our sins, and gracious promise of rewarding them, which is only to deny absolute, & perfect equal merit, which we also with him deny. But mark good Reader how Bel, who before admitted our merits in a 
pag. 61.  godly sense, now plainly avoucheth them to be no merits, which plainly discryeth his godly sense of expounding merit by Impetration, to be an ungodly shift of his for to delude the authorities of Fathers, expressly avouching merit. And thus much of his proofs out of Fathers. Now let us view his proofs out of Popish writers.   

CHAP. VI Bells arguments out of late Catholic writers against condign merit answered.  
THE first Papist which Bell citeth is S. 
pag. 72. S. Thomas.  Thomas 1. 2. 4. 114. at. 1. It is manifest that between God, and man, there is most great inequality, for there is infinite distance between them, all the good which is man's is from God. Wherefore man's justice received of God can not be according to absolute equality, but according to a certain proportion, to wit, in as much as either worketh according to his manner. But the manner, and measure of humane power in man is from God, and therefore man's merit before God can not be but according to the supposal of God's ordinance, to wit, so that man obtain of God by his work that as a reward, to which God hath designed him power to work. Hence Bel inferreth 
pag. 73.  divers things. 1. That S. Thomas telleth us that where there is not perfect equality, there is no 
untruth 67  merit properly. This is an untruth properly, for Aquinas denieth only merit or justice according to absolute equality, yea affirmeth that proportionate merit may be betwixt them that infinitely differ. 2. That there is infinite inequality betwixt God and man: This is a needles note made only to fill room, and make number. 3. That man's justice is not absolute, but imperfect. This is true, and we teach the same. But mark how he noteth this to be the doctrine of Aquinas, which a none he will say is Protestantisme.  
2. That Aquinas granteth willingly that 
untruth 68  man doth merit nothing in God's sight save only by way of his free acceptation. This is an untruth willingly told. For Aquinas only saith. That man can not merit any thing of God, but only according to the presupposal of his ordinance, that is, unless God had promised, and ordained to reward our merit, and granteth (as is said) that we have proportionate merit, and therefore only denieth absolute merit: 5. That Aquinas confesseth that eternal 
untruth 69  life is not properly hire. This is untrue: For he only saith that it is quasi merces as a hire, or reward, unless Bel will make S. Ihou to have 
joan. 1. v. 14.  denied Christ to be properly the son of his Father, when he said, we saw his glory as it were of the only begotten of his Father. And though S. Thomas had said it were not properly hire, his other words would enforce us to understand him not of all kind of hire, but only of such as is between equals, when one free man hireth an other, for such doubtless can not be betwixt God, and man; nay it is not so perfect hire, or justice 
Note this example.  as may be betwixt a man, & his bondslave, if he should liberally give his slave his labours, and promise to reward them as well as if he were a free man: For though such a master of liberality, both give his slave his labours, and promise to reward them, in which he is like to Gods dealing with us, yet neither doth he give his slave power to labour, nor assists him in his labour, nor rewardeth him above desert of his labour, as God of his liberality doth with us. And therefore our reward hath less the nature of hire then the wages of such a slave should have. And yet notwithstanding it is not a free gift, as alms is to a beggar, or a benefit should be to a slave, if his Lord had not bestowed his labours upon him, & promised to reward them as if he were not his slave. And hereby is reproved an other untruth which Bel afterward avoucheth upon 
Bel pag. 76. S. Thomas 1. 2. q. 114. art. 1.  S. Thomas: uz. That he affirmeth that God is not said simply and truly to be debtor unto us. For the word (truly) is by Bel untruly added: 
untruth 70  And S. Thomas meaneth that he is not simply and absolutely our debtor, but upon presupposal of his promise, and ordinance.  
3. Many lines he citeth out of Durand to 
Bel pag. 73. Durand. 2. d. 27. q. 2.  prove that he denied condign merit, but omitted other immediately before where Durand distinguisheth two kinds of merits de condigno, largely & strictly so called. Condign merit largely called (saith he) is a certain worthiness, which God requireth in the work for to reward it with eternal life, and this (saith he) we have. and in these words which Bel citeth denieth only that condign merits which is (saith he twice) strictly (and this 
False translat. ●.  word Bel left twice out in his translation) and properly so called, and is found between man, and man, & he defineth it to be a voluntary action, whereby reward is so due to the work, as he to whom it appertaineth to give it, is simply, and properly unjust if he do not: which kind of condign merit I also deny to be in our works. For neither is it strictly condign, nor such as is betwixt man and man, neither should God be simply coniust if he did not reward it, as appeareth by what hath been said before. But suppose that Durand had absolutely denied all condign merit in our works. What hath Bel gotten more than that one schoolman who hath many other singular opinions, did in this matter, which is no point of faith, descent from the common doctrine of Schools?  
4. After this Bell avoucheth Gregory of 
Bel pag. 75.  Arimino: Marsil: Thomas of Walden, Paul of Burges, and Eckins, to affirm very constantly, That man's works are not meritorious of eternal life. But this he affirmeth very untruly, and 
untruths 71.  lest he should be tripped would neither cite their words, nor quote the place. For no Catholic denieth our supernatural works to be meritorious of eternal life, though Paul of Burges, in psalm. 35. deny them to be meritorious de condigno and Walden. tom. 3. de sacramentalibus c. 7. counseleth to abstain from the name de condigno, & congruo, yet he expressly avoucheth our works to be meritorious. Gregory also confesseth 
Gregor. ●. d. 17.  them to be so meritorious as in respect of merit de congruo they may be said to be meritorious de condigno: Marsilius, and Eckins books I had not at hand to peruse, yet doubtless they denied not our supernatural works to be meritorious, but either only to be meritorious de condigno, which (as I said) is no point of faith, or else perhaps only to be absolutely and perfectly meritorious de condigno, which I also do not deny. But I marvel why Bel would make mention of Eckins, whose very name bringeth to memory that he foiled Luther so in disputation, 
Sur. 1519.  as being admonished by the Counsellors of George Duke of Saxony to behave himself modestly he cried out. This matter was neither begun for God, nor shall 
Luther's abominable words. Sotus lib. 3. de nat. & Grat. c. 6.  be ended for him.  
5. Next he produceth Sotus writing that perfect satisfaction requireth that the whole value proceed from the debtor without any savour at all of the Creditor, and that there be a restoring of an equivalent thing otherwise undue. Whereupon Bel 
Bel pag. 75. untruth 72  avoucheth him to teach, that every satisfaction requireth the like conditions. This is manifestly false: for he speaketh only of perfect satisfaction as was the satisfaction of Christ. But to Bells argument framed hereupon. None can satisfy for sin, therefore none can condignly merit heaven: I answer by distinguishing the Antecedent. If it be meant of sin itself I grant it, but deny the Consequence. And the difference is, because there can be no satisfaction at all, unless the satisfyer be in God's favour, which can not be, unless the sin be already pardoned, and therefore all satisfaction supposeth sin to be forgiven freely, but merit doth not so suppose eternal life to be already given. But if it be meant of temporal punishment, which is called sin according to the Scriptures phrase Zachar. vlt. 
Zachar.  and oftentimes remaineth after the sin itself is pardoned, as appeareth in David 
2. Reg. 12. v. 14. Deuter. 32. v. 51. Daniel. v. 24. Proverb. v. 6.  Moses, and others: I deny the Antecedent. For as Daniel said c. 4. we may redeem our sins by alms, and by mercy proverb. 16. And albeit this satisfaction be not so perfect, as it hath all the conditions which the perfection of satisfaction requireth, yet hath it all which the essence thereof exacteth. Nether doth Aristotle alleged by Bel teach the contrary.  
6. After this because Angles (as I said 
●el pag. 76.  before) seemeth to say that the condignity of our merit riseth only upon the promise of God made to reward it Bel here a new 
untruth 73.  avoucheth him to confess plainly the self same doctrine which he intendeth to prove, which how true it is hath been already showed, and 
Cap. 5. parag. 7.  withal addeth that this is the main point, and only foundation to which all Papists do, and must 
untruth 74  appeal in this question. And he reproveth this by the example of the loan of a cloak in a shower of rain upon promise of an hundred pounds, notwithstanding which promise (saith he) that loan can not be condign merit of that price. But most false it is that Angles his reason is the main or only foundation, to which all Papists do and must appeal in this question. For to it appeal only such as follow Scotus. And S. Thomas 1. 2. q. 114. are 3. Bonavent: 2. dist: 17. Bellarm. l. 5. de justif. 17. and john: de Combis (as Bel himself testifieth) 
Bel pag. 77. Bel disproveth himself.  with the best Divines appeal to the virtual, and proportionate equality before explicated, which is already proved to be in our merits: And account that foundation of Angles unsure, and inpugne it better than Bel doth with his example of the loan of a cloak which maketh nothing against us. For it hath not such virtual, and proportionate equality to an hundred pounds, as our merits have to glory. I omit Bells fond inferring, that we do not condignly deserve eternal life if (as Divines say) God reward us ultra condignum above our deserts. For it only proveth that we do not condignly 
Divines in 4. sent. d. 46.  deserve that excess of glory, which God will give us, when as Christ saith Luc. 
S. Luke.  6. v. 38. He will give good measure, and pressed down, and shaken together. and running over. And rather proveth that we do condignly deserve some degree of glory. For if God reward us ultra condignum, beyond our deserts he rewardeth us according to our deserts, and more two.  
7. Likewise he citeth Lyra saying that 
pag. 77. Lyra in c. 3. Tit.  Eternal salvation wholly exceedeth the power of man's nature: Therefore he can not attain unto it but by liberality of god's mercy. True: But what? because it exceedeth the power of man's nature, will Bel have it also to exceed the power of God's grace in which according to S. Paul we can do all things: Or because we 
Philip. 4. v. 13.  need God's liberality uz. for to have his promise of reward; his grace, and to have the good works, therefore can we not have his justice to give (as S. Paul speaketh) a crown 
2. Timoth. 4. v. 8.  of justice for our works, and consummation of our race? Are God's liberality and justice so opposite, as they can not concur to one work? Why then did the Psalmist sing psal. 100 judgement and mercy to God? 
Psalm. 100 v. 1. 9 False translat.  This Bell would; & therefore when lyra said nisi ex largitate divinae misericordiae Bel englished him, But only by the liberality of God's mercy. adding, only, of his own store. And albeit Carthusianus profess that merits are 
Carthus. in c. 6. Rom.  not excluded, yet Bel beggeth his favour, because he writeth that Eternal life is said to be given as reward by grace, and principally attributed 
Bel left out this. For the Elect by Grace deserve eternal life.  to grace, because God rewardeth us ultra condignum. Who pitieth not this poor beggar, who is feign to go to his enemies doors a begging that, which will do him no good, and now and then is feign to steal. I have given him more before, let him take that, and be thankful, and try what thereof he can gather against such condign merit as Catholics defend.  
8. But will you see this brave champion challenger, who hitherto hath sounded 
Bel recanting p. 79.  Alarm, and fought furiously against condign merit, now at the end of this Article sounding a retreat, and confessing that, that condign merit which Catholics defend is too good for him to deal withal. After he had cited out of Bellarmin, that 
Bellarm. lib. 5. de iustific. c. 16.  our merits are not condign of justice absolutely, but posita liberali Dei promissione supposing Gods liberal promise, (which Bel 
10. False translat.  falsely translateth in respect of Gods liberal promise.) And that absolutely a man can not exact any thing of God, seeing all are his, but only supposing his will, and covenant, that he will not exact our works of us for nothing, but give us reward according to the proportion of our works. As a slave (saith he) can not absolutely demand any thing of his master, seeing all the slave getteth he getteth to his master, yet if it please his master to bestow his works upon him, and to promise reward for them, as if they were not due to him, the slave may justly demand reward for them, Bel I say, after he had cited these words out of Bellarmin, and affirmed that Bellarmin taught this after mature consultation with the best learned jesuits, and the Pope himself telleth us that Bellarmin maketh good his doctrine in them, and that if he, and his fellows, and followers would stand constantly to their own doctrine, which they publish in printed books, we (Protestants) and they should soon agree, and these controversies would have an end.  
9 What is this but in plain terms to 
The Tridentin Council defined only that we truly deserve heaven, and Bel impugneth it.  confess, that he can not impugn Beauties printed doctrine of condign merit, which is the very same which all Catholics commonly print, preach, and believe. For Bellarmin in the very words cited saith. A man may ex iure justly demand reward at God's hands for his works: that our merits are ex justitia supposing God's promise: and that God rewardeth them secundum proportionem according to their proportion. And affirmeth in the next chapter to these words that good 
Sup. cap. 17.  works are condignly meritorious of eternal life by reason of the covenant, and work together, not that a good work should not have proportion to eternal life without the covenant, but because God is not bound to recompense the work with that reward, albeit it be just, and equal to the reward, unless he before had covenanted. Do you hold Sir this printed doctrine of Bellarmin, doth it like you? speak plainly and renounce your mere acceptation, and bare impetration, and be not ashamed to say deuterai phrontides sophotatai: for your second faith was best.  
10. But he meaneth nothing les, then to hold Beauties printed doctrine, which (saith he other where) is approved by the 
pag. 26. 125. 87. And p 29. The jesuits (Bellarmin) doctrine is the Popes own doctrine.  Pope, who hath said all that can be said for Popery, and whose testimony alone is most sufficient in all Popish affairs. But only by occasion of his own foresaid false translation he hoped to make his Reader believe that Bellarmin held condignity of merit to arise merely of God's promise, which though he did (as some Catholics do) belonged not to this question as is before declared, and rather supposeth, then denieth condign merit. Yet is it defended of the same Catholics in a far different sense as Bellarmin himself showeth then of Protestants. 
Sup. c. 17.  For they think our supernatural works to be truly good, and condignly to deserve some reward, though not so great as eternal life is, unless God had promised it to them: But Protestants think them to be truly nought, and sin, and to deserve no reward, but punishment, and that God in accepting, and rewarding them 
Proverb. 6. v. 16. Psal. 5. v. 7. Sapient. 14. v. 9 Apocal. 2. v. 6. judith 5. v. 21. Psalm. 44. v. 8. Bel pag. 80. S. Augustin. lib. 9 Confess. c. 13. L. 2. de Gen. cont. Manich. c. 14. L. 1. de nupt. & concupis. c. 29. Serm. 5. de verb. Apost.  accepteth, and rewardeth sin, which is a horrible blasphemy contrary to Scripture, avouching that he hateth sin, contrary to his goodness, that can not accept naughtiness, and sin, more than fire can water, and contrary to his justice, which can not reward it.  
11. After all this Bell allegeth a saying of S. Austin Woe even to the laudable life of man, if thou discuss it setting thy mercy aside: which maketh little to the purpose. For S. Austin denounceth not woe to good men's merits, which otherwhere he saith are great matters, and to be crowned, but to the men themselves, because as they have merits to be crowned, so they have demerits to be punished, which if they were punished without mercy, woe should be to them: Not because they should be sent to hell, but to purgatory, or (as he calleth it sermon. in psalm. 37.) Emendatory fire, and 
S. Austin.  there punished without mercy, which fire (saith he) is more grievous than any thing, 
Confess. lib. 9 c. 13. cit.  which man can suffer in this life. And to procure God's mercy in this behalf to his mother's soul he both prayed himself, and requested others to pray for her. Be mindful therefore (Bel) from whence thou art fallen, and do penance. Apocal. 2.    

THE sixth ARTICLE OF THE DISTINCTION OF MORTAL AND VENIAL sins  

CHAP. I. The true Distinction proved and Bells objection answered.  
BELL perceiving that Catholics do evidently prove that there is a difference between mortal, and venial sins durst not deny it, but proceedeth as he did in the former Article, allowing in 
Bel pag. 81.  words the distinction of mortal, and venial sins in a godly sense, which though he be ashamed to express, yet doth he insinuate 
Bel admitteth venial sins.  in other terms of regnant, & not regnant, and meaneth (as I suppose) that voluntary evil acts are mortal, & involuntary venial, which doctrine is already disproved in the fourth article. Wherefore here he undertaketh to prove that every sin is mortal of it own nature, and some become venial only for free acceptation, & mercy of God.  
2. Supposing therefore that some sins 
Mortal and venal sins are such of their own nature.  are mortal, and others venial, I intent to prove by Scripture, Fathers, and reason, that they are such of their own nature. The Scripture compareth such sins as are mortal, and venial to things, which of their own nature are different as Math. 23. to a 
Math. 23. v. 24. Luc. 6. v. 42.  Camel, and a gnat. Luc. 6. to a straw, and a beam: Ergo: these kind of sins are different of their own nature. Likewise our Saviour Luc. 12. 58. compareth some 
Math. 5. v. 27.  sins to mites or farthings, which of their nature are small debts. Moreover God hath no where revealed that some kind of sins become venial only by his mercy. Therefore we ought not to say so. The Consequence is evident. for none knoweth the pleasure of God but by his revelation. The Antecedent I prove: for Protestants can neither name the sins, which God hath made venial, nor the place, where God hath revealed any such making of his. Bel citeth Math. 12. v. 3. where it is said, that We shall give account of every idle word. And 1. john. 3. v. 4. where sin is called iniquity. But in neither place it is said that God's mercy maketh any sin venial, and other like places cited by other Protestants rather prove that all sins notwithstanding God's mercy are now mortal, then that any, which of themself were mortal, became venial by his mercy. Likewise for venial sin he nameth sin not regnant, whereby he understandeth involuntary motions of concupiscence. But for such involuntary motions (which Bel rightly calleth 
Bells belief of venial sins befydes God's book.  not regnant sin, but wrongly venial) neither are they any true sin as venial sin is; nor is it any where revealed, that they being of their nature mortal sins, are made venial only through God's mercy. Therefore Bells belief of some sins made venial by God's mercy is wholly besides God's book.  
3. Holy Fathers also in calling some sins 
Fathers.  little sins light, short, least, & daily offences: as S. Hierom in c. 5. Math. & l. 2. in jovinian: 
S. Hierom. prope fin. S. Austin. to. 10. & 3. S. Chrysost. tom. 2. & Conc. 3. in Lazar. to. 2.  S. Austin serm. 41. de sanctis. and in Enchir. c. 71. and S. Chrisostom. hom. 24. in Math. insinuate that venial sins are such of their own nature. for they were never little, nor light, if of their nature they were mortal, and damnable: as a wound, which of it nature is mortal, and deadly, could never be called a little or light wound, though God of his mercy did cure it: Likewise S. Hierom putteth a difference between 
S. Hieron. dial. 2. cont. Pelag. S. Gregor. 21. moral. c. 9 S. Austin. hom. 19 de ●empore.  cacia, and hamartia: and S. Gregory, and S. Austin betwixt crimen and peccatum yea S. Hierom epist. ad Celant. accounteth it a paradox of the Stoics to put no difference betwixt scelus, and erratum.  
4. By reason also this is evident. For who seethe not that to steal a pin is of it nature a small offence. And I would ask of Bel whither a sin after it is by God's mercy made venial, retaineth the self same nature of offending God, deserving Hell, and the like, which it had before, or it changeth it nature? If it change it nature, then a●ter God's mercy, of it nature it is venial, and God's mercy is only the cause of changing the nature of it. If it retain the self same nature, how is it possible, but God if he account of it truly, according to truth (as all his judgements are. Rom. 2. v. 2.) should not account of it as a mortal sin, and deserving hell. Wherefore what Protestants talk of some sins becoming venial, or no sins at all, by God's mere not imputing them for sins, without any alteration in the sins themselves, is mere contradiction, and contrary to S. Austin, and reason as is showed in the fourth Article. c. 3. parag. 4.  
5. Again: infidels have venial sins. Ergo venial sins become not such only by God's mere not imputing them for mortal. The consequence is clear out of the Protestants doctrine, who put that not imputing only 
Willet contrac. 17. part. 3. p. 560.  towards the faithful & regenerate. The Antecedent I prove because they can do all the sins which the faithful do. If one say that sins which in the faithful, be but venial are in Infidels mortal. This is contrary to reason, because knowledge of God's precept in the faithful rather increaseth his fault: for the servant which knoweth the 
Luc. 12. v. 48.  will of his master, and doth it not, shall be beaten with many stripes, and ignorance in infidels diminisheth their fault: whereupon S. Paul said I have gotten mercy because I did it ignorantly 
1. Timoth. 1. v. 13.  in incredulity. And I ask of Bel why God maketh sin not regnant, venial, rather than regnant, and either he must say that God doth it without any cause, or because they are involuntary and these voluntary, which is to say, that by their different nature they are made mortal, and venial.  
6. Finally some sins of their nature break friendship with God, and deserve his eternal hatred, and punishment. others do not. Ergo: some of their nature are mortal others venial. The consequence is evident: The Antecedent I prove: because he is no wise person, who will fall out, and be offended for ever with his friend for every trifle, as the taking up of a straw: nor he is a just Prince, who should inflict death for stealing a pin: & I believe Bel would think himself unjustly handled if he were so dealt withal. Wherefore if God should do this we should neither account him a wise friend, nor a just Prince. Now let us hear what Bel objecteth against this so manifest truth.  
7. Al his proofs may be reduced to this 
Bel pag. 81. 82.  syllogism, what is against God's law is mortal sin: all sin is against God's law: Ergo all sin is mortal. Behold Bel here absolutely concludeth all sin to be mortal, & after calleth our venial sins cursed, & deformed, which argueth that he thinketh all sin to be indeed mortal notwithstanding God's mercy. The Proposition he supposeth. The Assumption he proveth out of Scripture: Fathers, and Schoolmen. Out of Scripture because Christ said Math. 12. v. ●● that we shall give account for every idle word: and S. John 1. c. 3. v. 4. telleth us that Every sin is anomia that is, transgression of the la: S. Ambrose also defineth sin in general to be transgression of God's law: And S. Austin describeth it to be Every word, deed, or desire against God's law. Bellarmin affirmeth every 
Bellarm. lib. 4. de. Rom. Pont. c. 21. Rhemist. 1. Io. 3. v. 4. Angles 4. sent. p. 21●. Durand. 2. d. 42. q. 6.  sin to be against God's law. Rhemists' also confess, Every sin to be a swerving from the Law: and doubtless (saith he) what swerveth from the law, is truly against the law. Likewise Angles, and Durand teach venial sins to be against the law.  
8. To this argument Catholics answer differently, some by denial of the Proposition, others by denial of the Assumption. Some say that every sin which is against the Law is not mortal, but only that which is perfectly against it, so that it destroleth the end of the law, which is Charity & this venial sins do not. And if I should answer thus, Bel were by and by at a Non plus. Others say that venial sins are not against the law, because they are not against the end of the law, but besides the law. But this difference is rather in words then in matter, all agreeing that venial sin destroyeth not Charity nor breaketh friendship 
1. Timoth. 1. v. 5.  with God, which is the end for which the law was made. Yet better it is to say, that venial sins are beside the law, then against 
Why venial sins are not against the la.  the law: because what is not contrary to the end, but may stand with out breach of it, is not contrary to the means, but may stand without breach of them, but venial sins are not contrary to Charity the end of the law: but may be without breach of it. Ergo neither are they contrary to the law, but may be without breach of it. And as a man travailing, though he step out of his way is not said to go contrary to his journeys end: so a man walking to heaven, though by venial sin he step out, or besides the way, yet doth he not go the contrary way to hell: The Proposition of mine argument is evident: for what can stand with the end, can not be contrary to the means necessary to that end. The Assumption both Catholics grant, and Heretics can not deny if they 
Bells arguments a● much against himself a● against Catholics.  admit that there are indeed any venial sins. For venial sins (whence soever they come to be such) break not friendship with God. And therefore if Bel grant in deed (as he doth in words) that by God's mercy some sins are made venial, he must also confess that by God's mercy, they are not against his Charity, and friendship: and so must answer his own argument, which indifferently proveth that there are no venial sins at all, whither they be said to be such by their own nature, or by God's mercy: for the argument assumeth not that all which is sin of it own nature is against God's law, but absolutely, all which is sin is against God's law. And therefore if Bel think venial sin notwithstanding God's mercy to be true sin, he must as well answer his own argument as I  
9 Admitting therefore his Proposition I deny his Assumption: and to his proof out of S. Matthew. I answer that we must give account for every idle word, not because they be a against God's law, but because they be beside it: And Bel will beat his horse not only when he turneth back, but also when he starteth out of the way. As for the text of S. John, he telleth us not (as Bel avoucheth) that every sin is anomia but absolutely Sin is anomia, and may well be understood of only mortal sin which antonomastice is so called. This answer might suffice to what he bringeth about this text in this Article, yet because art. 4. he brought out of their due place many things about the greek words anomia and adicia used by S. John, which we remitted to this place, we will here answer them at large, and afterward the rest of his proofs concerning this Article.   

CHAP. II. A text of S. John epist. 1. explicated.  
S. Ihons' words he citeth in Greek pass ho poion ten hamartian, cai ten anomian 
Bel pag. 52.  poiei, cai he hamartia estin h● anomia and translateth them thus. Every one that sinneth transgresseth 
1. joan. 3. v. 4.  the law, and sin is the transgression of the law, And hereupon inferreth that Every sin is transgression of the law, and consequently mortal. Catholics answer two ways. First that S, John in this place by sin understandeth only such sin as c. 5. v. 16. he calleth sin to death uz. mortal sin. And this I prove: First because in the next verse but one uz. v. 6. he speaketh only of mortal sin, when he saith. Every one that remaineth in him (Christ) sinneth not, and v. 8. who doth sin is of the Devil, and v. 9 Every one that is borne of God committeth not sin, because his seed remaineth in him. In these verses it is evident S. John spoke only of some certain kind of sin which (as S. Austin 
S. Austin.  tract: 5. in 1. john tom. 9 saith) one borne of God can not commit, uz. of mortal sin: wherefore of the same did he mean. v. 4. when he in some sort described sin by iniquity. Both because else it should seem a kind of equivocation, as also because if he had described sin in general, it is likely he would have afterward discoursed of the same, and not of one only kind of sin. Secondly because when a word principally signifieth one thing, it is not to be extended to an other, which secondarily it signifieth, unless such extension be gathered by some circumstances of the speech, seeing therefore the word Sin doth principally signify only mortal sin, and secondarily venial sin, according to S. Thomas. 1. 2. 
S. Thomas.  4. 88 ar. 1. & there is no circumstance here convincing it to be extended to signify venial sin, but rather to the contrary as hath been showed, it is not to be extended to venial sin. And this is confirmed because Scriptures Fathers, and Catholic writers by Sin understand ordinarily only mortal sin, as appeareth by their attributing of death, loss of grace, and heaven, guilt of hell, separation from God, and the like to Sin, and by defining it to be against God's law, or transgression of the law: which agree only to mortal sin.  
2. Thirdly because S. Bede understandeth 
S. Beda 1. Io. 3.  it of such sin, as either is of contempt of the written law, or corrupteth the innocency of the law of nature. And the gloford. followeth his very words: also glos. interlin. understandeth it of sin contrary to equity of God's law: which he took of S. Bede loc. cit. Lyra expressly expoundeth 
Lyra 1. Io. 3.  it of mortal sin, and defineth it to be transgression of the law. and the same doth Carthusia: and to this purpose serve all Bells proofs, that anomia signifieth transgression of the law: for if that be so, then sin is taken for mortal sin. Nether against this exposition see I any objection, more than that the word Sin may signify venial sin, and that also it is taken for it c. 1. v. 8. where he saith If we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves. But we may answer that, though it may signify venial sin yet ordinarily it doth not, and therefore it is not well inferred, that here it doth, especially seeing that there are divers circumstances to the contrary. And though it signify sin in general c. 1. v. 8 yet seeing it doth signify only mortal in this same chapter. v. 6. 8. and 9 better it is to gather the signification of a word out of the next use thereof, then out of the further of. And if one will thus expound the place of S. John (as to me it seemeth 
S. John meaneth only of mortal sin.  best) Bel were strait at a Non plus. For he supposeth that the word sin is taken for all kind of sin, and only proveth that the word anomia iniquity is taken for perfect sin, and transgression. yet because I will give him all the scope he can ask, I admit that by Sin S. John understood all kind of actual sin, and deny (as many Catholics do) that anomia Iniquity is taken for wickedness, and perfect transgression of the law: but generally as it is common to perfect transgression, and only swerving from the law. Now let us see how Bel improveth this.  
3. His first proof is because Arias Montanus 
pag. 52. Arias Montan. 1. Io. ●.  saith, that anomia is transgression of the law. But this is not against us, because we grant that it may signify so, only we deny that to be the proper signification of the word, as is evident by the etymology thereof, which is as much as sine lege without the law, and not contra legem: against the law▪ yet because all acts against law are also without law, the word may be used for acts against law, and so signify transgression of the law. It sufficeth us that the propriety of the word is for us not for Bel, and therefore we better expound it of swerving from the law, than Bel or any other doth of transgression of the law.  
4. His second proof is that S. Ambros 
Bel pag. 53. S. Ambros. S. Austin.  de Parad. c. 8. and S. Austin l. 2. de consen. evang. c. 4. and l. 22. cont. Faust. c. 27. define sin to be prevarication, or transgression of the law, or to be a thought, word or deed against the eternal law, which (saith S. Austin) is divine reason, or the will of God commanding the order of nature to be kept, and forbidding it to be broken. But these, Fathers define only mortal sin; because Catholics ordinarily understand only that sin, when they absolutely speak of sin, as men, when they speak of a thing mean of substance. As also because S. Ambros had before spoken only of mortal sin uz. of Adam, and judas his sin. And S. Austin in the first place speaketh of sin against the ten commandments, which no doubt is of it nature mortal, and in the second place he plainly defineth such sin, as breaketh the order of nature, which also is mortal sin not venial; for who will say that a little superfluous laughter breaketh the order of nature. Besides it followeth not that if S. Ambros, and S. Austin defined sin to be transgression of the law, therefore S. John did so call it in this place.  
5. His third proof is out of S. Bede. But 
S. Bed. 1. Io. 3.  he is rather against him. For he saith that anomia signifieth quasi contra legem vel sine lege factum: as it were against law or without law. He saith not against, but as it were against, which more plainly he explicateth saying. Or without the law. Lyra, and Carthusia: whom he citeth seem by anomia, and iniquity to understand wickedness, but then by sin they understand only mortal sin, and so favour Bel nothing. But because the 
Bel pag. 56. Rhemist. 1. Io. 3.  Rhemists as preventing an objection write, that The word iniquity is otherwise taken 1. Io. 3. v. 4. where sin is said to be iniquity then c. 5. ver. 17. where iniquity is said to be sin, which they prove because though the latin word be all one, yet the greek is different uz. adicia which signifieth injustice: Bel replieth very wisely forsooth out of S. Augustine's words 
S. Augustin. to. 9  trac. 4. in 1. Io. to. 9 Let none say sin is one thing and iniquity an other; Every one that sinneth committeth iniquity. As if the question now betwixt the Rhemists, and him had been, whither sin and iniquity were all one, and not whether anomia, and adicia be all one. Better therefore he replieth afterward pag, 58. where he proveth anomia. and adicia to be all one, because the vulgar latin translateth them both Iniquitas. But the Rhemists' answer, That the word Iniquitas is used in a different signification, and prove it by the different greek words, for which it is used; And against this Bell saith nothing, But being at a non plus himself, and not able to reply against this answer, and reason, he crieth out that his answerer is at a non plus, & impudently denieth every iniquity? to be sin.  
6. But as for the Rhemists, evident it is that herein they are neither impudent, nor at a Non plus, seeing they give a reason of what they say, against which Bel can not reply; And as for iniquity and sin, though 
Psalm. 50. 118. & alibi sup.  they be oftentimes confounded both by Scriptures, & Fathers, yet if we will speak exactly and properly, more is required to formal, and proper sin, then to formal iniquity. For iniquity requireth only want 
Difference betwixt formal sin and iniquity.  of equity, and conformity to God's law. formal sin besides this requireth voluntariness, & so all formal sin is formal iniquity but not contrariwise. As adultery or murder committed by a fool or mad man is iniquity, but no more sin than it is in beasts. Hereupon S. Austin l. 2. contr. julian. c. 5. 
S. Austin.  distinguished two iniquities, one which is sin and blotted out in baptism, an other which is the law of sin & 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 will some iniquity, & yet oftentimes denieth it to be true sin. neither doth he say in the place which Bel citeth, that iniquity & sin is all one, but that sin is, not a different thing from iniquity, but that who committeth sin committeth iniquity, which how it is true is evident by that which is said. Albeit when he saith, that all iniquity is blotted out in baptism, he confound iniquity with sin, as before is cited out of Scripture, which argueth that well may the word iniquity be taken in a different sense john. 5. and 3. as john 5. for voluntary iniquity, and proper sin, as appeareth by the greek word adicia, and c. 3. for iniquity in general, as appeareth by the word anomia, which is common to voluntary, or involuntary.  
7. The places of S. Ambros and S. Austin are already answered for they define only mortal sin. And of the same understandeth Bellarmin, when he saith all sin is against the law: for venial sins he proveth not to be against the law: tom. 3. lib. 1. de amiss. great. & stat. pecc. cap. 11. Nether followeth it as Bel thinketh that some sins, are no sins, but only that Some sins are not perfectly sins, as Bellarmin proveth loc. cit. As for the Rhemists. doubtless it is false which Bel addeth, that what 
Sup. c. 2. parag. 8.  swerveth from the law is against it, as I have proved against his bare assertion of the contrary. Durand and Angles I confess did think venial sins to be against the law, but neither is this a matter of faith, neither do they intend to favour Bel any thing, but answer his argument an otherway as hath been showed 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 schools, that venial sins are against the law. Bel noteth the Romish religion of mutability, confessing that the old Roman religion was Catholic, 
Old Roman religion Catholic sound and pure.  sound, and pure, with which he will not contend. Behold the itch which this fellow hath to calumniate the Roman religion. Angles in sinuateth School opinions to be mutable. Bel apply it to Roman religion. as if it consisted of school opinions, which may be held pro & contra, salva fidei compage with unity in faith, as S. Austin speaketh. But seeing you have granted 
S. Augustin. l. 1. cont. jul. c. 6. to. 7.  the old Roman religion to have been Catholic and pure, & slander the late; I bring an action of slander against you, and charge you that you do not like dolosus, versari in generalibus, but to bring good witnesses, when, wherein, and by whom the late Roman religion corrupted the purity of the old, knowing that otherwise (to use your phrase) all the world will cry with open mouth Fie upon you, and your slanderous Ministry. But in the mean time let us proceed with him here.  
9 Their canonised 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 sins were such only by the mercy of God. Here Bel for one truth uttereth two untruths. True it is that B. Fisher and Gerson were in that error, but that was both before it was condemned in the Church, as it 
75. untruth  was since by Pius 5. and Gregorius 13. neither did they account involuntary motions of Concupiscence for venial sins, as Bel doth, but such as Catholics account venial. 
76. untruth  But untrue it is that either B. Fisher is canonised, or Gerson was a bishop who 
Trithem. in Gersone.  was only Chancellor of the university of Paris.  
10. Finally he concludeth this Article 
pag. 85.  with this goodly reason. one stealeth just so many eggs as are necessary to make a mortal sin, 
A reason not worth a rotte● egg.  an other stealeth one les, but there can be no reason. why God may justly condemn the one to hell, and not the other. therefore both sin mortally alike. To this I answer by demanding a reason. why the judge may condemn him to death that stealeth thirteen pence half penny, and not him that stealeth one penny les. If he answer, because the law condemneth one, and not the other. I ask again, what reason was there, that the law was made against the one, and not against the other? And if Bel can find a reason in this, he will find one in his own question. The reason of both is. because such a quantity is a notable injury to our neighbour. and consequently is against charity, & so breaketh the law, and a les quantity is not; Be mindful 
Apocalip.  therefore (Bel) from whence thou art fallen and do penance. Apocal. 2.    

THE SEVENTH ARTICLE OF UNWRITTEN TRADITIONS.  
Bel entituleth this seventh article of traditions, though therein he handleth diverse other matters, as of the sufficiency and perspicuity of Scriptures, and of the reading them in vulgar tongues, and by the common people, of the authority of Counsels and oaths of Bishops. But these he handleth so confusedly & so tediously, being almost as long in this one article as in all the rest, as I found much more difficulty to gather together, what he said of every point in different places, and to bring them to some methodical order for the help of the reader's memory, than I had to frame an answer. first therefore I will entreat of Scriptures next of Tradition, then of Counsels, and lastly of bishops oaths.  

CHAP. I. The Catholic doctrine touching sufficiency of Scriptures propounded and proved, certain untruths of Bel disproved.  
ALBEIT every one be forbidden to deny any point of the Christian faith, yet are not all commanded to know actually every point thereof, but to some it sufficeth, that they believe the fundamental points contained in the Apostles Creed, and such like: and to be so disposed in mind, as they would believe the rest, if they knew them: which is to be believe them implicitly or virtually. Moreover one thing may contain an other, either actually, as fire doth contain heat, and the sun light, or virtually, as a flint containeth fire and every cause his effect. These things supposed.  
2. First Conclusion is. All such points of Christian faith, as are necessary to be actually believed of every one, that hath use of reason, though he be never so simple, are actually contained in Scripture, either clearly, or obscurely. This is nothing against traditions, because well may they be, and are, points of Christian faith, though they be not such, as the actual and explicit belief of them be so necessary, as none whatsoever can be saved without it. For it sufficeth that they be such as the implecite and virtual belief of them is necessary to every one's salvation, and may be denied of none under pain 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 words of S. Austin. In these which are plainly set down in scripture, are all those things found, which contain faith and manner of life: he answereth that S. Austin speaketh of those points of doctrine which are necessary simply to all, as they (saith he) are which are contained in the Apostles Creed and ten commandments. Likewise Stapleton 
Staplet. Relect. Contract. 5. q. 5. i● explic. Artic.  affirmeth, that the Apostles wrote all, or almost all that part of faith, which is necessary to be explicitly believed of all and every one. And it seemeth evident, because such points of faith, as are precisely necessary to be actually known of every one what so ever, be both few and are the fundamental, and most notorious points of Christianity, as the mystery of the Trinity, the incarnation and passion of Christ, and such like, which are all actually (at least obscurely) contained in scripture. For surely the prophets and Evangelists writing their doctrine, for our better remembrance, would omit no one point, which was necessary to be actually known of every one, especially seeing they have written many things with are not so necessary. And this conclusion teacheth S. Austin when he saith, 
S. Augustin. tract. 49. in joan. to. 9  that those things are written which seemed sufficient for the salvation of the faithful. Where I note that he said not, which seemed sufficient to Christian faith, but which seemed sufficient to salvation, because fewer points suffice to salvation then the Christian faith containeth, again In these (things) which are plainly 
L. 2. de doct. l. cit. sup.  set down in scripture, all those things are found which contain faith and manner of life. Where I also observe, that he said not absolutely all things (as Bel translateth him) but all those 
Bel pag. 94. 110. 11. False translation.  things, insinuating, that he speaketh not of all things belonging to Christian faith, but only of those which are necessary to be believed and done of every one, which he calleth precepts of life, and rules of faith. And yet more plainly, I believe also that herein 
S. Augustin. lib. 2. de pec. mer. & remis. cap. vlt. to. 7.  there would be most clear authority divinorum eloquiorum of God's word, if man could not be ignorant of it, without loss of his promised salvation. Where if by divina eloquia we understand holy writ (as Bel translateth pag. 95. and S. Augustin seemeth to mean, because immediately before he spoke of scriptures) me thinks he plainly avoucheth, that God hath procured every thing to be clearly written, which to know is necessary to every man's salvation. The same teacheth S. Cyril saying. Not all things 
S. Cyril. lib. 12. in Joan. cap. 68  which our Lord did are written, but what the writers deemed sufficient, as well for manners as for doctrine, that by right faith, and works we may attain to the kingdom of heaven. And S. Chrisostome 2. Thess. hom. 3. what things soever 
S. Chrysost.  are necessary are manifest out of Scripture.  
3. Here by the way I must advertise the Reader of Bells evil dealing with his master Bellarmin and other Catholics. For because Bellarmin affirmeth. That the Apostles 
Bellarm. lib. 4. de verbo Dei c. 11.  wrote all things which are necessary for all men, and which they commonly uttered to all, but not all the rest, Bel inferreth: That all things written 
Bel p. 114.  are necessary for al. As if it were all one to say; All things necessary for all are written, and all things written are necessary. Perhaps he thinks to turn propositions, as easily as he did his coat. And if all things written be necessary for all, as Bel gathereth, surely (as S. Hierom said to the Pelagians teaching 
S. Hierom. dial. 1. cont. Pelagian.  as Bel doth, that none can be without sin, but they that are skilful in the law) a great part of Christendom must needs be damned, yea Luther and Caluin who profess 
Luther. praefat. in psalm. Caluin. 3. instit. c. 2. parag. 4.  their ignorance in divers points of Scripture. I omit that the uttering of some things to some few, who were perfect, spiritual, and fit to teach others, and capable of strong meat, as is manifest S. Paul 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 jesuited Popelings.  
4. And Catholics he falsely chargeth 
Bel p. 139. 141.  with denying, that baptism of infant's consubstantiality of God the Son with his Father, and the mystery of the B. Trinity are in Scripture, or can be proved thence. For Bellarmin proveth baptism of Infants 
Bellarm. lib. 1. de baptis. c. 8. to. 2.  by as many arguments out of Scripture, as Bel doth uz. by three, out of the figure of circumcision gen. 17. out of Christ's words joan 3. and out of the practice of the Apostles act. 16. and 1. cor. 1. whereof Bel borrowed the first and last. The mystery of the Trinity Bellarmin proveth by six arguments 
Bellarm. lib. 2. de Christo c. 6. to. 1.  out of Scripture, and and the consubstantiality of Christ he proveth lib. 1. de christo. c. 4. out of eleven places of the old testament, to which he addeth c. 5. nine more, and c. 6. fifteen places out of the new testament.  
5. Better he might have charged his good masters Luther and Caluin with this matter. 
Luther. lib. count jacob. jatomum. Caluin. in joan. 10. See Staplet. Antidat. Euangel. in Io. 10. v. 30.  For Luther said, his soul hated the word omousion, or consubstantial, and Caluin expoundeth these places, which make most for the consubstantiality, as the old Arrians did. Likewise Luther lib. cont. Cochleum an. 1523. said Infants are not at all to be baptised, if they do not believe. And lib. de captain. Babil. c. de bapt. Sacraments profit no body but faith alone. And Caluin will not have the 
Caluin. Io. 3.  words joan 3. v. 5. (which made the very Pelagians to grant necessity of baptizing 
Ex August. l. 1. de pecc. mer. & remiss. c. 30.  Infants) to be meant of baptism. Hereupon the Anabaptists who deny baptism 
Balthasar Pacimontan. apud Cocl●um in ostis Lutheri. See Posse●in de ath●ismis Haer●ticorum.  of children, profess that they learned 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' judgement, & professed they received their doctrine from him. And Smidelin a 
Smidelin in refutat. blasphemae apolog. Danaei 1583.  great Protestant writeth. That it is no marvel that very many Caluinists in Transiluany, Poleland, and Hungary became Arrians, and of Arrians soon after Mahometans.  
6. But sport it is to hear Bel answer an 
Bel p. 140.  objection, which is the ground of the Anabaptists. Infants have no faith. Ergo they are not to be baptised. First he saith they have faith, & that their faith & profession is to be baptized of faithful parents in unity of the Catholic Church. After he denieth them to have faith in act, but to have faith fundamentally, and by inclination. How these answers agree let the Reader judge. I would know of him. First whence he hath this new point of faith, that baptised infants have to be borne of faithful parents. Are none borne of heretics, or Infidels? Secondly. How they make profession of it by words or deeds, and whether Bel by their profession could discern a baptized infant from one unbaptized. Thirdly: how infants can be justified by faith alone, and have no 
Inclination to faith justifieth Infants according to Bel. Scripture containeth virtually all points of Christian faith. See Staplet. Relect. controu. 5. q. 5. art. 1. S Austin l. 1. cont. Crescon. c. 33. Nullum mihi sacramemtum aut sermo aliquis admodum obscurior de sacris literis aperitur ubi 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 thereto. Surely they can have justification no otherwise then they have faith, and therefore if they have not faith in act, they can have no justification in act, but only be inclined to it, as they are inclined to faith.  
7. Second conclusion. All points of Christian faith are virtually contained in Scripture. First because it teacheth us to believe the Church, which teacheth actually all points of Christian faith, and therefore Scripture virtually teacheth us al. Hereupon wrote S. Austin That in doing what the Church teacheth, we hold the truth of Scriptures, albeit they afford no example thereof, because we therein follow the Church, which the Scripture undoubtedly showeth. Secondly because the end of all God's word, whether written or unwritten, is love of himself above all things, and of our neighbour as ourself, as appeareth by that 1. Timoth. 1. v. 5. The end of the precept is charity, and Rom. 13. v. 8. who loveth his neighbour hath fulfilled the law, and to the better comprehending and obtaining of this end, he referreth all whatsoever he revealed, and this end being contained in Scripture it followeth, that the Scripture doth virtually contain (as a cause doth the effect) all points of faith.  
8. And hereupon also it followeth that all the rest of God's word whether written, or unwritten may be called an explication of the foresaid commandments, because it containeth nothing, but which is virtually contained in these commandments, & thereto referred by God, as to their end, which our Saviour meant when he said. In 
Matth. 22. v. 40.  these two commandments, all the la and Prophets hang, because of them depend, as of their end, all the rest, which the law and Prophets contain. And hereupon said S. 
S. Epiphan.  Epiphan. haer. 65. That we may tell the invention of every question, out of the consequence of Scriptures. He said not out of scripture. For all can not be taken thence, as himself writeth haer. 61. but of the consequence of them, because all questions are resolved out of the Scriptures, or out of that which followeth of them, as the effect of the cause. And according to these two conclusions, we may expound other Fathers, when they say all things are contained in Scripture. For either they mean not absolutely of all points of Christian faith, nor of actual containing (as appeareth by that other where they manifestly defend Traditions) but either only of points necessary to be known of every Christian, or of virtual containing.  
9 Third conclusion: All points of Christian faith are not actually contained in scripture, 
All points of Christian faith are not actually in the Scripture.  neither clearly nor obscurely, neither in plain words, nor in meaning. This conclusion Bel seemeth to grant, pag. 118. where he admitteth of a thing although not expressly written, yet virtually (saith he) and effectually contained in Scripture. And the whole English 
Article 6.  Clergy define. That what may be proved out of Scripture is necessary to be believed, though it be not read. But what can be proved, what not, they alone will be judges. But whatsoever Protestants say. I prove the conclusion. For no where in Scripture it is said, either in plain words or in meaning. That all the books, chapters, verses, and sentences, which in the Bible are admitted for Canonical, are truly Canonical, and Gods pure word, without the mixture of man's word. If Bel can find 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 depend all the Articles we gather out of Scripture. 
S. Austin.  For as S. Austin said epist. 9 and 19 If any untruth be found in Scriptures what authority 
S. Hierom. con. Heluid. S. Augustin. haeres. 84. 82. S. Epiphan. haer. 78. S. Hilar. in 1. Math. Can. 1.  can they have? So if any part or parcel of the Bible be doubtful, what certainty can the rest have? Secondly the perpetual virginity of our B. Lady is a matter of faith, as appeareth by S. Hierom, and S. Austin, who accounted helvidius, and jovinian heretics for denying it, and Protestants 
Willet Tetract. 2. pillar. part. 3. p. 76. 77.  confess it. And yet it is no where testified in Scripture. Thirdly that the seventh day commanded by God to be kept holy, is transferred lawfully from Saturday to Sunday is a matter of faith, and yet no where actually warranted by Scripture. For albeit S. John Apoc. 1. 10. speak 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: All points of 
All points of Christian faith can not be proved sufficiently and immediately out of Scripture.  Christian faith can not be sufficiently, and immediately proved out of Scripture. In this conclusion I say not. That no points of Christian faith, nor that all can not by some way or other be proved▪ by some similitude, congruity, or probable illation; nor that immediately by testimony of the Church whose testimony in all doctrine of faith can be immediately proved out of Scripture. But only deny, that all can be immediately proved out of scripture by the very words of Scripture, and so sufficiently as it sufficeth to captivate our understanding 
Articles 39 decreed by Bishops and Ministers 1562. and 1571.  into obedience of faith. This is directly against the sixth Article of Protestants faith, and against Bel in this whole Article: But I prove it as I did the former conclusion. For there is no place of all the Scripture, which sufficiently proveth all the test 
All things can not be taken out of Scripture. Epiphan. haer. 61.  to be Canonical, our B. Lady to be a perpetual virgin, and the Sabbath to be lawfully translated from Saturday to Sunday. And it shall be more evident out of that, which we shall say of Traditions, and in answer to Bells arguments. For the present it sufficeth, that it is so clear, as our very adversaries do sometime confess it. As 
See Covel art. 4. p. 31. & Hooper with him Bel p. 134. 135. Luther. See Roffens. con. Luther. verit. 4. & Bellarm. lib. 4. de verb. Dei c. 4. col. 164. Luther certain of Purgatory.  Bel pag. 134. and 135. art. 7. admitteth one point of faith, which is not in the Bible, & professeth that they mean not of it, when they say all things necessary to salvation are contained in Scriptures. And Luther art. 37. said That purgatory can not be proved out of Scripture, and yet in the assertion of the same he said. That he was certain there was Purgatory, nor cared much what Heretics babbled to the contrary. Now let us come to Bells objections, which albeit for the most part be against Traditions, yet because the matters of sufficiency of Scripture, and of Traditions are connexed, and because we will keep his order, as much as we can, we will here answer them in that order; as they are propunded by him.   

CHAP. II. Bells arguments out of the old Testament concerning the sufficiency of Scripture answered.  
Bel citeth divers places which make 
Bel pag. 86. 87. 88 89.  nothing for absolute sufficiency of Scriptures, or against Traditions, but only bid us obey, and follow the law, as joshua 1. v. 7. and 23. v. 6. & Malach. 4. v. 4. omitting therefore these places I answer to other as Deuter. 4. v. 2. and Proverb. 30. v. 6. where God forbiddeth us to add to his word, and Deuter. 12. v. 32. where we are bidden to do to the lord only that which he commandeth without adding, or taking away First that these places make as much against Protestants as Catholics. For they admit one unwritten Tradition, as Bel confesseth and appeareth 
Bel p. 134. 135. Brent. in prolegom. Kemnit. in examine. Conc. Trid.  by Brentius, Kempnitius, & the Dean of the chapel, and the places cited by Bel forbidden as well the adding of one thing, as of many to God's word.  
2. Secondly. I answer that they make nothing against these Traditions, which Bel impugneth uz. such as are necessary, to 
Bel pag 86. in praesat. Articuli.  man's salvation for such are indeed God's word though unwritten. For the two first places only forbid adding to God's word any thing of our own head, or which is man's word as may be proved. First by the reason of the forbiddance proverb. 30. cit. uz. lest we be disproved, and found liars: as no doubt we might, by adding man's word which is subject to lie, but not by adding Gods word, which can never prove untrue, though it be not written. Secondly, because the jews did ever add one thing to Gods written word, as Bel confesseth 
Conference at Hampton Court. p 68  pag. 134. and the Dean of the chapel affirmed they added both signs, and words unto the institution of the Passover prescribed unto them by Moses: which addition and Tradition of 
jews added signs and words to God's word and their addition confirmed by Christ.  theirs (saith he) was approved by our Saviour at his last supper. And this doctrine was exceeding well liked in the conference at Hampton Court. Thirdly because the Prophets, and Evangelists, did add to Moses' law without breaking of the commandment in the aforesaid places.  
3. Bel answereth. That the doctrine of the 
Bel pag. 89.  Prophets, is nothing else but an explication of the law. But if by the word explication, he understand only such as add nothing to the sense, or meaning of the law, but only explicate in other words, types or figures, the bare meaning of the law, he speaketh most absurdly. For beside that it is spoken without any reason at all, it is against reason, and sense, to say that all the books of joshua, judges, Kings, and Prophets add no sense to the law of Moses. For where doth the law of Moses tell us of every word, or action of every particular man, or woman recorded in the books of the old Testament, written since the law was given? where is every word or deed of every particular person in the new Testament? And although divers actions of Christ especially his death, and passion was prefigured in the law, yet the like can not be thought of every action, or speech of every particular person, so that the words or figures of Moses' law, actually told whatsoever particular things either Prophets, or Evangelists ever wrote. Wherefore S. Austin 
S. Austin.  lib. 1. retract. c. 22. recalled what he had said lib. count Adimant. c. 3. That all the precepts, and promises in the new Testament, are in the old. For certain precepts there be (saith he) not figured, but proper, which are not found in the old Testament, but in the new. And for this cause. Tertullian. lib. count Hermog. 
Tertullian.  called the Gospel a supply of the old Testament.  
4. But if Bel by the word (explication) 
How traditions are explications of the la.  comprehend all such additions, as though they add to the sense and meaning of the law, yet are either of their nature, or of the intention of the adder referred to the better, understanding, comprehension, and fulfilling of the law, as all the reasons, similitudes, comparisons, examples, and sentences in an oration, are explications of the theme thereof, because though they add sense to the sense of the theme, yet they all tend to the perfect comprehension of the theme, I grant all the writings of Prophets, and Apostles to be explications of the law, as hath been explicated in the second conclusion, 
Chapt. 1. parag. 7. & 8.  but withal add, that the Traditions of the Church are such like explications. For what they contain, is in like sort referred (as a mean to the end) to the perfect understanding, and fulfilling of the said law, and so they are no other additions to Moses' law, nor no otherwise prohibited thereby then the rest of Scripture is.  
5. What hath been said to the place of Deut. 4. may be applied to the other place Deut. 12. if it be understood of the moral law, which God gave to the jews. But rather I think it is to be understood of the Ceremonial law. Both because it is not said absolutely what I command that only do, as it would, if it had been meant of the Moral law: but That only do thou to the lord, which words (to the lord) insinuate the meaning to be only of the Ceremonial law, & manner of sacrifice to be done to God. As also immediately before, God had forbidden the jews in their manner of worshipping him to imitate the ceremonies of Gentiles in worshipping their Gods, because they had many abominable uses, as of sacrificing their children, and straight after concludeth what I command, thee that only do thou to the lord, neither add any thing, nor diminish. Whereby we see that the word (Command) he extended only to sacrifices, and ceremonies, which before he had prescribed to be done to himself, and would have therein no alteration at al.  
6. Nether hindereth this that which 
Reinolds apol. thes. p. 207.  Reinolds objecteth. That mention here is made of sacrificing children, which is forbidden by the moral law. For mention is made thereof, not as of a thing forbidden there, but as of a reason of forbidding the jews, in worshipping God to imitate Gentiles, because (saith God) they sacrifice children, And of this Ceremonial law very likely it is. that God absolutely 
Ceremonial la perfectly prescribed to the jew and why.  would have no addition, or alteration at all to be made, until it were quite abrogated by Christ. And the like reason is not of God's law concerning faith, and manners. For there being no such difference in the Ceremonies of the law, but what some jews observed all might alike, expedient it was that all the Ceremonies should be prescribed at once, to the end all might worship God after the same manner, especially seeing the jews were as S. Paul writeth. 
S. Paul.  Gal. 4. v. 1. 2. 3. little ones nothing differing from servants under tutors, and governors, and serving under elements of the world. And therefore had all the rudiments, and ceremonies of religion most exactly prescribed unto them by God, with commandment to abstain from any alteration.  
7. But seeing in matters of faith, and 
Why the la touching saith and manners not prescribed all at once.  precepts of manners there is great difference, because even the same men are not capable at once of understanding all mysteries, as appeareth by our saviours words to his Apostles. John 16. v. 12. I have many things to say unto you, but you can not carry (them) now. And much less are all men a like capable of the same mysteries. And in like manner all men were not a like capable of the same precepts of life. And therefore as S. Austin 
S. Augustin. de sermon. Domini in ●●nte.  saith: God gave by Prophets the less precepts to that people, which was yet to be tied with fear, and greater precepts by his Son to a people, whom he had agreed to free with love. Therefore it was not expedient, that God should at once prescribe unto men all that they were to believe, or do: but at such times, as seemed fit to his divine wisdom to add thereunto by his Prophets, and Evangelists.  
8. Moreover Bel allegeth Esay. 8. 
Bel pag. 8●.  v. 20. Ad legem magis & ad testimonium. Quod si non dixerint juxta verbum hoc non erit ●is matutina lux. Rather to the law, and to the testimony. If they speak not according to this word there shall 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 unwritten word: as appeareth: joan. 3. v. 11. 
joan. 1. 7. 8. 15. 18. 1. Timoth. 6. Apoc. 12.  Rom. 8, v. 16. Hebr. 11. v. 39 Act. 4. v, 33. 1. joan. 5. v. 33. and other where and therefore maketh more for us then against us. Secondly because Esay doth not absolutely bid us recurre to the law, & testimony, but magis, rather to them then to witches, of whom he had immediately forbidden us to inquire. Wherefore Bel in not englishing the word magis as he did the rest, corrupted of set purpose the Scripture, to make it seem magis more for his purpose Thirdly 
Corrupt▪ of Scripture.  though by the law, and testimony we understood only Gods written word, the place maketh nothing against us. For then Esay indeed should bid us go to Gods written word, which we refuse not to do in all doubts, wherein it resolveth us, but forbiddeth us not to go to any other, which is as he saith juxta verbum hoc, agreeable to this word. yea God himself commanded us 
Deuter.  Deutr. 32. v. 7. to ask our Fathers, and elders, 
job.  and job. 8, v. 8. to ask the ancient generation, & seek out the memory of the Fathers. Wherefore either must Bel prove, that the Church's Traditions are not juxta verbum hoc agreeable to Gods written word (which he shall never do:) or he must know, that God not only forbiddeth us, but rather commandeth us to seek after, and follow them.  
9 S. Hierome alleged by Bel only 
Bel pag. 89. S. Hierom. in c. 8. Esaiae.  saith absolutely. That doubts may be resolved out of Scripture, and who will not seek God's word shall abide in error, which is undoubted truth, but nothing against us. But affirmeth not. That all doubts may be determined out of Scripture, and that we ought to seek nothing else whatsoever. Yea himself epist. ad Marcel. resolveth lent to be kept only by Apostolical tradition: And l. cont. Heluid. 
S. Hierom.  bringeth not one place of Scripture to prove our B. Ladies perpetual virginity against that heretic, though he bring many to show that the places, which the heretic alleged convince not the contrary. And thus much touching Bells places out of the old Testament.   

CHAP. III. Bells arguments out of the new Testament touching sufficiency of Scripture answered.  
HIs first place out of the new Testament 
Bel pag. 90.  is joan. 20. v. 30. These are written that you may believe, that jesus is Christ the son of God. & that in believing, you might have life through his name. And biddeth us observe that S. Ihons' Gospel was written after all other Scriptures, even when the Canon of Scripture was complete, perfect, and fully accomplished: uz. about the 14 year of Domitian almost an▪ 100 years after Christ's ascension: and thereby thinketh to avoid all our sottish cavils (as he termeth them.) Meaning forsooth that S. John meant these words: (These are written) of the whole Canon of the Scripture.  
2. Omitting Bells manifest error, where 
Two gross errors in chronography. Baron. An. 97. Onuphrius chron. 96. Euseb. chronic. 97.  he maketh the 14. year of Domitian to be about 100 years after Christ's ascension, which was but about the 97. year after Christ's nativity, as is evident by all Chronicles, or supputators of times, and so wanted almost 40. of an 100 after his ascension. Omitting also an other manifest error, in affirming S. John to have written his Gospel almost an 100 years after Christ's ascension, who died the 68 year after his passion, 
See Baron. An. 101. Eusebius in chron. S. Hieron. in Scripture. Ecclesiast. in joanne & in chron.  as Eusebius and S. Hierom testify, and therefore could not write almost an 110. years after Christ's ascension, unless he wrote many years after his own death.  
3. But omitting these errors, as testimonies of Bells ignorance in histories, which I regard not. To his argument I answer. That 
See S. Cyril. l. 12. in joan. c. 61.  those words (These are written) are meant only of (signa) miracles done by Christ, and written by S. John, to move us to believe that Christ was God. Reinold. thes. 1. 
Reinolds.  pag. 60. confesseth. That they are referred properly to (signa) miracles, yet will have them also meant of precepts, & doctrine written by S. John, because miracles are to confirm, and persuade doctrine and precepts. But I prove that they are meant only of miracles. Because S John having recorded divers miracles of Christ, afterward (immediately before those said words) saith, Many other miracles did jesus in the sight of his disciples, which 
v. 30.  are not written in this book. And then addeth. but These are written that you may believe that jesus 
v. 31.  is Christ the son of God etc. Who seethe not here, that the demonstrative pronoun (These) is referred only to miracles. For S. John having said that many miracles were unwritten, straight after with the adversative, or exceptive particle (But) which Bell guilefully left 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 proving his purpose, as it proveth the quite contrary. For because 
Reinolds proof against himself.  Christ's doctrine, and faith was the end of S. Ihons' writing, and miracles the means, and motives to bring men to Christ's faith, as himself professeth in the foresaid words, evident it is that he meaneth both of Christ's doctrine, and miracles, in the foresaid verse, but differently, and under different words. For of miracles he meaneth as motives, and means, under the words. (These are written &c.) And of doctrine he meaneth as the end of his writing the miracles, under the other words (That you may believe; etc.)  
4. But suppose that S. John by (These) understood both miracles, & doctrine, can Bel therefore infer that S. John meant of th● whole canon of Scriptures? Surely no: because he having before said. That many other miracles of Christ were not written in this book, and immediately adding. But these are written: etc. can not be understood but of his own writing, and in his own. Gospel. whereupon if Bel infer any thing, he must infer that S. Ihons' Gospel alone is absolutely sufficient, and containeth all things necessary. Which I hope he will not do. Reinolds granteth 
Io. Reinolds apol. p. 216.  that S. Ihons' Gospel is sufficient, supposing that we hear of no other. But this is nothing to the purpose. For they out of this place infer the Scripture to be absolutely sufficient, so as we may reject all other things though we hear of them: And therefore seeing S. John in this place can not be understood, but of his own Gospel, if hence they prove absolute sufficiency of Scripture against Traditions, they must infer absolute sufficiency of S. Ihons' Gospel against all other what soever: I omit a place Bel allegeth out of S. Cyril, with an other 
S. Cyril. lib. 12 in Io. cap. vlt. S. Augustin. tract. 49. in joan. Sup. c. 1. parag. 2. Bel pag. 91.  out of S. Austin, which I cited in the first conclusion. For they prove no more than is there affirmed.  
5. His second place out of the new testament is act. 20. v. 27. I have not spared to show unto you the whole counsel of God. Therefore (saith he) the whole counsel of God touching our salvation, is contained in holy Scripture. Omitting his needle's proofs out of L●●a, and Carthu: that S. Paul meaneth of all counsel touching our salvation. I answer that this place either maketh directly against Protestants, or not at all against Catholics. For seeing S. Paul speaketh of his own showing unto the Ephesians, if he be understood of showing only by writing, it followeth, that his epistle to the Ephesians containeth all God's counsel, and is absolutely sufficient, which is against Protestants. But if he be understood (as he should be) of showing in general, either by word, or writing, nothing followeth to Bells purpose or against Catholics.  
6. But (saith Bel) it will not suffice to answer 
pag. 91.  That all God's counsel was preached, but not written, because S. Paul was an Apostle of that 
Rom. 1. Act. 26.  Gospel, which was promised by the Prophets, & taught no other thing, then that the Prophets had foretold. But this proveth no more of S. Paul, then of all the Apostles. For they were all Apostles of the same Gospel, and taught the same doctrine, which he did, and yet some of them wrote never a word. Some show it hath to prove, that all which S. Paul preached was written by the Prophets 
Sup. c. 1. parag. 7. & 8.  which how it is to be understood hath been 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 rejecting Scripture followeth inward inspirations. Bel chargeth 
Bel pag. 93. untruth 77  him to contradict himself teaching else where the contrary, but citeth no place, because none is to be found) and to confound 
untruth 78  himself because he will not rely upon Gods written testimonies, but seek after unwritten vanities, and ground his faith upon them. Here Bel slandereth Bellarmin. For when did ever he or any Catholic refuse to rely upon Gods written testimony? when did they not account it a most infallible rule of faith? upon what vanities do they ground their faith? we confess 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 improve this Hic Rhodus, hic Saltus.  
8. Moreover he allegeth S. Austin 
Bel pag. 93. S. Augustin. count Adimant. cap. 3. to. 6.  writing. That there are no precepts, or promises in the doctrine of the Gospel, and Apostles, which are not in the old Testament. True. But as S. Austin afterward in express words recalled, 
S. Augustin. lib. 1. Retrac. c. 22. to. 1. S. Paul.  and corrected this error: so I would wish Bel to do: His third place is 2. Timoth 3. v. 15. Holy scriptures are able to make thee wise to salvation. This maketh not against us. both 
How Scriptures are able to make men wise to salvation.  because we deny not that Scriptures are able to make men wise to salvation: but only deny that they alone do it. As also because we grant, they actually contain whatsoever is necessary to every man's salvation, and virtually whatsoever else. And lastly because the foresaid 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 confess) absolutely sufficient, so as we may reject the new testament, they can not thereof infer Scripture to be so absolutely sufficient, as that we may reject Traditions. Now let us come to his proofs out of Fathers, which particularly proceed against Traditions.   

CHAP. FOUR Bells arguments out of Father's touching sufficiency of Scripture, and Traditions answered.  
VIncentius lyrin: who lived in S. Augustine's 
Vincent. Lyrin. con. haereses.  time Writeth. That he inquiring of many holy and learned men. How he should escape heresy: they all answered him by sticking to Scripture and the Church's Traditions. And. S. 
S. Ireney lib. 3. c. ●.  Ireney writeth of himself, that by traditions of the Church of Rome, he confounded all those that teach otherwise then they should. No marvel therefore if Bel being desirous no● to escape, but to spread heresy, and loath to be 
Old heretics detest traditions. S. Iren. Tortullian. S. Hilary. S. Augustin. c. 1. to. 6. S. Epiphan.  confounded, do with the old heretics Marcionits, and Valentinians: ex Iren: l. 3. c. 2. and Tertul. de praescrip▪ with the Ariosto 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 Eutychians ex. 7. Synod. 
7. Synod.  act. 1. impugn Traditions. And let not the Reader marvel that Bel bringeth the words of divers Fathers against Traditions, which almost all are objections taken out of Bellarmin. 
Bollarm. lib. 4. de verbo Dei c. 11.  For they make no more for his purpose, than the words of Scripture did for the Devil. or jews, when they alleged them 
Math. 4. v. 6. joan. 12. v. 34.  against Christ. And we Will bring such express words of the same Fathers for Traditions, as shall clear all suspicion, and can admit no solution.  
2. First he citeth Dionis. Areopag. saying 
Bel pag. 94. S. Dionys. de diu. nom. c. 1.  we must neither speak nor think any thing of the Deity (praeter ea) beside those things, which Scriptures have revealed. I might except, that Protestants deny Dionis. Areopag. to be 
Centur. Cent. 1. lib. 1. c. 10. Luther. & Caluin. ex Bellarm. l. 2. de Monachis c. 5.  author of those books, but I need not. For the words make nothing to the purpose; both because they forbidden only speaking or thinking of the Deity beside that which Scripture revealeth: as also because by (praeter) he understandeth not every thing out of Scripture, else we should not use the words Trinity, and Consubstantiality but only such as are quite beside, and neither actually nor virtually are contained in Scripture. But let S. Dionis. tel plainly his own mind concerning Traditions, Those first Captains (saith he) and Princes of our Hierarchy have 
S. Dionys. l. de ecclesiastic. Hierarch. c. 1.  delivered unto us divine, and immaterial matters partly by written, partly by their unwritten institutions. How could Apostolical Traditions be more plainly avouched.  
3. Two places Bel bringeth out of S. Austin, 
S. Augustin. 2. de doct. Christian. c. 6. & 2. de peccat. mer. & remiss. ●. vlt.  which because we alleged them in cap. 1. conclus. 2. and prove no more than is there taught I omit. And as for S. Austin, he not only avoucheth Apostolical Traditions, epist. 118. but de Genes. ad litt. l. 10. c. 23. tom. 3. professeth, that baptism of infants were not to be believed, if it were not an Apostolical tradition, and objecteth them against the Pelagians in lib. cont. julian. amoni, and giveth us this rule to know them. If 
S. Augustine's rule to know Apostolical traditions. S. Ireney lib. 3. c. 1.  the whole Church observe them and no Council appointed them: l. 2. de bapt. c. 7. 6. 23 24 S. Ireney he citeth, because he writeth That the Gospel which the Apostles preached, they afterwards delivered unto us in Scriptures, and it is the foundation of our faith. These words prove no more than that the Apostles preached not one Gospel, & writ an other, but one and the self same. But that every one of them, or any one of them writ every whit they all preached S. Ireney affirmeth not. And his affection to Traditions is evident, both out of his words before rehearsed, as also lib. 3. c. 4. where he saith we ought to 
S. Ireney.  keep Traditions, though the Apostles had written nothing. And affirmeth many barbarous nations of his time, to have believed in Christ, kept the doctrine of salvation, and ancient Tradition without Scripture.  
4. The next he produceth is Tertullian 
●el pag. 95. Tertul. con. Hermogen.  writing thus, I reverence the fullness of Scripture, which showeth to me the Maker, and the things made. And soon after. But whither all things were made of subjacent matter. I have no where read, let Hermogenes shop show it written. If it be not written, let him fear that we provided for them that add or take away. Answer. Tertullian speaketh of one particular matter, which the heretic Hermogenes of his own head, not only without Tradition, or Scripture, both contrary to both, taught of creating the world of subjacent matter, & not of nothing. And no marvel if Tertullian said the Scripture was full in this point, and required Scripture of Hermogenes, for proof of his heresy; being sure he could allege no Tradition. But for true Traditions, Tertullian is so great a manteiner of them, as lib. de prescrip. he thinketh heretics 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 uxorem.  divers things to be practised in the Church as the ceremonies in baptism, sign of the Cross, and such like, only by authority of Tradition without all proof of Scripture. where of (saith he) Tradition is the beginner, custom conserver, and faith the observer.  
5. Of S. Cyprian Bel much triumpheth, 
Bel pag. 96.  because writing against one particular 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 baptised by heretics, which he thought had been a mere human and mistaken tradition, he saith. Cometh it from our Lord, or the Gospel's authority? Cometh it from the Apostles precepts, or epistles? For God witnesseth that the things are to be done, which are written, and proposeth to jesus Name saying. Let not the book of this law departed from thy mouth, but thou shalt meditate therein day, and night, that thou mayst observe to do all things that are written in it. If therefore it be commanded in the Gospel, or contained in epistles of Apostles, or acts, that who came from any heresy be not baptised, but hands imposed upon them for penance, let this divine, and holy Tradition be kept.  
6. These words at the first view seem to make for Bel, but if the cause and circumstances of S. Cyprians writing be considered, 
S. Cyprian.  they make rather against him. S. Cyprian never rejected all Traditions (yea by it l. 2. epist. 3. he proved water to be mingled with wine in the sacrifice, and in the epistle cited by Bel, biddeth us recurre to Apostolical Tradition) but only the foresaid Tradition, because he thought as he saith epist. ad jubaian. that it was never before commanded or written, but (as he writeth epist, ad Quint:) mistaken for an other Tradition of not rebaptizing such as fall into heresy. Wherefore Bell pag. 118 most falsely affirmeth 
79 untruth S. Cyprian. Epist. ad jubaian. ad Pompeium ad Quintinum. Euseb. lib. 7. c. 3.  that he sharply reproved P. Steeven for leaning to Tradition. For he reproved him only for leaning to a mistaken (as he supposed Tradition) And as it is evident out of his epistles, and the histories of that time, the question betwixt him and S. Steeven pope, was not whether Tradition were to be observed, or no, but whether this were a true Tradition or no. Wherein, S. Cyprian erroneously thinking it to be a mistaken tradition, argued against it as he did, demanding Scripture for proof thereof, which he would never have done, if he had not thought it to have been mistaken. The most therefore that Bel hath out of S. Cyprian for himself, is, that what is not true tradition, must be proved by Scripture, which I willingly grant, but it maketh nothing for his purpose, as is evident. 
S. Augustin. lib. de vnic. bapt. c. 13. l. 1. de bapt. count. Donat. c. 18. 39 epist. 48. Vincent. Lyrin. contr. ●aeres.   
7. But many things I observe in S. Cyprian which make against Bel. 1 He admitteth divers Traditions: Bel rejecteth al. 2. He impugneth one only Tradition: Bel impugneth al. 3. He erred in impugning one, and much more Bell in impugning al. 4. He recanted his error before his death as S. 
S. Augustin. l. 6. de bapt. c. 2. S. Hieron. dial. contr. Luciferian.  Austin thinketh, and of his fellow bishops S. Hierom testifieth: Bel persisteth obstinately. 5. He erred in a new question, and not determined in a full Council saith S. Austin: Bel erreth in ancient matters decided 
S. August. l. de vinc. baptism. c. 13. & lib. 5. de bapt. c. 17. S. Cyprian. epist. ad jubaian. S. Hieron. contr. Lucifer. August. sup. S. Cyprian. epistol. ad Pompey. Euseb. lib. 7. c. 3. Vincen. cont. haeres. S. Cyprian. l. 1. epist. 3.  by many general Counsels. 6. He although he thought the Pope did err, yet separated not himself (as Bel doth) from his communion as himself and S. Hierom testifieth. 7. He condemned none that followed the Pope's opinion against his, as Bel doth. 8. He thought the Pope to err in a commandment only of a thing to be done: Bel condemneth him of errors in his judicial sentences of faith, where as S. Cyprian professeth, that false faith can have no access to S. Peter's chair: 9 He disobeyed for a time the Pope's commandment concerning a new, and difficult question: Bel disobeyeth obstinately his definative sentence.  
8. Hereby we see how little S. Cyprian maketh 
See S. Austin lib. 2. contr. Crescon c. 31. 32. to. 7. S. Austin.  for Bel, and though he had made more for him, let him know from S. Austin: lib. de vnic. bapt. c. 13. and lib. 1. de bapt. count Donatist. c. 18. and epist. 18. that this error was in S. Cyprian. an human and venial error and like a blemish in a most white breast, because it was not then perfectly defined by the Church. But in his followers (saith he: lib. 1. cit. c. 19 it is smoke of hellish filthiness, and as Vincent 
Vincent. Lyrin.  Lyrin writeth The author was Catholicque, his followers are judged heretics, he absolved, they condemned, he a child of heaven, they of hell. And let the Reader gather by this example, the 
Example of the force of tradition and the Pope's judgement.  authority of Tradition and Pope. For if one Tradition prevailed then against S. Cyprian, and a whole Council of Bishops, alleging divers places of Scripture, much more it will prevail against Protestants. And if the Pope's judgement even then, when it seemed to many holy, and learned Bishops, to be against Scripture, & was supported only by Tradition, did prevail, and they at last condemned as Heretics, who resisted: much more it will praevaile against Protestants, being upholden not only by Tradition, but by manifest Scripture also. And Bel in blaming S. Steeven Pope, for pretending 
80 untruth  (as he saith) false authority showeth himself to be a malapert minister, seeing S. Cyprian never reprehended him for any 
S. Cyprian.  such matter: yea lib. 1. epist. 3. acknowledgeth in the Church one Priest, and judge, who is Christ's Vicar, meaning the Pope as is evident: because lib, 2. epist. 10. he saith that the Novatians in making a false Bishop of Rome, made a false head of the Church and l. 1. epist. 8. and epist. ad jubaian: that Christ builded his Church upon S. Peter. And as for S. Steeven, Vincent Lirin: highly 
Vincent. Lyrin. con. haereses. S. Augustin. lib. de unie. bapt. count Petil. c. 14. Bel pag 97. S. Athanas.  commendeth him, and the very Donatists as S. Austin writeth, confessed, that he incorruptly governed his Bishopric.  
9 Next he citeth S. Athanasius cont. Idol: saying That Scriptures suffice to show the truth. True. But that truth whereof S. Athanasius there disputed against Gentiles, to wit that Christ was God, as he himself explicateth in these words: I speak of our belief in Christ. But (saith Bel.) He had made a foolish argument, and concluded nothing at all, if any necessary truth had not been fully contained in Scripture, As though S Athanasius had in these words argued against Gentiles, in which he only gave a cause why he wrote that treatise. Because (saith he) Though Scriptures suffice to show the truth, and divers have written of the same matter (which argueth that he spoke of some determinate truth) yet because their writings are not at hand, I thought good to write. But suppose he had argued, what folly is in this argument? All contained in Scripture is truth: Christ's godhead is there contained. Ergo it is truth. But perhaps Bells dull head thought it all one to say. All contained in Scripture is truth (whereupon the said Syllogism dependeth) & Scripture containeth all truth. As for S. Athanasius his reverence of Traditions, it is evident by his proving 
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 allegeth writing: 
Bel pag. 98. S. Epiphan. haer. 65 Chapt. 1. parag. 8. S. Epiphan.  That we can tell the finding of every question by consequence of Scripture. But these words have been explicated before. As for Tradition, he saith hear. 61. We must use it, for allthings can not be taken out of Scripture, For the Apostles have delivered some things by writing, some things by Tradition: The like he saith hear. 55. and 75. S. Cyril he citeth where he saith. That we 
S. Cyrill. lib. 2. de recta fid. ad Regin.  must follow Scriptures, & in nothing departed from their prescript: This maketh not against us, who profess so to do, and yet Withal follow Traditions. And what account S Cyril 
S. Cyril.  made of Traditions appeareth by his observing lent. lib. 10. in levit. and use of the Cross. lib. 6. in julian. which are Traditions Apostolical as witness 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 mind wavereth sometimes doubting, sometimes assenting, otherwhile denying. But marvel it is that Bel would touch S. Chrisostome, 
S. Chrysost.  who hom. 42. Thesal. upon these words: (Hold Traditions) saith. Hence it appeareth, that (the Apostles) delivered not allthings by letters: And the one as well as the other are worthy of the same credit. wherefore we think the Church's Traditions to deserve belief. It is a Tradition (mark Bel) ask no more. And if Bel had cited the words immediately before, he had explicated of what kind of speaking without Scripture S. Chrisostom meant, namely (sine testibus solaque animi cogitation) without witnesses, and of his own head. But Churches Traditions have her for witness, & descend from the Apostles. another 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 therefore his testimony is worth nothing, otherwise than he agreeth with holy fathers: though his saying cited by Bel: That all is fulfilled in Scripture which is sought to salvation, 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.  us not to believe argument, and disputations, but ask the Scriptures, Apostles, Prophets, and Christ. This maketh rather for us; because it alloweth inquiring of others besides Scriptures, namely of Apostles from whom the Church's Traditions came. And nothing against Traditions, because they be no arguments, or disputations. And indeed S. Ambrose meaneth of human arguments, and reasons such as in the Chapter before he said the Arians used, to prove Christ to be unlike to his Father. Besides he speaketh only concerning one point uz. the consubstantiality of Christ. And therefore though he had bidden us therein seek only Scripture he had nothing prejudicated Traditions, which plainly he maintaineth ser. 25. 34. 36. 38. epist 
S. Ambros.  81. and other where. Only I marvel wherefore Bel corrupted S. Ambrose his words. 
Corrupt. of Fathers.  For where he saith we deny, yea abhor Bel maketh him say, we deny not, but abhor, Making S. Ambros teach heresy in granting Christ to be unlike his Father, which was the matter he spoke of, and to speak absurdly in abhorring a speech which he doth not deny.  
13. S. Basil he citeth saying whatsoever is (
Bel pag. 99 S. Basil. in Ethic. defin. vlt & ad Eustachium ●icdicum.  extra scripturam) out of the Scriptue seeing it is not of faith is sin. And in an other place. Let us stand to the judgement of Scripture, and let the truth be judged on their side, whose doctrine is agreeable to God's oracles. Answer. In the first place by extra scripturam he understandeth things contrary to Scripture, as in the same place he understandeth with the Apostle by non ex fide things contrary to faith, as appeareth. both because he saith such things are sin, which is not true of things which are barely beside Scripture. as also because he proveth such things to be sin, because they be non ex fide contrary to faith, as the Apostle speaketh Rom. 14. v. 23. Beside, by Scripture he understandeth all God's words, as usually we understand the whole by the chiefest part. Which may be proved, because before he defined faith to be certain persuasion of God's word, & affirmed it to a rise of hearing God's word, and thereupon inferreth, what is beside Scripture is not of faith. In which illation, if he took not Scripture for God's whole word, as he did in the Antecedent, he did manifestly paralogize. And thus understood, he speaketh nothing against Traditions, which are part of God's word, and as himself saith otherwhere of as equal 
S. Basil. lib. de Spir. c. 27. & 29.  force as the written word is.  
14. The second place maketh nothing to the purpose. For he biddeth not us be judged by only Scripture, yea in allowing those opinions for true, which are agreeable to Scripture, he insinuateth that to discern the truth of opinions, it is not necessary to prove them out of Scripture, so they be consonant thereto. How earnest a defender of Traditions S. Basil was, appeareth lib. de spir. c. 
S. Basil.  29 I think (quoth he) it an Apostolical thing to stick unto Traditions not written and c. 27. Some doctrine we have by writing, some we received of the Apostles Tradition, and both have equal force to piety. Nor any contradicteth these (mark Bel) who never so slenderly have experienced the rights of the Church And c. 10. he writeth. That Heretics abolish Apostolical Tradition, 
A Trick of Heretics to reject tradition. Bel pag 99 S. Hierom.  and reject written testimonies of Fathers as of no account.  
15. The last Father he citeth is S. Hierom, out of whom he allegeth three places. The first is in math. 23. This because it hath no authority from Scripture is as easily rejected, as it is affirmed. The second is in psal. 86. where upon that verse Dominus narrabit in scriptures populorum. he saith. God will show not by word, but by Scripture, that excepting the Apostles, what is said afterward shall have no authority. The third place is in Hierem. c. 4. That we must not follow the error of our Ancestors or parents, but authority of Scriptures, and command of God teaching. Answer: In the first place S. Hierom speaketh of a particular opinion vz: That Zacharias who was slain between the Temple and the Altar was S. John Baptists father: which he supposeth to have been no Apostolical Tradition, and therefore of it saith, because it is not proved out of Scripture, it is as easily rejected as affirmed. But what S. Hierom writeth of a particular opinion held without tradition, Bel can not justly extend to certain Traditions. The second place maketh nothing against us. 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 own word, and authority any new doctrine, as Montanus, and such like Heretics did, but only that, which they received from the Apostles, who were as S. Paul saith, Eph. 2. v. 20 our foundation. The third place maketh les to the purpose. For tradition is no error of Ancestors. And Scripture we grant 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. count Lucif. where he confesseth it to be the custom of the 
S. Hierome.  Church, to observe many things by tradition, as if they were written laws. And epist. ad Marcel. receiveth lent. and lib. cont. Heluid: defendeth our Lady's perpetual virginity only by tradition.  
16. Many more Fathers I might allege for traditions. But I content myself with the testimonies of them, whom Bel brought for the contrary. Let the indifferent Reader weigh the places cited by him, and me, and uprightly judge as he tendereth his salvation; Whether the holy Fathers rejected, or embraced ecclesiastical traditions. Perhaps Bel will answer. That the Fathers contradict themselves, and say as the false mother did. Let them be neither mine nor thine, but be divided. 
3. Reg. 3. v. 26.  But who remembreth salomon's judgement, will by this alone perceive to whom of right the Fathers belong. I have answered all that Bel hath brought out of them, and most of the authorities alleged by me (especially those of S. Dionis. S. Epipha: S. Chrisost. S. Basil) admit no answer at all: Now let us come to Bells arguments out of Catholic writers.   

CHAP. V Bells arguments out of late Catholic writers touching sufficiency of Scriptures and Traditions answered.  
THE first he allegeth is the learned 
Bel p. 100 Roffensis artic. 37. Luther.  and holy Bishop Fisher (whom he untruly termeth a canonised Saint with us) Because in one place he calleth Scripture the storehouse of all truths necessary to be known of Christians. And in an other saith when heretics 
Veritate 4. count art. Lutheri.  contend with us we ought to defend our cause with other help then Scripture. Because (saith Bel) Popery can not be defended by Scripture, and avoucheth 
untruth 81.  Papists to confess, That they can not maintain their faith by Gods written word. Answer. How Scripture may be called a Storehouse of all 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 proved out of scripture, yet it ought to be believed for Tradition. And in the second place he neither saith absolutely; That we ought not to prove our faith, out of Scripture at all, neither to catholics, nor to Heretics: Nor that we ought not to prove it out of Scripture even against Heretics: For himself so proveth it against Luther, And much less saith. That we can not prove it out of Scripture (as Bel falsely forgeth) But his meaning is, That when we dispute with Heretics, we ought to have aliud subsidium quam scripturae: other proofs beside Scripture, & hereof he giveth four reasons.  
2. First because Luther professed to believe Purgatory though it were not in Scripture: 2. Because Scriptures in some points at the first sight, and in words seem to favour Heretics more than Catholics, as appeareth in the controversy between S. Hierom, & helvidius about our Ladies perpetual virginity 3. Because Heretics deny many parts of Scripture. 4. Because though they admit the words, yet they pervert 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 evident that it alone sufficeth to convince an heretic, when to contend about it wearyeth (as the same Tertullian writeth) the constant, over turneth the weak, and scandalizeth the middle sort. Whereupon he adviseth 
Sup. cap. 19  us wisely That in disputing with Heretics before we come to proofs out of Scripture, we try whose the Scriptures are, & to whose possession of, right they belong. For that being cleared it will soon appear (saith he) who hath the true Christian faith the true understanding of Scripture, and all Christian Traditions. And the same meant B. Fisher who also citeth Tertul. & his words make rather for Traditions then against them. And if this course were taken with Protestants, they would be quickly confounded. For they (as Dove confesseth and it is evident) 
Dove of Recusancy. p. 13.  had the Scripture from us, not by gift, or loan; For we neither gave nor lent them to Protestants; but by theft, and stealth, as Turks and Infidels may have them, and therefore are wrong usurpers of our goods and possessions, and justly may we say to them with Tertullian. When & whence came 
Supra c. 37.  you? what do you in my possession being none of mine? By what right Martion (Luther) dost thousel my wood? with what licence Valentine (Caluin) dost thou turn a way my fowntains; With what authority Apelles (Beza) dost thou move my limits? It is my possession what do you others sow, and feed at your pleasure? It is my possession, I possess it of old, I possess it first, I have strong originals from the Authors whose the thing was. Thus Tertullian. And here I omit that Bel citeth an apocryphal sentence out of Esdr. 3. 4. under the name of the wise man as if it were salomon's.  
3. Next he allegeth Canus his words. 
Bel p. 101.  Seeing the Canon of Scripture is perfect, and most 
Canus de locis lib. 7. c. 3.  sufficient to all things, what need the understanding, and authority of Saints be adjoined thereto. But Bel forgot to tell that Canus proposeth this only as an objection; which he answereth by denying the illation therein included. Because (saith he) the Fathers, are needful to right understand the Scripture, Nether denying nor granting 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 wolves & Heretics, which refuse the Church's 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 words, or sense, But this is nothing against Tradition of other things another place he citeth out of ●. p. q. 42. ar. 4. Whatsoever Christ would have us read of his doing, and sayings, he commanded the Apostles to write. as with his own hands. This also maketh nothing against us. Both because S. Thomas saith not what Christ would have us believe, but what he would have us read, and Traditions be such as Christ would have us believe, though we read them not, as appeareth by his Apostle 2. Thess. 2. v. 15. Ho●d the Traditions which you have learned, either by speech or by my epistle. As also because S. Thomas speaketh not of all points of belief, but only of Christ's sayings, and doings, besides which the very sayings, and doings of the Apostles recorded in their acts, & epistles, or testified by Tradition, are to be believed. I omit a petty untruth, which Bel 
untruth 82  often repeareth. That we neither will nor can deny S. Thomas doctrine. But S. Thomas his 
S. Thomas.  mind concerning Traditions appeareth by his words. 2. Thess. 2. It is evident that there are things unwritten in the Church, taught by the Apostles, and therefore to be kept: For as S. Dionis. saith. The Apostles thought it better to conceal many things.  
5. He citeth also Victoria saying. I am 
Bel p. 103. Victoria de sacrament.  not certain of it, though all say it, which is not contained in Scripture. But Victoria meaneth of things spoken not by Tradition, but by probable opinion, as the conception of our lady without original sin, and such like: or he meaneth of things neither actually nor virtually contained in Scripture, as Traditions be according to our 2. Conclusion cap 1. another place he allegeth out of Victoria writing, That for opinions 
Victor. de augmento charitatis relect. 8.  we ought no way to departed from the rule of Scriptures. What is this to the purpose? Let Bel prove that we either for opinions, or any thing else departed from Scripture, and let him not slander us as he doth, That we believe 
Bel p. 103. 83. untruth.  whatsoever the Pope telleth us, though it be never so repugnant to Scripture. For who shall 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 little for him S. Anselm saith that Scripture, (and meaneth the old Testament) can make one sufficiently learned to get salvation, to keep the commandments, and what is more is not of necessity but of supererogation. Which how little it maketh against the belief of Traditions were supererogation to declare. And thus much touching the sufficiency of Scriptures: now let us entreat of their hardness, or difficulty.   

CHAP. VI Of the Difficulty or easiness of Scriptures.  
SCRIPTURES are difficult, and hard 
Scriptures.  to understand. This is against Bel pag. 107. but expressly taught by S. Peter, 2. Pet. 
●. Peter.  3. v. 16. where speaking of S. Paul's epistles he saith. In which are some things hard to be understood. To this Bel frameth three answers. 
Bel p. 107.  First that S. Peter saith not the whole Scripture is hard to understand, but some things in S. Paul's epistles. This is not to the purpose; because we say not that the whole Scripture, that is every part thereof, is hard to understand: But grant with S. Chrysostom. 2. 
S. Chrysost. & Contion. 3. de Lazaro.  Thessaly. hom. 3. Whatsoever is necessary (to every man's salvation) is manifest out of Scripture. And with S. Austin lib. 2 doct. Christ. 
S. Austin.  c. 9 All those things which concern faith and manners are plainly set down in Scripture. And lib. 2. de pec. mer. & remiss. c. vlt. tom. 7. I believe even in this point we should have most clear testimony of God's word, if man could not be ignorant of it without loss of salvation. Yet 
Lex partim in aperto est partim etiam invelatis tegitur Nazianz. orat. ●. de Theolog.  withal affirm with the same holy Doctor in psal. 140. If Scripture were no where obscure it would not exercise us. And the like he saith serm. 13. de verb. Apost. Only we affirm that absolutely the Scripture is hard, and to 
The Scripture absolutely hard though not every 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 unlearned, which are unstable. And like is his third answer. That they are hard to the wicked, which deprave them. But to answer thus is in deed to deprave Scriptures, and to show himself to be one of the unlearned, and unstable, whereof S. Peter speaketh. For S. Peter absolutely saith some things in S. Paul's epistles are hard, not respectively to these or other kind of men. In which (epistles) saith S. Peter) 
S. Peter.  some things are hard to be understood, which the unlearned, and unstable deprave to their own perdition. Behold he saith not some things are hard to the unlearned, and unstable, but absolutely some things are hard, which hard things the unlearned, and unstable deprave. And as S. Austin saith lib. de fid. & oper. c, 
S. Augustin, tom. 4.  14. one special hardness meant by S. Peter in S. Paul's epistles is his difficult speech, and high commendation of justifying faith, which now Protestant's deprave to their own perdition, in gathering thereof that faith alone doth justify, as some gathered in the Apostles time, against which opinion especially (as the same holy Doctor witnesseth) S Peter, S John S. james, and S. Jude 
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 upon the foundation. etc.  
3. Again if Scriptures 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 himself testifieth epist. ad Paulin:) If he understood them? What meant the Eunuch 
Act. 8. v. 30. v. 31.  to answer. 6 How can I if some do not show me? Can not an holy man so wise as he was, being Treasurer to the Q: of Ethiopia understand easy matters? If Scriptures be so easy what need had K. David to pray for 
Psalm. 118. v. 34. Ib. v. 18.  understanding to search God's law: for opening his eyes to consider the wonders of it? what happened to the Apostles that they could not understand Christ's parables? what 
Math. 13. v 36. c. 15. v. 16.  needed the gift of interpretation given to some: 1. corinth. 12. v. 10. Nay all are interpreters if the Scripture be clear to al.  
4. Origen saith that Scripture is revera 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 joannem. ●om. 3.  That Christ bid not read, but search Scriptures, because summa indigent diligentia they need great study. S. Hierom writeth that all 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 involuta wrapped in excessive obscurities. That the apocalypse hath as many mysteries as words. S. Austin noteth, That to tame our pride some things are so obscurely said as densissimam caliginem obducunt they bring over a most thick darkness. And will Bel account that clear which the glistering beam of God's Church (for so Bel termeth S. Austin) accounted so dark and obscure. And epist. 119. c. 21. professeth to be ignorant of many more things in Scripture than he knoweth: If Bel after our holy Fathers, please to hear his own unholy syers'. Luther telleth him 
Luther. praefat. in psal.  that he is most impudently rash who professeth to know one book of Scripture in all 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 fall upon many obscure places which convince us of ignorance. Nay to what purpose doth Bel require the commentaries of Fathers for better understanding of Scriptures, if there be no difficulty in them.  
5. Finally if our common laws handling nothing but buying, selling, bargaining, and such common, and usual matters, as are daily practised of men, be so hard and difficult, as they require great study to be well understood, and Clients will give great fees for Lawyers counsel in them, what shall we think of God's laws, which entreat of divine, and supernatural things, far above man's reach, and capacity. Or if as S. Austin 
S. Augustin. tom. 6.  saith lib. de util. cred. c. 7. He that hath no skill in poetry, dare not meddle with Terentian Maurus without a master, Asper, Cornutus, Donatus and infinite others are requisite to understand any Poet, and dost thou without a guide rush upon holy books full of divine matters? O exceeding boldness or rather madness. And again: If every 
I●. cap. vlt.  art though base and easy require a teacher, or master to get it, what is more foolish heady pride, than not to learn the book of divine sacraments of their interpreters? Now let us hear Bells reasons to the contrary.  
6. Solomon (saith he) Proverb. 8. v. 8. 9 teacheth 
Bells Arguments. p. 108.  That the words of wisdom are easy and open to every one of understanding. But let us hear Solomon himself. Al my speeches are just, there is not in them any thing wicked or perverse. They are right to such as understand, and even to such as find knowledge. What word is here of easiness, or manifestnes of God's words? but only of their uprightness, and equity. And let Bel learn of S. Austin in psal. 146. to. 8. 
S. Austin.  That in Scripture there is nothing perverse, but some thing obscure. But perhaps Bells english Bible deceived him, which to deceive the Reader used the ambiguity of the english 
Bible printed 1584.  word (plain) which may signify either manifest or even) for the latin word (aequi.)  
7. After this Bell citeth divers places of 
pag. 108. Psal. 25. v. 9 joan. 7. v. 17. joan. 8. v. 31. 32. Math. 11. v. 25. S Paul.  Scripture to prove That God revealeth his will to all that fear him, to little ones: That the doers of his will know his doctrine and truth. But seeing it is no where said That God revealeth his will, or the good know it, by bare reading his word, but rather the contrary; because faith cometh of hearing, and how shall they hear without a preacher Rom. 10. v. 17. 15. These places make nothing for easiness of Scripture. Besides that they may be expounded, not of God's will in all points, but in such as are necessary to every man's salvation, which we grant to be plainly revealed 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 lantern, light or candle: and That the spiritual man judgeth, or (as he expoundeth) understandeth all things: for they be answered hereafter.  
8. He allegeth S. Chrisostom saying. what need we a preacher? our negligence hath brought this necessity. For to what end is a sermon needful. All things are clear and plain out of Scriptures: what things soever are necessary are manifest: But S. Chrisostom speaketh not of all 
S. Chrysost. hom 3. in 2. Thessalon.  things in Scripture, but only of such as are necessary to every one's salvation, as is evident by his last words And such need no preacher for to be understood, though they need to be believed as S. Paul testifieth 
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 clear, what askest thou the obscure? And hom. 10. in joan. he biddeth 
S. Chrysost. item Contion. 3. de Lazaro.  men note which is clear which obscure in Scripture, and to hearken the exposition of them in the Church. And for such points, preachers, and preaching is as necessary now to us, as well for understanding as for believing them, as they were to the Eunuch. act. 8. to the two disciples Luc. 24. Other places he 
Homil. 9 Coloss. and Contion. 3. de Lazaro.  citeth out of S. Chrysostome concerning reading of Scripture which shall be answered in his proper place.  
9 What hath been answered to the words of S. Chrysostom is to be applied to the like in S. Austin lib. 2. de doct. Christ. 
S. Augustin. tom.  c. 9 In these things which are plainly set down in Scripture are found, all those things which concern faith and manners. For he saith not absolutely. All things: but all those things: thereby insinuating that he meaneth only of things necessary to be believed, and done of every one: which Bel perceiving in englishing 
False translat.  his words left out the word. Those. But I marvel 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 provide for hunger (desire of knowledge) and by obscurer wipe away loathsomeness. For here he plainly teacheth Scripture to be obscure in some places. But perhaps it is because S. Austin addeth. Almost nothing is in the obscure places, which is not most plainly uttered otherwhere. But this helpeth Bel nothing. For neither saith he that all obscurities are plainly other where explicated. Nor that it is plain in what places they are explicated. And so S. Austin admitting some obscure places of Scripture to be no where explicated in Scripture, and supposing it not to be plain in what places such obscure places as are explicated, be explicated, admitteth Scripture to be obscure. another place he citeth 
Bel p. 111. 112. 113.  out of S. Austin, as also S. Hierom and Theodoret concerning reading of Scriptures, which shall be answered in the next chapter.   

CHAP. VII. Of the vulgar people's reading Scripture.  
FIRST conclusion, it is not necessary to all sorts of people, that desire to attain to eternal life to read Scriptures. The contrary avoucheth Bel pag. 103. & 109. wherein he exceedeth the heretic Pelagius who required not reading, but only knowledge of Scripture for to be without sin, & thereby condemned a great part of Christians as S. Hierom writeth dialog. 1. cont. Pelag. But 
S. Hierom.  it is so manifest as it needeth no proof. For how should they do that can not read? Doth Bel think Scripture to be like a neck verse, that who can not read it, shall be hanged? where doth God command every one upon pain of death to read Scriptures? whence came this new law which Bel proclaimeth? But mark Reader, Protestants taught at first that no works were necessary to salvation. And now Bel avoucheth one more (uz. reading of Scriptures) then ever Catholics dreamt on.  
2. Second conclusion, It is not expedient 
See S. Gregor. Nazianzen. in Apologet. & orat. 1. de Theolog.  for every one of the vulgar sort to read Scriptures. This I prove because unlearned, and unstable persons deprave the Scripture to their own perdition. Many of the vulgar sort are unlearned, and unstable. Therefore many of them ought not to read Scripture. The Minor is evident. The Mayor is averred by S. Peter 2. c. 3. v. 16. and proved by 
Hacket. More. Ket Hammont. See Stow Ann. 1561. 1579.  daily experience of new Christ's, new jews, new heresies daily gathered out of Scripture. And in truth the Protestants counseling of common people to read Scriptures, is much like to the Devils persuading of Eve to eat the Apple. He asked Eve why God forbade her to eat? they ask: why the Church forbiddeth us to read? And both answering alike: He replieth you shall not die but become like Gods. They say you shall not fall into errors, but become like Divines. And the event is like in both. Eve by eating fell out of Paradise, and incurred death: simple people by reading die in soul, & fall out of the Church.  
3. But saith Bel. A good should not be 
Bel p. 107.  taken wholly from the godly for fault of the bad. Answer. The godly are not debarred from reading Scripture if they be desirous, and judged by their Pastors to be such as will reap good thereby. Nevertheless they ought not without licence, lest as S. Austin 
S. Augustin. lib. de utilit. credend. c. 10. tom. 6.  writeth in the like case. Though they hurt not themselves by reading, they may hurt others by example. As he that could fly be made to go lest his example provoke others to so perilous attempt. This (saith he) is the providence of true religion, and delivered from our Ancestors, and to alter this course were nothing else then to seek a sacriledgious way to true religion. Moreover though a thing be good in itself, yet it is not good but to such as know how to use it; But every one of the common people knoweth not how to use Scripture. For as Gregory Nazianzen 
S. Nazianz. orat. Quod non liceat semper & publice de Deo contendere. In Apologetico. S. Hierom. epistol. ad Paulin.  writeth The word of holy writ is not so base, that it is open to the unlearned common sort, and silly men creeping as yet upon the ground. And again To some it is better to be taught by others. And S. Hierom complaineth that every one challengeth the knowledge of Scripture, and that the chatting old wife, the doting old men, and the prating Sophister take it in hand. 
See Theodoret. lib. 4. c. 17.  What would he say now if he saw Protestants children reading Scripture, and taught to read english by the Bible? Now let us see Bells objections.  
4. Bel allegeth S. Chrisostom as affirming 
Bel p. 103. 104. S. Chrysost. proaem. ep. ad Rom.  1. That if we read Scripture seriously we shall need no other thing. ●. That it is a great shame for men charged with wife and children only to hear sermons, and not withal to study Scriptures. 3. That many evils come of ignorance of Scripture, as heresies, and dissolute life. Answer. The first point is not against us, who grant that in reading Scripture we may find all things necessary. But the question now is whither it be better for every one to find such things himself out of Scripture or no. As for the second point S. Chrisostom only saith that it is a shame not to exact more diligence of men in hearing sermons, then in gathering money. At  (saith he) be ready to hear what others have gathered, and bestow so much diligence in hearing what is said as in gathering money. For though it be a shame to exact but so much of you, yet will we be content if you perform so much. The third point is easily answered: because he saith 
Innumera mala nata sunt quod scripturae ignorantur. Christ. sup. untruth 84  not: That much mischief cometh of not reading (as Bel falsely affirmeth pag. 105) but of not knowing the Scripture: vz if men will neither read it themselves, nor hear it readd and expounded by preachers. Nether could he think that much mischief can come of not reading Scripture, if so be it be heard, seeing he promiseth to be content if men will hear it.  
5. another place he citeth out of S. 
Bel p. 105. S. Chrysost. hom. 29. in 9 c. Genes. tom. 1.  Chrisostom where he exhorteth men auscultare lectionem scripturae to hearken to the reading of Scripture. And again: At home to apply themselves to read Scriptures. Answer. The first part maketh nothing for reading, 
Differences betwixt S. Chrysost and Protestants.  but only for hearing Scripture as is evident. The second exhorteth to reading but 1. not every man woman, & child as Protestants do, but men, and namely such who (as he saith proem. epist. ad Rom.) have wives, charge of children, and family. And hom. 9 Colos. Hear you (saith he) who live in the world, have care of wives and children: who (as he writeth conc. 3. de Lazaro) have public offices, mantein wives, and children. And yet Bel will have 
Bel p. 110.  him to speak to both sexes as if both sexes had wives. As for women and children 
Hom. 9 ad Coloss. & hom. 37. 1. Cor.  he affirmeth That they ought to be instructed of men.  
6. Secondly he exhorteth not (as Protestants do) all kind of secular men, to wit unstable (as S. Peter calleth them) and inconstant 
S. Peter. 2. c. 8. v. 16.  in their faith. For such are like rather to deprave Scriptures to their perdition (as S. Peter testifieth) then to reap good by reading them. Thirdly the secular men whom he exhorteth, he exhorteth not (as Protestants do) to the reading equally of all parts of Scripture, but especially such as are plain, and easy, namely histories, as appeareth by these his words 2. Thess. hom. 3. 
S. Chrysost.  But thou wilt say they are obscure, what obscurity is this? I pray thee are there not Histories? Thou knowest which are clear, what askest thou of the obscure places? There are a thousand Histories in Scripture tell me one of them.  
7. Fourthly he exhorteth them not absolutely (as Protestants do) in all times, without regard of any occasion or circumstance: but seeing the people of Constantinople (to whom he preached) given (as he saith) to dissolute life, to idleness, to haunting 
Proaem. ep. ad Rom.  after dishonest shows, and riot, for to withdraw them from such vice, and to employ their time better, he exhorted them to buy bibles, and to read the Scripture; and upon this occasion he said. That the Apostle 
Homil. 9 Coloss. cit.  commanded to read the Scriptures diligently. And in like sort seeing their children to have learned devilish songs and dances (as 
Ibid.  he termeth them) for to take such from them he biddeth men to teach them to sing psalms. But how things ought absolutely to proceed, he uttereth in these words unto men. vos oportebat duntaxat à nobis institui, 
Ibid.  uxores vero à vobis, à vobis & liberos: you ought only to be instructed of us, but your wives, & children of you. And 1. Corinth. hom 37. he saith: That S. Paul appointed 
S Paul.  men to reach their wives, as indeed he did in these words. If they (women) list learn any thing let them ask their own husbands at home. 1. Corinth. 14. v. 35. And the like he hath 1. Tit. 2. Behold S. Paul bids women learn of their husbands. Bel bids them read, and learn of Scripture, let women choose whether they will follow.  
8. Fiftly▪ he exhorteth not secular men to read Scriptures with that mind, and 
A main difference betwixt. S. Chrysost. and Protestants.  purpose, which Protestants do, to wit upon curiosity, and to become their own interpreters following their own private spirits, and thereby to judge of the doctrine of the Church, and their Pastors, whom Christ hath given to expound Scriptures, lest they should be carried away with all wind of doctrine. 
Ephes. 4. v. 14.  But S. Chrysostoms' meaning was, that reading Scriptures for their comfort (as he writeth hom. 9 cit.) in adversity, for avoiding of vice, and such like holy purposes, they s●ould expound them according to their Pastor's instruction: you (saith 
See S. Chrysost. homil. 10. in joan. & 3. de Lazaro. Origen. 4. in Leuit. Author imperfecti.  he) ought to be instructed of us, and the Author imperfect. hom. 43. in Math. amongst other means, which he prescribeth to lay men to know the truth of Scripture, one is to ask the Priests whom he calls clavicularios scripturarum, key keepers of Scriptures. which is the right order prescribed by God himself Deutr. 17. v. 9 Agg. 2. v. 12. and Malach. 
Deuter. Aggae. Malach.  2. v. 7. And the contrary course observed by Protestants, maketh Christ to have given us needles Pastors, and Doctors, bidding 
Ephes. 4. v. 11. 1. Cor. 12. v. 28. Luc. 10. v. 16.  us hear them as himself, maketh every one his own Pastor, and to have the gift of interpretation contrary to S. Paul 1. Corinth. 12. v. 10. 30. And by this which hath been said is answered, whatsoever Bel allegeth out of S. Chrysos. pag. 108. 109. 111. and he sound to be quite against Protestants, and nothing against Catholics proceed. And though S. Chrysostom had given far more liberty to common 
Note this.  people to read Scriptures, than now the Church doth, as not having then experience of the harm redounding thereof, what marvel if the Church, finding by the experience of more than a thousand years since S. Chrysostoms' time, that more harm then good cometh thereby, hath abridged that licence? For as S. Austin saith 
S. Augustin. tom. 2.  Epist. 50 Experience of many evils maketh many medicines to be found.  
9 Now let us hear what Bel replieth 
Bel p. 116.  against this kind of answering to S. Chrysostoms' authority. First he saith, That the doctrine in the pulpit ought to be as true as in the School. This is true, but not to the purpose, because we reprove not S. Chrysostom of uttering untruths in the pulpit. Next he saith, That the doctrine in the pulpit ought to be as exact, and absolute as in the school, and the only difference is, that in the pulpit it hath the prick of exhortation, which is wanting in schools. What Sir? Are these speeches of S. Chrysostom 
S. Chrysost. hom. 3. in 2. Thessalon. Bel p. 108.  cited by yourself. What need a sermon? what need a preacher? as exact, and absolute as can be delivered in schools? Surely then your preaching is needles, and consequently the fifty pound pension given to you for it, may be well spared. Yea if the doctrine of pulpit, and schools be of like exactness, certes the auditors in both places are of like capacity, and so Bells divines be no better scholars than his common people.  
10. But little knoweth he what belongeth 
Bel knoweth not what belongeth to a sermon.  to sermons, who thinketh them to differ from school doctrine in nothing but in exhortation. Are amplifications, hyperboles, and like figures excluded as well from pulpits, as from schools? Are the same parts prescribed to be in a lecture by school men, which are by Orators to be in a sermon or oration. Doth Bel exact as strong proofs, and like propriety of words of an orator, or preacher persuading probably, and accommodating himself to the capacity of his hearers, as he doth of a Philosopher, or Divine teaching dogmatically. Sure I am that both Aristotle, and common sense teach 
Aristotel. 1. Ethic.  contrary. But Bel every where showeth himself to be one of them, who (as S. Paul saith) understand not what they say, or of what 
1. Timoth. 1. v. 7.  they talk.  
11. Again suppose that S. Chrysostom had spoken of this point, as exactly in the pulpit as any divine can in schools: what followeth thereof? Forsooth that Bells proposition 
pag. 103.  uz. That all persons of what sex, state, calling, or condition soever, may, and aught to read Scriptures, and can not otherwise attain to eternal life, passeth exact speech, and albounds of truth. Because S. Chrysostom hath no such exact words: yea the words which Bel wresteth to his purpose S. Chrysostom himself otherwise expoundeth as hath been showed. And thus much of Bells second reply to the foresaid answer.  
12. Thirdly (saith he) David, and the Berheans, had no regard of this popish distinction of 
pag. 116.  more exact speech uttered in schools, then in pulpit. Because David Psalm. 119. v. 9 affirmeth. That a young man shall cleanse his ways by study, meditation, and keeping of Gods la. The Berrheans 
Corrupt. of Script.  searched the Scriptures, and examined the Apostles doctrine by them. Answer. David 
Psalm. 118. al. 119. v. 9  saith: A young man shall correct his ways by keeping Gods laws. But study, and meditation are added by Bel, I wonder he added not also reading. But suppose David had said. That a young man amendeth his life by reading Scripture, shall we infer that he thought preachers speak as exactly as Schoolmen? The like reason is the other. The Berheans examined the Apostles doctrine by Scripture. Ergo they thought the doctrine of the pulpit as exact as the school: O wit whither wilt thou? But 
Chapt. 11. parag. 4.  of the Berheans fact we shall speak more hereafter.  
13. After this Bell falleth to entreat in 
Of woman's teaching and reading Scripture.  particular of woman's teaching, and reading Scriptures, propounding unto himself this objection of Catholics. S. Paul will have women to learn in silence, and permitteth them not to teach. 1. Timoth 2. v. 12. & 
Bel p. 116.  answereth. That though S. Paul permit them not to teach publicly before men, yet he forbiddeth them not to read Scripture, nor to teach privately 
Proverb. 31. v. 1. Act. 18. v. 26. 2. Timoth. 1. v. 5. etc. 3. v. 15.  where due circumstances occur, because Bethsabe taught Solomon, Priscilla expounded Scriptures to Apollo, Eunice, and Lois instructed Timothy in Scriptures. Here Bel is ashamed to licence women to teach publicly before men, though he was not to make one of them head of the Church, which is a far greater matter, and necessarily includeth authority to teach the Church publicly: but whether 
Heretical women how malapert. who dare teach? Tertull. l. de prescript. Some preached publicly in Germany. Sur. An. 1522.  they may teach publicly before women, or privately before men, and what the due circumstances are, when they may teach privately, he setteth not down. Nether do I think his Protestant sisters would regard them, who publicly before men at table, and in their assemblies in houses, take upon them to expound Scriptures. Surely he should do well to inform his sisters of his circumstances. But as for S. Paul he giveth them no licence at all to read, or to teach Scriptures, (excepting the case of particular inspiration, or of necessity, when they are permitted also to baptise.) For he in the foresaid words not only forbiddeth them absolutely to teach, but withal appointeth them to learn, as if this alone were their duty, and belonged to them. And lest we should think they might learn of themselves by reading Scriptures, he explicateth 1. Corinth. 14. v 35. both of 
S. Paul.  whom, and where they must learn: uz. of their husbands, and privately at home. If they list to learn (saith he) any thing, let them (not read Scriptures) ask their husbands at home. Behold women appointed not to teach either publicly, or privately, but to learn, and that privately at home, and of their husbands. And the same saith S. Chrisostom. 
S. Chrysost. S. Hierom.  hom. 9 in epist. ad Coloss. S. Hierom dialog. 1. contr. Pelag. where he reprehendeth the Pelagians for licensing their women to sing with them, (as Protestants do now, and Bel passeth in silence) and saying they ought to be skilful in Scripture. But no marvel if Protestant's being 
Luther. de vo coiug. Assert. artic. 16. vid. serm. de matrimon. edit. Witemberbergens. fol. 126. S. Paul.  so womanish, as they profess they can no more live without them, then without meat, or drink, and heresies have been ever spread by favour, and help of women (as S. Hietom saith epist. ad Cresiphontem) be more liberal to women, than the Apostle, who said tt was good not to touch them. 1. Cor. 7. v. 1.  
14. The examples alleged by Bel for woman's teaching are partly false, partly not to the purpose. For Bethsabees words came either from God's particular inspiration, and so her teaching maketh not to the purpose, or from her own head, and so she taught not God's word, though what she said being after recorded by Solomon, bec●me God's word. Priscilla is not said act 18. v. 16. (as Bel affirmeth) to have expounded Scriptures, but the way of the Lord, to Apollo: which she might do without expounding Scripture, as S. John prepared 
Luc. 1. v. 76. Math. 3. v. 3.  the way of the Lord, without preparing Scripture. That of Eunice, and Lois is uncertain. For albeit it be said. 2. Timoth. 1. v. 5. That they were faithful women, and c. 3. v. 15. that Timothy was instructed from his infancy in Scripture. Yet it is not said he was instructed of them, but might well be instructed of some other at their procurement (as it is usual for to hire masters to teach children) wherefore fond doth Bel avouch it to be clear, and evident by their example, that mothers must teach, and young babes learn Scripture.  
15. But suppose that they taught their child, or grandchild for want of sufficient men to teach, (as may be presumed, because his father was a Gentil. Act. 16. v. 13.) what is this to women teaching without all necessity privarly whom soever, even their husbands, contrary to the prescript, and order set down by S. Paul: yea suppose that Bethsabe, Priscilla, Eunice, and Lois had without particular inspiration, or necessity (which Bel can not prove) taught men privately Scriptures, who seethe not, but that S. Paul knew better woman's duty than they, and that we ought rather to follow his prescript, and order, than the example of two or three women, not the learnedest, nor greatest Clerks.  
16. After this Bell allegeth Origen for 
Bel p. 107.  proof of common people's reading Scripture, and affirmeth him to exhort the people to read Scriptures, because he writeth. 
Origen. homil. 4. in Leuit.  If we can not all things, let us at lest remember that we are now taught, or is rehearsed in the Church. But Origen here exhorteth the people only to remembering, at lest (saith he) 
Bel p. 111.  those things which are taught and rehearsed this day in the Church, to wit by ecclesiastical persons. He bringeth like wise S. Austin exhorting 
S. Augustin. serm 55. de tempore.  his people not only to hear divine lessons in the Church, but also at home to read themselves, or to hear others. Whereupon Bel noteth. That we must read Scriptures at home in our houses. 
Gross absuraity of Bel.  and not hear them read in the Churches, which note is more absurd than I need refel, yet let the Reader remember it. But S. Augustine's speech was not to all kind of men, nor at all times, but to his own people, whom he knew were like to increase their devotion in the holy time of lent (whereof he spoke) by reading Scripture. And the like exhortation may any Catholic Bishop make to his flock, whom he knoweth not to have, itching ears, and 
2. Timoth. 4. v. 4.  not to be soon converted to fables, & yet withal condemn the promiscual licence granted by Bel to all sorts of people, of what sex, state, calling, or condition soever. For so the unlearned, and unstable be licensed, yea necessarily ought (saith Bel) to read Scripture, 
pag. 103. S. Pet. 2. c. 3. v. 16.  though (as S Peter testifieth) they will deprave it to their own perdition.  
17. And such constant Catholics were those men, and women, which (as S. Hierom 
S. Hierom. in psalm. 133. Epistol. ad Gaudent. & epist. ad Celantiam.  writeth) did strive, who should learn most Scriptures, and whom he exhorted to learn the Scripture without book, and to have it always in their hands, and to teach it their children. For as himself writeth epist. ad Gaudent. cit. what we speak we speak not in general, but in part, nor say of all, but of some. And epist. ad Paulin. reprehendeth greatly. That every one should take Scripture in hand. Wherefore if Bel apply S. Hieroms words to all sorts of persons of what condition 
Bel like a foolish Physician.  soever, he doth not only against the holy Doctor's meaning, but showeth himself to be a foolish Physician prescribing the like diet to all kind of persons: not knowing who can eat milk, but not solid meat (as the Apostle speaketh 1. Corinth 3. v. 2. Hebr. 5. v. 12. For some (as he saith Hebr. 5. v. 11.) are weak to hear some part of God's word, and much weaker would be to read it al. Wherefore the Catholic Church (like a prudent nurse) permitteth such children, as she seethe strong, and able, to read Scriptures, to feed themselves, and cut their own meat, but to such as she perceiveth to be weak, and not so able, she will not grant the like liberty, but cheweth their meat, or cutteth it herself by preaching, & expounding Scriptures to them, lest if they were their own carvers, they should hurt themselves. And Protestants like careless nurses, let all alike carve themselves, and thereby cut their own fingers, yea throats, & kill themselves by taking oftentimes poison instead of meat.  
18. And hereupon I must advettise the 
Bel p. 112.  Reader of two untruths, which Bel fathereth upon Catholics uz. That they deem, 
untruth 85 untruth 86  them most holy, who can by heart no Scripture at all, but abstain from reading thereof, as from poison of their souls. For ignorance of Scripture in 
Ignorance of itself no holiness.  itself we account no holiness at all, and much less deem them most holy who know lest of Scripture. But great holiness we esteem it, to choose rather harmless ignorance, then curious, and disobedient skill. As great holiness it had been in Eve, 10 
Donum ipsum utiliter aliquando ignoratur. S. Augustin. l. 6. cont. jul. c. 16.  have made choice rather of ignorance of good, and evil, then of knowledge thereof. And the like ignorance of Scripture in Catholics we prefer before Protestants knowledge. For to be thus ignorant (saith Tertullian) is better, lest we know that we should 
Tertull. l. de prescript.  not. Faith (saith he) shall save us, not exercise in Scripture Faith is commanded, exercise in Scripture consisting in curiosity hath glory only in study of knowledge. Let curiosity give place to faith, let glory yield to salvation. Thus Tertullian a most ancient writer, whose counsel I would to God Protestants did follow. And as for Scripture we account it no poison, but the food of life, and the reading thereof good and wholesome, if it be done as it should, not upon curiosity, and disobedience to the Church's precept, as the Apple was good in itself, and the eating thereof had not been hurtful, if it had not been against God's commandment.  
19 Bel cireth also Theodoret writing. 
Bel p. 113.  That the Hebrew books are turned into all languages. 
Theodoret. lib. 5. de Graecan. affection.  Again, That we may find ditchers, and neatheards, and planters reasoning of the Trinity, and creation of all things. Answer. That of the Scriptures translation shall be answered in the next chapter. The other proveth no more than that simple people knew the said mysteries, whereof, he saith not, they read, but reasoned. And S. Gregory Nazianzen. 
S. Greg. Nazianz. orat. 1. de Theol.  greatly discommendeth such for it. And by the like reason, might Bel prove every Catholic to read Scripture. Because (as Bellarmin 
Bellarm. lib. 2. de verbo Dei. c. 4.  saith truly:) Catholic rustics, and women, though they understand not the sentences of Scripture, yet they understand the mysteries of our redemption, and can reason of them, yea better than many Protestants, who daily read Scripture. But (saith Bel) why are not all permitted 
Bel p. 115.  to read Scripture, if all can understand therein the mysteries of our redemption. And like to one that hath no thing to do, proveth a needle's matter, that the knowledge of the mysteries of our redemption, is necessary, and sufficient to salvation, though in the next page before he noted that all things 
Contradict. 18.  contained in the written word, (which no 18. doubt are more than the mysteries of our redemption) ●re necessary for all people. But omitting Bells contradiction: To his argument out of Bellarmin: I answer that Bellarmin affirmeth not (as Bel imposeth.) 
untruth 87  That all can understand the mysteries in the Scripture, but rather the contrary, when he saith. That many understand not the sentences of Scripture. And though all could understand the mysteries in Scriptures, yet all were not to be permitted to read them, because all have not (as S. Paul writeth) their senses exercised 
Hebr. 5. v. 14. 1. Cor. 2. v. 5. 1. Cor. 3. v. 1. Rom. 12. v. 3. 1. Cor. 3. v. 2. Hebr. 5. v. 12.  to the discerning of good and evil: all are not perfect to have wisdom spoken amongst them: all are not to be instructed as spiritual, but some as carnal: All will not be wise to sobriety, but some more wise than behoveth them. Rom. 12. v. 3. Finally all are not capable of solid meat, but some of mickle only.   

CHAP. VIII. Of the translation of Scripture into vulgar tongues.  
IT is not expedient to have or use commonly 
Scripture not to be used commonly in vulgar tongues.  Scriptures in vulgar languages. This is against Bel p. 106. but it followeth of that which hath been proved in the former Chapter. For if it be not expedient absolutely for the vulgar sort to read Scripture, it is not expedient that it be common in vulgar tongues; lest some like foolish Eve be tempted by the sight thereof, curiously and against command to read it. Secondly because neither the jews, after their language was corrupted by their captivity, translated the Scripture into their vulgar language. Nor the Church ever commanded the Scriptures to be translated into every vulgar tongue, but generally used them in Hebrew, greek, and latin, in which tongues they were written. As for the English bibles translated by Protestants, 
See Conference at Hampton Court. pag. 45. 46. 47.  they all hitherto have been nought, as themselves confess, and are now about a new translation, which hereafter perhaps will be found as faulty as the former. Whereby we see that the English faith hitherto hath been false, as builded upon the English Bible, which was false, and consequently 
The good which Protestants have gotten by English Bibles.  who died in it, died in a false faith, and relied upon man's word in steed of Gods. And this is the true death which common people have incurred, and all the good they have reaped by reading Scriptures in English, according to the serpentine counsel of Ministers. For where before they knew so much of God's word, as was sufficient to salvation, by reading English Bibles they have read a lying word, as now after 46. years' experience they both see, and confess, and because they would not content themselves with knowledge sufficient to sobriety, and salvation, but as the Apostle 
S. Paul.  writeth Rom. 12. v. 3.) be more wise than behoved them, God hath sent them (as the same Apostle saith) 2. Thess. 2. v. 11. the operation of error to believe lying.  
2. Against this Bell objecteth: That the 
Bel p. 106.  Apostle calleth them mad who read the Gospel 
1. Cor. 14. v. 24.  to people in a language unknown to them, and the people also that listen thereto as Catholics do. Answer. The Apostle is so far from condemning service of God in a tongue unknown to the hearers, as he saith to such a one. Thou dost well. 1. Corinth. 14. v. 17. But indeed he saith, That if Idiots and infidels heard us so doing they would say we were mad. If all the Church meet together (saith he) 
Only Idiots and infidels condemn service in an unknown tongue.  and all speak with tongues, and Idiots or infidels enter, will they not say that you are mad? 1. Corinth. 14. v. 23. Wherefore not S. Paul, but only Idiots or infidels condemn the Church's service in an unknown tongue.  
3. And if the sacrifice and prayer of Zachary 
Luc. 1. v. 10. & 11.  (which the people did not so much as hear or see) did greatly profit them, why may not the sacrifice, and prayers of Priests, which the people both see, and hear, greatly profit them, though they understand them not. And if Bel will excuse Zachary, and the jews, (yea God who commanded it Leuit. 16.) from madness though they stood without doors, and could neither hear, nor see, and much les understand the sacrifice, and prayers. Much better (if he please) may he excuse Catholics who both see, and hear, and parrly understand the Catholic service. And though Bel scoff at Catholics, listening to the Gospel tedde in latin. Yet Origen 
Origen.  hom. 20. in joshua writeth, That with only hearing Scripture, though we do not understand 
The devils words not understood work evil Ergo God's words not understood do good.  it, the poison of naughty spirits, which besiege us, is driven away as it were with a prayer, and holy spirits are invited to help us. For (saith he) If words of conjuration pronounced, though not understood, work enchantments, how much more virtue think we have the words of holy Scripture. And if S. Chrysostom hom. 3. de Lazar. 
S. Chrysost.  might say, That though we understand not Scripture, yet ex ipsa lectione multa nascitur sanctimonia, much holiness riseth by very reading. Why may we not say the like of very hearing? And because Bel urgeth this objection no father, I answer it no fuller, who list see more of it, let him read Rhemist. 1. Corinth. 14. D. Stapleton upon the same place, and Bellar. l. 2. de verb. Dei c. 16.  
4. Bel objecteth out of Theodoret, That 
pag. 113. Theodoret. lib. 5. de Graecan. affection.  the Hebrew books were translated into all languages. This is nothing against us, who deny not but Scripture hath been, and may be, upon just and urgent causes translated into vulgar languages, so it be not vulgarly used, and common to all kind of vulgar people: 
Bel p. 106. untruth 88 Vid. Indic. libror. prohibit.  And here by the way, I must advertise the Reader of divers untruths uttered by Bel, concerning this matter. 1. That the Pope burneth Scriptures in vulgar tongue. This is not so: For he burneth only heretical translations, and all England knoweth, how currant the Rhemists' testament is amongst Catholics. 2. That the Pope excommunicateth all lay 
untruth 89 untruth 90  men, that reason of matter of faith, or dispute of his power. & citeth 6. decret. lib. 5. cap. Quicunque. Here be two untruths. For neither is there any word of reasoning of the Pope's power, but only of disputing of the Catholic faith; without touching whereof, we may reason of the Pope's power in divers ways, as is showed art. 1. cap. 1. Nether forbiddeth he lay men to reason, or 
At what time lay men are for bidden to dispute of faith.  dispute of faith with whom-soever, or in what case soever, but only with Heretics (as is evident out of the whole chapter, which instructeth Catholics, how they ought to behave themselves towards Heretics) and when Clergy men may dispute, as when that Canon was made they might in all Christendom. And in this case it is unlawful for lay men to dispute of faith, both because generally they are not sufficiently 
S. Greg. Nazianz. orat. 1. de Theol. in Apologet. & orat. Quod● non liceat semper & publice de Deo contédere.  learned to defend the faith against Heretics, as also because disputing of faith is proper them, to whom preaching belongeth, who are not lay but Clergy men. Whereupon said S. Gregory Nazianz. It is not every one's part to dispute of God. This is not so base matter, or pertaining to them, who as yet creeping on the ground, are busied with earthly study. Every one may think of God, but not dispute of God. Thus S. Gregory for his great knowledge surnamed the Divine, whose counsel I suppose every wise man will sooner follow then Babbling Bel. And the civil 
Cod. de Sum. Trin.  law punisheth all lay men, that publicly dispute of faith. 3. That Priests oftentimes underst and 
untruth 91  not the latin words of absolution. This he might better object to his fellow ministers, 
See Bells lack of latin art 5 c. 4. paragr. 10. & art. 2. c. 4. parag. 13. and ar●. 7. c. 9 parag. 19 untruth 92  made oftentimes of cobblers, tinkers, and tailors, who may thank the Lord (as one of them did) that they know nothing of the Romish tongue. 4. That in the Churches we read unto the common people latin sermons. In deed we read such in our service, but read them to the common people no more, than we read the Mass to them. But read both in honour, and service to God, who understandeth as well latin as english. And thus much touching Scripture: now let us come to Traditions.   

CHAP. IX. Of Apostolical Traditions whether 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 itself. The question is whether there by any of the two former kinds of Traditions instituted, or delivered by the Apostles, and thereupon called Apostolical 
what ●ind of traditions Bel impugn●th.  without writing, which concern things (as Bel saith in the beginning of this article pag. 86.) necessary to man's salvation. For though (as I said before) the Scripture contain all 
Chapt. 1.  things, which are necessary to be known actually of every one, yet because every one is bound to deny no point of christian faith, but at lest virtually, and implicitly to believe all, such traditions, as concern matters of faith, or manners, may (as Bel speaketh) be said to concern things necessary to man's salvation. This supposed, I affirm with the uniform consent of all holy Fathers, that there are such traditions, and it followeth of that which we proved in the first chapter, that the Scripture containeth not actually all points of christian faith, and otherwise I prove 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 have learned, whether it be by word, or by our epistle, therefore he delivered some Traditions only by word as S. Basil. S Chrisostom. S. Epiphanius S. Damascen out of this place do gather.  
2. Secondly S. John the last writer of Scripture said. Having many things to write to 
3. joan. v. 13.  you, I would not by paper, and ink. Ergo many things which were to be told to christians, S. Shone left unwritten, yea thought it not expedient to write them. Bel answereth 
Bel p. 117.  That the Apostles taught no needful doctrine, which they did not after commit to writing. This answer insinuateth, that the Apostles taught some needle's matter, contrary to S. Paul 2. Timoth. 2, Tit. 3. and that, which S. Paul commanded the Thessalonicenses to hold, & S. John 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 evident, and testified Gen. 18. v. 19 Likewise in time of the 
Conference at Hampton Court. p. 68 Valer. Max. lib. 3. c. 319. de scauro & vario severo, S. Dionis. l. 1. eccles. hier. c. 1. S. Ignat. ep. ad Heron. S. Iren. lib. 3. c. 3. S. Cyprian. l. 2. epist. 3. S. Basil. lib. de Spirit. 6. 27. 29.  law written as English Protestants confess: why not therefore in time of the Gospel?  
3. Fourthly I will propose to the Reader a choice some what like to that which a Roman made to his Citizens, when being accused of his adversary in a long oration, he stepped up and said, my adversary affirmeth & I deny it, whether believe you citizens. And so in few words rejected his adversaries long accusation. For S. Dionysius Areopag. S. Ignatius, both scholars of the Apostles, S. Ireney, S. Cyprian, S. Basil. S. Chrisostom S. Epiphanius S. Hierom. S. 
S. Chrysost. 2. Thessaly. 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 affirm, that there are Apostolical Traditions: Bel & some few new start up Heretics deny it. Whether believe you Christians? This choice is far above that of the Roman. For there was but one against one, yea once bare denial against the others proofs. But here are many against few: Saints against (to say the ) ordinary fellows: Doctors of God's Church, against unlearned Ministers: Catholics against Heretics: yea manifest proofs against bare denials. And shall we not especially in a matter of fact (as is whether the Apostles left any unwritten Traditions or no) believe many, most holy, most learned, most incorrupt, most ancient witnesses, yea whereof some were eye witnesses of the matter, before a few, unlearned, unconstant, jangling, new fellows? 
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. etc. 3.   
4. Moreover whence have 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 Saturday to Sunday, 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 have we the Bible itself? Whence have we that every book chapter, and verse of it is God's word, and no one sentence therein corrupted in all these 1600. years? where have we that the Gospel bearing the name of S. Thomas, who was an Apostle, and eye witness of Christ's actions, is not as well, or better Christ's Gospel, then that which carrieth the name of S. Luke, and was written only by hearsay 
Luc. 1. v. 2. S. Hierom. de Scriptur. eccles. in Luca. Bel bringeth six answers.  as is professed in the very beginning, but by Tradition? This reason so courseth Bel up and down, as like fox many times un-earthed, even for weariness he runneth into the hunter's toil, granting what the argument would.  
5. His first answer is That there is great difference 
Bel p. 134.  betwixt the primmative Church, and the Church of late days. For the Apostles heard Christ's doctrine, saw his miracles, and were replenished with the holy Ghost, and consequently must needs be fit witnesses of all that Christ did, and taught, which adjuncts the Church of Rome hath not. Here Bel blasphemeth Christ's Church of late days, avouching her to be neither replenished with the holy Ghost, 
Symbol. Apostol.  contrary to our Creed, professing her to be holy, and Christ's promise, that the holy Ghost should remain with her for ever. Nor to be a 
joan. 14. v. 16.  fit witness of his truth, contrary to S. Paul, affirming her to be the pillar, and strength of 
1. Timoth. 3. v. 15.  truth; and to Gods, sending her to preach, and testify his truth to infidels, to whom if she be no fit witness, the fault is in God to send such insufficient witnesses, as infidels are not bound to believe.  
6. And Bel is far deceived in thinking, that seeing, or hearing make men sufficient witnesses of divine, and infallible truth, or 
What maketh sufficient witnesses of God's truth.  the want of them maketh insufficient. For not human sense, which is subject to error, and deceit, but God's divine assistance, maketh men infallible, and sufficient witnesses of his truth, and the want of this, insufficient. Wherefore S. Matthew was as sufficient a witness of Christ's nativity, which he saw not, as of other things he saw, and S. Luke as sufficient a witness of the things he wrote by here say, as S. John who saw, and heard almost all he wrote because they were equally assisted by God in their writing. And in like sort the Church of what time soever is equally a sufficient, and infallible witness of Christ's truth, though she be not an eye, or ear witness of his speeches, and actions, as the primitive Church was. Because 
Math. 28. v. 20. joan. 14. Math. 16.  Christ's promises of his presence, and the holy Ghosts assistance, and that the gates of Hell should not prevail against her, appertain equally to the Church of all times:  
7. But suppose that the present Church could not be a fit witness as the primitive 
Bel answereth not to the purpose.  was, what is this to the argument, that proveth necessity of Tradition, because without testimony of the Church, we can not discern true Scripture from false. This Bell should either grant, or deny, if he meant to answer to the purpose, and not tell us of an other matter, uz. That the present Church can be no fit witness, whereof (if it were true) would follow, that we can believe no Scripture at all, seeing we have no other infallible external witness of Scripture.  
8. His second answer is: That as Papists 
Bel p. 134.  admit the jews Tradition of the old Testament, to be God's word, and withal refuse many other Traditions of theirs: So Protestants admit this Tradition 
Bel admitteth tradition.  (of the Bible to be God's word) and reject all other. And pag. 128. He dareth not deny Traditions absolutely, yea admitteth them, when they be consonant to Scripture. Behold the silly fox in the toil. We contend against Protestants, That Scripture is not sufficient to prove all 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▪ fall of Protestantry. Where is now Bells first proposition? 
pag. 86. & 88  That Scripture containeth in it every doctrine necessary to man's salvation. Where is now that 
pag. 87.  we must not add to Gods written word, if this Tradition must needs be added thereto? where is now, that the present Church can be 
pag. 134.  not fit witness, if by her testimony, we come to know God's truth? Where is now the curse, which S. Paul (as thou sayst pag. 117.) pronounceth 
Bel cursed of S. Paul by his own judgement.  against him, that preacheth any doctrine not contained in Scripture? where is now. That Scripture is the sole, and only rule of faith?  
9 But seeing the fox is in the toil, we 
pag. 128.  must needs have him preach, and tell us of whom he first had this Tradition. Perhaps he will confess with his brother Dove, that Protestants had the Bible as God's word 
Dove of Recusancy. pag 13.  from Papists. Sure I am, he can name no other of whom he first had it. Likewise he must tell us. How he believeth this Tradition. Whether as fallible and human truth, or as infallible and divine. If as fallible, and human, surely he can believe nothing in the Bible as divine truth▪ If as infallible, and divine truth, surely the Papists Church for whose only testimony (speaking of outward testimonies) Protestant's first believe: as an infallible truth that the Bible was God's word) hath infallible authority.  
10. Nether is Bells comparison true. For we believe not the old testament to be God's word, for any Tradition, which the jews have, but which the Catholic Church hath from the Apostles, & their successors, even (as S. Austin writeth) from the very 
Cont. epist. fundam. c. 4. to. 6.  seat of Peter, to whom our Lord commanded his sheep to feed, to this present Bishop, who delivered unto the Church, and she to us, as well the old as the new testament for God's word. Let Bel if he list believe the old testament, for the tradition of jews, and if he can not find the like uninterrupted tradition for the new testament, but in the Papists Church, let him confess, that for her authoriry he believeth this tradition as infallible truth, and I ask 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) When Protestants 
Bel p. 135.  say Scriptures contain all things necessary to salvation, they speak of Scriptures already agreed upon 
Protestants admit tradition.  to be such, and so exclude not this tradition, but virtually include it in their assertion: Behold the fox again in the toil, admitting one tradition full sore against his wil O violence of truth (saith S. Austin l. cont. Donatist. post Collar. c. 24.) stronger then any rack, or torment for to wring out confession. For here Bel in name of Protestants confesseth, that 
Protestants overthrow their own arguments against traditions.  they must needs admit one tradition, which not only overthroweth all their arguments against other traditions, For why may they add one tradition to Gods written word, rather than more? why may they believe any thing out of Scripture, and no more? why is one tradition equal to Gods written word, and no more? How is one tradition certain and no more: But also showeth that either they receive this tradition for no authority at all, but only because it pleaseth them, or that they believe it as infallible verity, for the authority which they account but fallible. For I ask why they believe this tradition? If they answer, because it cometh from God. I demand how they know that? Not by the Bible as is evident. If by the Church; then I ask why they believe the Church, rather in this tradition, then in other, and whether they believe her testimony to be infallible in this point or no: And whatsoever they answer, they must needs fall into the toil.  
12. His third solution is. That the new 
Bel p. 135.  Testament is but an exposition of the old, and therefore may be tried and discerned by the same. But Sir? will you indeed try the new testament? 
Bel will examine Scriptures.  will you take upon you to judge God's word? Surely this pride exceedeth Lucifers, this is to make yourself judge above the highest. And if you will try God's word, by what will you try the old testament? Surely by tradition, or by nothing. Thus we have heard Bel twice plainly confessing some tradition to be necessary, & now the third time supposing it. For magna est vis veritatis & praevalet.  
13. Yet because his stomach could not 
pag 135 al. 117.  digest any one tradition at all, he flieth to a Fift solution, commonly given by Protestants. uz. That Canonical Scripture may be discerned 
Psalm. 119. v. 105. 1. Pent. 1. v. 19 2. Cor. 5. v. 3. 1. Cor. 2. v. 15. 1. joan. 2. v. 27. joan. 10. v. 3. 4. 1. Reg. 3.  from not Canonical by themselves, as light is from darkness. This he proveth because God's word is called a light, and a lantern, said to shine to men spiritual men said to judge all things, the unction to teach all things, and Christ's sheep said to hear, and know his voice. But this is easily refelled. First because though Samuel were a faithful, & holy man, and God spoke thrice to him, yet he took his word for man's word, until Hely the high Priest told him it was God's word 1. Reg. 3. Gedeon was faithful, and yet knew not at first that it was God that spoke unto him by an 
judic. 6.  Angel, and therefore demanded a miracle in confirmation of it judic. 6. The like may be said of Manues wife jud. 13. and perhaps of Manue himself. For though in his prayer he profess that God had sent the Angel, whom he took to be a man, yet doth he not profess that God had sent him especially, and particularly to do that message, and seeing he knew not, that it was an Angel, until he ascended in the flame of the sacrifice, yea seemed to doubt whether his words would prove true, when he said. If thy speech be fulfilled, likely it is that he was not certain that it was God's word, before he was certain, that it was his Angel. Likewise S. Peter was faithful, and yet at 
Act. 12.  first he knew not, that it was an Angel that spoke, and delivered him act. 12.  
14. Secondly the true sense, and meaning of God's word, is not so evident to the faithful, for to discern it from the false sense, as light is discerned from darkness. Ergo, neither Gods true word is so evidently discerned by them from the false word. The consequence I prove, because God's word consisteth more in his meaning then in letters. Let us not think (saith S. Hierom) 
S. Hierom. in Calat. 1. & dialog. con. Lucif.  that the Gospel is in the words of Scriptures, but in the sense. Again: Scriptures consist not in reading but in understanding. And therefore if it be discerned by itself, it is rather discerned by the sense, then by the letters or words. The antecedent I shall prove hereafter, and it is evident by the example of the Apostles, who though they were faithful oftentimes understood not Christ's meaning, especially when he spoke in parables, or of his passion by the example of the faithful Eunuch, and by the testimony of S. Peter 2. Pet. 3. v. 16.  
15. Thirdly the distinction of Scriptures from not Scriptures, is not so evident, as the distinction of light from darkness is. Ergo, they are not so easily discerned. The consequence is evident. The Antecedent I prove, because than no man could err in it, as none can err in the distinction of light from darkness. Bel saith. That only faithful can discern Scriptures. But this convinceth that their distinction is not so evident as that of light from darkness: for this all men, yea beasts of sight can discern. Nether can 
Faith can not discern any thing clearly.  faith be needful to discern light, or any thing which is so evident, because as S. Paul saith Hebr. 11. v. 1. It is an argument of things not appearing, and it breadeth certainty, not evidency in the believer.  
16. Beside if faithful could as clearly discern Scriptures, as they can light, they should no sooner here a sentence of Scripture, than they should discern it to be Scripture, as they no sooner see light, than they discern it from darkness, which experience teacheth to be false: yea Luther a faithful man (in Bells opinion) could not discern, yea could not believe S. james epistle 
Luther. edit. jennen. Surius Ann. 1522.  to be canonical, but called it absolutely a strawish thing, as his books first printed, and divers others testify, and Whitaker 
Whitaker. lib. 1. contr. Duraeum p. 22.  dare not deny, yea confesseth that he calleth it strawish in respect of other epistles, which is more than to deny it to be God's word. Wherefore let Bel make his choice, whether Luther was not faithful, or S. james epistle not so evidently discerned by the faithful to be God's word as light is. Finally Protestant's admit one Tradition, as necessary to discern Scriptures, or Bel lieth pag. 135. Ergo: Scriptures are not so evidently discerned by themselves as light is. For what need is there of an other thing to discern light, or any thing so evident.  
17. Nether have Bells arguments any difficulty to answer. For God's word is called a lantern, or light, not because it is so evident, as light is; but because, being once believed to be God's word, it showeth us the way to heaven, as light doth to earthly places, and thereupon it is called of the Psalmist a lantern to our feet. And for the 
Psalm. 118.  same cause faith is called light, though it be an obscure knowledge. Hebr. 11. v. 1. and by it we see God only in enigmate: 1. Cor. 13. v. 12. and not clearly. And in like sort S. Paul 2. Corinth. 4. v. 4. (where Bel citeth 
2. Corinth. 4. v. 4.  amiss. c. 5.) saith the Gospel shineth, not because it is evident, and clear, but because it expelleth the ignorance of infidelity, which metaphorically is called darkness. That of the spiritual man 1. Corinth. 2. v. 15. is nothing to the purpose, both because all faithful are not spiritual, but some carnal 1. Corinth. 3. v. 1. 2. 3. and Galath. 6. v. 1. and therefore may we better infer that the Gospel is not evident to all faithful: As also because S. Paul explicateth, not by what means the spiritual man judgeth all things, whether by the evidency of the things (as Bel would have him to judge Scripture) or by some outward testimony. Moreover S. John saith the unction teacheth 
3. joan. 2. v. 27.  us all things, which we deny not, but no where, that it alone teacheth us without the testimony of the Church, which is that we deny, & Bel should prove. Finally Christ's sheep hear, and know his voice joan. 10. 
joan. 10. v. 3. 4.  v. 3 4 which no man doubteth of, but the question is whether they hear it of himself alone, or of the Church, and whether they know it by itself, or by testimony of the Church, to which purpose this place serveth nothing.  
18. Bells sixth solution is, That we believe 
Bel p. 136.  not the Scripture to be God's word, because the Church teacheth us so, but because it is of itself axiopistos worthy of credit, and God inwardly moveth us to believe it. That we believe it not for the Church's authority he proveth. Because else the formal object of our belief, and last resolution therein, should not be the first verity, God himself, but man, which is contrary to S. Dionis. and S. Thomas 
S. Dionis. de divin. nom. c. 7. S. Thom. 2. 2. q. 1. art. 1.  Aquinas, who teach. That the formal object of our faith is the first verity, and S. Thom. addeth, That faith believeth nothing, but because it is revealed of God: Also because S. Austin saith, That man learneth 
S. Augustin. tractat. 3. in joan. to. 9  not of man, that outward teachings are some helps, and admonitions, but who teacheth the heart hath his chair in heaven. That the Scripture is of itself axiopistos, or worthy of credit, we deny not, only we deny, that by itself without testimony of the Church, we can know that it is so worthy. Nether deny we, that God inwardly moveth our hearts to believe it, only we say that thereto he useth also the testimony of the holy Church, nor ordinarily moveth any thereto, without the external testimony of the Church. wherefore albeit it be most true that we believe the Scripture to be God's word, because God moveth us thereto: yet false it is to deny, that we believe it not also, because the Church doth teach it. Because God's inward motion, and the Churches outward testimony, are no opposite causes, and impossible to concur to one, and the same effect; but the second is subordinate to the first, and can not work without it, as the first (though it can) doth not work this effect without the second. Wherefore well said S. Austin Non crederem evangelio nisi 
Cont. epist. fundam. c. 4. to. 6.  me Ecclesiae authoritas commoveret. I would not believe the Gospel, unless the authority of the Church did commove me thereto.  
19 This place of S. Austin so stingeth 
pag. 137.  Bel, as he windeth every way to avoid it. First he telleth us that there is a great difference 
Bells lack of latin.  between movere and commovere: because movere is to move apart by itself, commovere to move together with an other. This difference is false. For neither is movere to move apart, but absolutely, as it is common to moving apart, or with an other. Nether, though commovere do more properly signify moving with an other, is it always so taken, as infinite places both of holy and profane writers can testify: yea Bel himself with in 8. lines 
pag. 138.  after englisheth it absolutely moving. But suppose it were: what inferreth Bel thereupon. Forsooth that S. Augustine's meaning is nothing else, but that the authority of the Church did outwardly concur with the inward motion of God, to bring him to believe the Gospel. That the Church did jointly concur to S. Augustine's faith of the Gospel is certain, and so Bel translating commovere for jointly moving I refuse not. But false it is that the Church did jointly concur with God, only to the bringing of S. Austin to the faith of the Gospel, and not to the conserving him in the same faith. Because c. 4. he saith, That if thou percase canst find any manifest 
S. Austin.  thing in the Gospel of Manichees Apostleship, thou shalt weaken the authority of Catholics with me, who bid me believe not thee, which authority being weakened, now neither can I believe the Gospel. Behold the authority of Catholics conserved S. Austin in the faith of the Gospel, without which he professeth that he could believe the Gospel no longer. And again. Amongst other things, which most justly as he saith hold him in the Church he reckoneth authority, and succession in the Church.  
20. But do you think that Bel will stand to his expounding of commovere, and granting the Church to concur with the inward motion of the holy Ghost to bring a man to believe the Gospel? No surely: For in the next page he telleth us. That the 
pag. 138.  authority of the Church, did move (behold jointly moving forgotten) S. Austin to hear the Gospel preached, and to give some human credit unto it. For divine faith proceedeth not from the outward teachings of man, as I have proved (saith he) already out of S. Austin. This denial of divine 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 cometh of hearing (the preacher.) The Colossians learned the grace of Christ of Epaphoras. Coloss. 1. v. 7. The Thessalonians 
Coloss. 1.  learned the Traditions, which they should keep by speech and letter: 2. Thess. 
2. Thessalon. 2. 1. Corinth. 4. Philemon.  2. v. 15 S. Paul begat the Corinthians in the Gospel. 1. Corinth. 4. v. 15. He begat Onesimus: Philem. v. 11. He and Apollo were God's helpers in bringing the Corinthians to Christ's faith. 1. Corinth. 3. v. 9 They that secure preachers are called cooperators of the truth 3. joan. v. 8. and therefore 
3. joan. 8.  much more the preachers themselves. And if divine faith proceed not at all from outward teaching of men, why did Christ send his Apostles to teach all 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 Gentiles? 1. Timoth. 2. v. 7. others? act. 13 v. 4. How 
2. Timoth.  could S. Paul bestow some spiritual grace upon 
Act. 13.  the Romans. Rom. 1. v. 11. Did Christ send these Apostles to teach humane faith? was 
Rom. 1.  S. John Baptist sent before Christ to give human knowledge of salvation 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 human learning, or belief. For what careth the Sctipture for that, but of divine, and such as bringeth to heaven & salvation, such as made Iewes compunct in heart. act. 2. v. 37. such as disposed Gentiles 
Act. 2. & 10.  to receive the holy Ghost. act. 10. v. 44.  
21. Likewise it is against S. Austin: First he thinketh (as Bel confesseth) the Church to concur, with the inward motion of the holy Ghost to the faith of the Gospel: But faith of the Gospel, to which the holy Ghost inwardly concurreth is divine. Ergo to this the Church concurreth: Besides S. Austin affirmeth, that authority holdeth 
Cont. epist. fundam. c. 4. tom. 6.  him in the Catholic Church. And that if the authority of Catholics were weakened, he would not believe the Gospel, which he would never say, if his divine faith did not depend upon the Catholics authority. Moreover what more evident than the holy Fathers, when they speak of believing the Gospel, they mean of divine, and Christian faith. And what faith should S. Austin mean of, but of such faith as he exhorted the Manichees unto, which was divine. And in the place alleged by Bel, he calleth outward teaching help to faith, and only meaneth, that a man can not learn faith of man alone, without all inward teaching of God. And therefore addeth. That if he be not within, who teacheth the 
Tract. 3. in 1. joan. 10. 9  heart, in vain is our sound, and where God's inspiration is not, there in vain words sound outwardly. which is most true, and nothing against us. Lastly it is against reason. For the authority of God's Church is not mere human, but in some sort divine, as a witness by God himself appointed to testify his truth. And therefore he said, who heareth 
Luc. 10. v. 16.  you heareth me: therefore the faith that proceedeth from such authority is not human.  
22. Wherefore Bel not trusting much to this shift flieth to an other: uz. That S. Austin said not these words of himself, as he was then a christian, but as he had been in times past a Maniche. This he proveth: Because in the same chapter he saith. That the authority of 
untruth 93 1. untruth 94 2. untruth 95 3.  the Gospel is above the authority of the Church, & in the chapter before. That the truth of Scriptures must be preferred before authority, consent of nations, and the name of Catholic, and promiseth to yield to Manichees doctrine, if he shall be able to prove it out of Scripture. But both this answer, and proofs are most falsely avouched upon S Austin. For if he had meant the foresaid words of himself only, as when he was a Manichist, he would not have said, Non crederem nisi commoveret etc. I would not believe, unless the Church did commove me: But non credidissem, nisi commovisset: I had not or would not have believed, unless the Church had commoved me. Which Bel well marking, made him say so in english, though he had not said it in latin. Besides 
False translat. 12.  in the same chapter he addeth. Qua (authoritate Catholicorum) infirmata iam nec potero evangelio credere. which (authority of Catholics) being discredited, I shall not be able now (mark Bel) to believe the Gospel. Moreover cap. 4. he said, That besides other motives, the authority of Catholics (tenet) doth hold me in the lap of the Church.  
23. Bells proofs are nothing but his own untruths. For though it be true. That the Scripture is of greater authority than the Church, yet neither doth S. Austin say it in that place, neither maketh it any thing against us. For albeit the Scriptures be in itself of greater authority, yet the authority of the Church is both infallible, and more evident to me. And what marvel if for an infallible authority more evident, I believe an other though greater, yet not so manifest. As S. John was sent to give testimony of Christ joan. 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 Catholics. But Bel added the word Scriptures as though S. Austin meant, that their truth could be known, without the authority of Catholics, or be opposite unto it, which he manifestly denieth. Nether meaneth he of the truth of Scriptures (which the Manichist against whom he wrote rejected almost wholly, and he himself professeth he could 
S. Austin speaketh of most manifest and evident truth and such is not the Scriptures.  not take for truth, if it were contrary to Catholics) but of any known truth in general, which he saith (and truly) is to be preferred before all authority opposite unto it, because such authority is not infallible, but false, and deceitful. And therefore he speaketh upon supposition, that if it were true (which other where he avoucheth to be impossible) that Manichists taught truth, and Catholics error, than their truth were to be preferred before the name of Catholics, consent of nations, and authority begun with miracles, nourished with hope, increased with charity, established with antiquity, and succession of Priests, even from the seat of Peter, to whom our Lord after his resurrection commanded his sheep to be fed unto this present Bishop. But saith the glorious Saint unto manichees, & I after him to Protestants. Amongst you only soundeth the promise of truth, which if it were so manifest, as it could not be doubted of, it were to be preferred before all things, that hold me in the Catholic Church.  
24. His third untruth of S. Augustine's promise, is directly contrary to S. Austin in the 
S. Austin would not believe 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 Gospel, I will believe neither them nor thee. Not them because they lied to me of thee. Not thee, because thou bringest me that Scripture, which I believed through them who have lied: As for Bells reasons to prove, that we believe nothing with divine faith for authority of the Church, they are easily answered. For though the formal object of faith be the first verity, yet not simply as it is in itself, but as it is proposed unto us by the Church. And therefore though we believe nothing, but because it is spoken, and revealed by God, yet because he speaketh not immediately to us by himself, but by the mouth of his Church, whom who so heareth, heareth God, and 
Luc. 10. v. 16. 1. Thess. c. 2. v. 13.  whose word is not man's word, but truly God's word. therefore faith is not without the testimony of the Church. As for S. Augustine's authority it hath been answered before: as also his arguments. which Bel bringeth against Traditions.   

CHAP. X. Of the certainty of Apostolical Traditions.  
THERE are certain and undoubted Apostolical traditions. This is against Bel pag. 128 129. etc. But I prove it, because the traditions of the Bible to be God's word, of the perpetual virginity of our B. Lady, of the transferring of the Sabbath, and such like, are certain and undoubted. Besides if in the law of nature, and Moses, traditions were kept certain, why not in the law of grace. But more evident will the conclusion be, if we descend to particular traditions, which Bel endeavoureth 
Bel p. 128. 129.  to prove uncertain. First he setteth-downe this Proposition. Unwritten traditions are so uncertain as the best learned papists are at great contention about them This he proveth in the tradition of Easter, about which contended S. Victor P. & the Bishops of Asia above 1400 years ago both earnestly alleging Apostolical traditions. Likewise S. Anicetus, and S. Policarpe who lived all within 200. years after Christ, when the Church was in good estate, and stained with few, or no corruptions.  
2. Mark good Reader his conclusion, and proofs thereof, and thou wilt need no more to assure thyself of the truth of Roman religion: His conclusion is: That traditions are so uncertain as the learnedest Papists contend about them. This he proveth: because S. Victor P. contended with the Bishops of Asia. S. Policarpe with S. Anicetus P. Surely he meaneth that these men were Papists, or else his conclusion is unproved. And consequently Papists, and Popery were 1400. years ago within 200. 
Popery confessed to be wish in 200. years after Christ. Great Britain converted first to Popery.  years after Christ, when the Church (as he saith) was in good estate. And if P. Victor were a Papist, then was also his immediate predecessor S. Eleutherius, who sent S. Fugatius and Damian to convert Britain, and consequently this Island was first converted from Paganism to Popery. Moreover both sides earnestly alleged Apostolical tradition, and stoutly defended the same saith Bel, Ergo: neither side was Protestant, and 
Bel against all God's Church which lived within 200. years after Christ  both agreed against him, that there are Apostolical traditions, & that they are of great weight, seeing such great Saints so long ago did so stoutly defend them, on what side now is Bel, who stoutly oppugneth, what Saints with all God's Church so long ago defended? what need more proof of traditions or of Papistry? Surely Bel quasi sorex suo judicio periit. Here he hath bewrayed himself to be against all Saints, that were within 200, years after Christ, and against the Church, when she was in good estate.  
3. But now to Bells argument. The tradition of keeping Easter was uncertain 200 years after Christ. Ergo it is now. Answer. 
Euseb. lib. 5. c. 23. 25. & l. 3. de vit. Constan. c. 18. 19 Nicephor. l. 4. c. 36. Theodoret. l. 2. hist. c. 9 Epiphan. haer. 70. Tripart. lib. 9 c. 38. Epist. 2. Petri 2. & 3. joan. Epist. judae & ad Hebraeos. apocalypsis See S. Hierom. in Script. ecclesiasticis. Et Euseb. l. 5. c. 3.  This tradition was then uncertain only in Asia, and certain in the rest of Christendom, as is evident by the Counsels than held in Rome, Palestine, Pontus, France, Achaia, who all accepted this tradition, as did after the first general Council in Nice. And though it had been then uncertain, Bel could no more infer it to be so now, than he can infer the same of many parts of the Bible, which both then, and long after were doubted of, and yet accepted now of Protestants. But well may I infer, if S. Policarpe and his fellows erred in not accepting one popish tradition, much more Bell in accepting none.  
4. But (saith Bel) S. Policarpe Polycrates, 
pag. 129.  and other Bishops did in those days make no more account of the Pope's opinion, then of an other man's, did think themselves his equals in government, & that he defended an error, and withstood his proceed. Here is false conveyance to join S. Policarp, who lived, and died in union, 
Euseb. lib. ●. c. 24. & Iren. apud ipsum.  and communion of the Pope, and before this controversy was defined, with Polycrates, and his fellows, who were excommunicated, as declining (saith Eusebius) into 
Loc. cit.  heresy for their obstinacy in error, after the whole Church had defined the contrary. These indeed (as heretics use to do) made no account of the Pope's opinion, or judgement, but condemned him of error, and withstood his proceed, though they never thought themselves his equals, as Bel without all truth, or proof affirmeth, yea Polecrates when he saith, I will not fear 
S. Hierom. de script. eccles. in Papia. Nicephor. l. 4. c. 37.  them, who threaten me, and I must obey God more than men, showeth himself to be under the Pope's obedience, but supposing himself to defend truth, feared not his excommunication. But how much all Christendom at that time, and ever since made account of the Pope's sentence, appeareth by that (as Eusebius, and others writ) they all followed 
Euseb. sup.  it, and condemned them as Heretics who withstood it. And S. Policarp so esteemed 
Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 24. & 5. Ireney apud ipsum. Nicephor. l. 3. c. 30.  it, as that he came to Rome to confer with the Pope about that matter, & doubtless would have subscribed to his sentence, if it had been pronounced in his days, as his scholar S. Ireney did, by whom we may gather his masters account of the Church of Rome. He therefore lib. 3. cap. 3. 
S. Iren.  calleth Rome the greatest and ancientest Church founded by S. Peter, and Paul, and that by Tradition which it hath from the Apostles, and always keepeth, by succession of Bishops we confound (saith he) all them that gather otherwise then they should, and that all Churches must recur to Rome for her more potent principality.  
5. The second Tradition is that of keeping 
Bel p. 130.  lent which (saith Bel) is not Apostolical: because S. Chrisostom writeth. That Christ 
S. Chrysost. hom. 47. in Math. to. 2. Euseb. lib. 5. c. 24.  bid us not imitat his fast, but be humble: Nor certain because Eusebius out of Ireney writeth That in his time some thought we ought to fast one day, others two, others more and non nulli forty, which variety of fasting began not now first, or in our days, but long before, I think by them, who keeping not simply what was (traditum) delivered from the beginning, did afterward fall into an other custom either of negligence, or of ignorance. Here Bel showeth his lack of judgement in citing a place clearly against himself. For here S Ireney, and Eusebius after him clearly affirm. That at the beginning there was one manner of fasting lent appointed, though some afterward either of ignorance or negligence did break it, which proveth not the said Tradition to be uncertain in the whole Church, unless Bel will impute the fault of some few to the whole. And of the Roman Church, she (saith Ireney lib 3. cap. 3.) always kept the 
S. Ireney. Ex histor. tripart. lib. 9 c. 38.  Apostles Tradition. And by this is answered what he bringeth out of Socrates touching the diversity of time, and meat used in fasting lent. Albeit what Socrates saith of the Roman Church fasting but three weeks before Easter, and not on Saturday is an untruth. For they fasted 40. days, as witness S. Leo. serm. 12. de Quadrag. and S. Gregory 
S. Leo. S. Gregory. S. Innocent. S. Augustin.  hom. 16. in evang. And likewise Saterdaies as testify S. Innocent. epist. ad Decent. and S. Austin epist. 86. and 118. where also he allegeth S. Ambrose.  
6. And that lent is an Apostolical Tradition, not only S. Hierom epist. ad Marcel. 
S. Hierom. S. Ambros.  witnesseth, and S. Ambrose serm. 25. 34. and 36. saith it was commanded by Christ: and S Austin haer. 53. accounted the Aërians 
S. Augustin. S. Epiphan. haer. 75.  heretics for denying the set fast (of lent, and others) to be solemnly kept. But it is evident also because evermore it hath been observed, as appeareth by S. Ignatius epistol. ad 
S. Ignatius. S. Iteney. Origen. S. Basil. S. Chrysostom. S. Augustin. S. Leo. S. Gregory. S. Grego. Nazianzen. in sanct. lavaerum. council. Lao●i●cen. Can. 10.  Philip. S. Ireney loc. cit. Origen. hom. 10. Levit. Basil. orat. 2. de jeiunio: Chrysostom hom. 1. in Gen. and 11. hom. 16. and 73. ad populum. S. Austin epist. 118. and 119. and serm. de quadrag. Leo and Gregor. loc. cit. And what S. Chrysostom meant in the words cited by Bel, he himself explicateth in these words. Because I am sorry (saith he) if neglecting the rest you think fasting sufficient to save you, which is the meanest of the virtues. So that he meant that Christ bid us not only fast lent, but more especially be humble, 
See S. Hierom. ep. ad Celantiam. Math. 9 v. 13. Ose c. 6. v. 6. untruth 96 Bel p. 130.  and mild. The like speech used Christ when he said: I will have mercy, and not sacrifice uz. only, and rather than mercy. And so we may say with S. Chrysostom he commanded not fasting, but humility. And Bel useth his old trade in avouching us to think it greater sin to eat flesh in lent, then to commit adultery, murder, or perjury. Whereas every Catholic knoweth these sins to be against the law of nature, and lawful in no case whatsoever, and the other against a positive precept, which according to the general custom of the Church, bindeth none under 21. or above 60. years old, no sick body, no labouring man, no woman bearing, or nursing children, besides many other particular cases wherein fasting in lent is dispensed withal.  
7. Eight Traditions more Bel reckoneth 
Bel p. 131. 132. 133.  as of celebrating in unleavened bread, of Christ's age, when he died, of his reign on earth after judgement, of Zacharias that was slain betwixt the Temple, and the altar, of the Pope's teaching successively the self some doctrine with S. Peter, of our lady's conception without original sin, of Constantins baptism at Rome, and lastly of honouring Saints: But these are either falsely alleged for traditions. or little, or nothing to the purpose. For that of celebrating 
Leo 9 ep. ad Michaelem Pattiarchan. c. 29. Eugen. 4. in decreto unionis. These twoe were no traditions but erroneous opinions. See S. Hierom. de scripture. in Padia. Bel impugneth histories in steed of Traditions. Origen. in 25. Math. Basil. homil. de human. Christ● General. Nissen. orat. de Christ. natiu. Cyrill. count Anthropo. This is no Tradition but if it be meant of the Pope's teaching as he is Pope it is in Scripture if as a prinat man, it is an opinion.  brating in unleavened bread, concerns no thing necessary to man's salvation, as testify P Leo 9 and P. Eugenius 4. and therefore is none of these which Bel undertook in the beginning of this article to impugn. And though S. Ireney were deceived about Christ's age when he suffered, and Papias about his reign after judgement, that maketh not much to the purpose For well may the Church be certain of Traditions, though one Father were mistaken about one Tradition, and an other about an other. That of Zachary that he was S. John Baptists father who was so slain S. Basil reporteth not as an Apostolical, but an historical Tradition, and though S Hierom deny it, yet Origen, S. Greg. Nissen, S. Cyril and Valentinian affirm it.  
8. As for the Popes successively teaching the self same doctrine with S. Peter, the truth thereof unto S Victor P. time about the year 187. is testified by S. Ireney lib. 3. r. 3. until S Cornelius P. about the year 251. by S. Cyprian lib. 1. epist. 3 unto S. Lucius 1 P. about 257. by himself epist. ad Episc. Hispan. & Gall. until S. Dammasus P. about the year 380 by S. Hierom epist. ad Damas'. until S. Leo 1 Pope about 450 by Theodoret epistol. ad Renatum: until S. Gelasius 1. P. about 496. by himself epist. ad 
S. Ireney. S. Cyprian. S Lucius. S. Hierom. S. Theodoret. S. Gelasius 2. S. Ihon. 2. S. Gregory. Agatho. Nicolas 1.  Anast. until S. John 2. Pope about the year 533. by himself epist. ad justin. until S. Gregory the great about the year 600. by himself lib. 6. epist. 37 until Pope Agatho about the year 681. by himself in his epistle approved 6. Synod. act 8. and 18. until P. Nicolas about the year 860. by himself epist. ad Michael. Imperat. until P. Leo 9 about 
Leo 9  the year 1050. by himself epistol. ad Petr. Antioch. until Pope Innocent. 2. about the year 1140. is insinuated by S Bernard epist. 
S. Bernard.  190. And the same may be proved of the rest of the Popes since. Now let us see whom Bel opposeth to these so many, so holy, so ancient witnesses.  
9 Forsooth Nicolas de Lyra a late friar. 
Bel p. 132. Lyra in cap. 16. Math. Tit. 3. v. 11.  O truly said of S. Paul, that Heretics are condemned by their own judgements. For who condemneth not himself if he will believe one late writer, before so many, so holy, so ancient. And much more, if that Author be found to affirm nothing to the contrary For he only saith, That Summi Pontifices inveniuntur apostatasse à side. Pope's have apostated from the faith. which is a far different thing. For well may one be an Apostata, 
Math. 26. v 70. Concil. Sinuessan. Damasus i● Marcelli●●.  and yet teach the doctrine of his Predecessor. As S Peter denied his master, & yet taught no contrary doctrine. S. Marcellin offered sacrifice to Idols, and yet taught no Idolatry. Caïphas murdered 
joan. 11. v. 51. S. Augustin. l. 4. de doctr. Christian. c. 27. to. 3.  Christ, and yet prophesied. For as S. Austin said of some Bishops that they durst not teach heresy, lest they should lose their Bishopriks'. So we might say of Popes, that though some of them had apostated from Christ, yet they durst not teach heresy, or apostasy, lest they should be deposed, but might with a wicked, and deceitful heart (to use S. Augustine's words) preach things, which are right, and true, or (as S. Paul speaketh) preach 
Philip. 1. v. 18.  Christ upon occasion not upon truth. But indeed never did any Pope in his heart apostatat from Christ.  
10. That point of our lady's conception 
Bel impugneth an opinion for tradition.  without sin is no Tradition, but a pious, and probable opinion of many, and denied of divers Catholics, as of S. Thomas, & S Bernard whom Bel himself citeth and others. And as for Constantins baptism at 
Bel impugneth a History in steed of tradition. pag. 133.  Rome it concerneth no matter of salvation, but is a mere historical Tradition, sufficiently proved by Card. Baronius Annal. Ann. 314. and unawares contested by Bel himself when he saith, that he hath seen at Rome the font, and that Constantin is worthily 
See Nicephor. lib. 7. c. 35.  called great. For why should that font be conserved so long, but as a monument of so memorable a christening. How can Constantin be worthily surnamed great of Christians. if at his death he communicated with Arians, and was baptised of them at Nicomedia, as their fellow heretic Eusebius first reported to purchase credit to his heresy. If this had been so, he should rather have been surnamed of Catholics the Apostata, or Heretic.  
11. The last tradition of honouring Saints 
Bel p. 133.  (Bel saith) made some to honour Heretics for Saints as Platina (saith he) writeth of the 
Platina in Bonif. 8.  corpse of Herman an heretic honoured as Saints relics at Ferrara for 20. years together: Answer 
untruth 97  How Apostolical a thing the honouring of Saints is, Bellarmin showeth lib. de Sanct. beatit. c. 19 Where besides Scriptures, and Counsels he proveth it by the testimony of 30. Fathers, whereof 25 lived above a thousand 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 himself, but only, that some others writ so. But neither he nor any other writ, that it rose of popish Tradition. That is Bells accustomed use of addition. And therefore where he noteth danger in believing Tradition, he might have noted danger in crediting his own relation. Yea what danger is in not believing Roman Tradition, appeareth both by the testimony of Fathers before cited, and by the example of Polycrates and his fellows the Quartadecimans, and by S. Cyprian, 
Quartadecimans are Heretics 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 reproved only by Roman Tradition. As testifieth Tripartit lib. 9 c. 38. and Vincent Lyrinen: But suppose that they of Ferrara had upon Tradition taken occasion to commit Idolatry. Shall we reject all things whereof men take occasion to offend? So we might reject Christ who was set unto the ruin of many Luc. 2. v. 34. and by whom the jews took occasion of scandal: So we might reject Scriptures, by which heretics have taken occasion he heresy: Sun and Moon because Gentiles have by them fallen into Idolatry. Cannot Bell distinguish between use, & abuse of Traditions, betwixt scandal given & taken. Thus much of the certainty of Tradtions: Now let us 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 evident. Because Apostolical 
●el p. 117  Tradition is the Apostles word, their 
S. Paul. ●. Luke.  word, is God's word 1. Thess. 2. v. 16. But God's word is not to be examined at all: Ergo: neither is Apostolical Tradition. Well might the Church at first examine a Tradition, whether it were Apostolical or no (as she did examine divers 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, than she can examine 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 showeth himself rather to be a jew then a Christian. For how dare he examine that which is certain to be divine truth? Or how can he examine 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 proved hear Tertullian. 
Tertullian. lib. de Corona.  It can not seem none, or a doubtful fault against Custom, which is to be defended for it name sake, and is sufficiently authorized by protection of consent. Plainly reason is to be inquired, but so as the Custom be retained, not to destroy it but to uphold it That thou mayst observe it more, when thou art sure of the reason of it. But what a thing is it that one shall call Custom 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. Therefore all things are to be examined by them. And for this cause (saith he) Esay sent us to the Law and testimony 
Esaiae 8.  to try the truth. Malachias bid us be mindful 
Malach. 4. Psalm. 119. 2. Pet. 1. joan. 5. Math. 22. Act. 17. 1. joan. 4. Gal. 1.  of Moses la: David said God's word is a lathern: S. Peter a shining light. For this cause Christ exhorted the jews to read Scriptures, and said the pharisees erred, because they knew not the Scriptures. The Berheans examined S. Paul's doctrine, S. John bid try the spirits: S. Paul pronounced him accursed That preached any doctrine not contained 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 only Canonical Scripture, but not it alone Canonical. Sup. c. 2. parag. 1. & 7. etc. 9 paragr. 17.   
3. Answer. The Bible alone is called Canonical Scripture, because it alone of all Scriptures the Church followeth as an infallible rule in believing, or defining any thing. But it neither is, nor is called the only Canon of faith. In the rest Bel affirmeth, but proveth not that that was the cause why the Scripture said so. As for the places of Esay. Malachy, David and S. Peter they have been answered before. As for exhortation of Christ, I might deny that he there exhorted the jews to read Scripture, but 
Scrutamini Scripturas. See S. Gyrill. l. 3. in joan. c. 4.  affirmed that they did read them, because they thought they contained life. But suppose he did exhort them to read Scriptures for to find whether he were the Messias or no, whero● as he saith there, they give testimony, what is this for trying of all matters by them. Can Bel infer an universal proposition of one singular? That of the pharisees 
Corrupt. of Script.  containeth two corruptions of Scriptures. For neither did Christ say, The Pharases, but the Saducees erred about the resurrection, neither doth he say the cause of their error therein was only ignorance of Scripture (as Bel insinuateth leaving out the words, power of God,) but ignorance both 
Math. 22. v. 29.  of Scripture, and of God's power: you err (saith he) knowing neither Scriptures, nor the power of God. So if they had known God's power, though it had not been by Scripture but by Tradition, or revelation (as job and 
job 19 v. 25.  the faithful uncircumcised did) they had not erred about the resurrection. Beside, the resurrection is a particular matter, and evidently testified in Scripture, what proveth this concerning all points of faith?  
4. As for the Berhaeans whom Bell will have to have examined the truth of S. Paul's 
Act. 17.  doctrine: I ask of him whither they were faithful whilst they examined it, or faithless? If faithless, why proposeth he them to us as an example to imitat? If he will follow them let him confess himself to want faith, & none will discommend him for examining either 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 examine, whither that were true or no, which they assuredly believed to be divine truth? Wherefore they examined not the truth of S. Paul's doctrine. For they received it 
How the Berhaeans examined S. Paul's doctrine.  (saith S. Luke) with all greediness, and believed: but did for confirmation and increase of their faith, search the Scriptures whether these things were so or no, vz in Scriptures, that is foretold in Scriptures; And this kind of examining Traditions we disallow not.  
5. As for S. John: He bid us try doubtful 
What S. John bid us try. 1. joan. 4.  spirits, but not Apostolical spirits, or Traditions. Besides he bid us not try them only by Scripture, and therefore he maketh nothing for Bells purpose. Finally as for S. Paul he accursed not (as S Austin noteth 
S. Augustin. ●o. 9  tracked 98. in joan) him that should preach more than he had done. For so he should prejudice himself, who coveted to return to the Thessalonians to preach more than 
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) 
How S. Paul under stood the word beside Gal. 1. v. 2.  that Gospel which he had preached, which things v. 6 and 7. he calleth an other Gospel inverting Christ's Gospel. Such were the cirrumcision, & observation of jewish ceremonies, against which he disputeth in the whole epistle. But what is this against Apostolical Traditions, are they a second Gospel? do they invert Christ's Gospel? are they jewish ceremonies.  
6. Beside S. Paul neither speaketh of Scripture, 
S. Paul speaketh not of Scripture but of his own preaching.  nor can be understood of it alone. For when he saith (besides that which we have evangelized to you) he neither had written any thing before to the Galathians; Nor then, nor after writ to them all points of Christian faith. And therefore when he speaketh 
The like saith S. Ignat epist. ad Heron. of those that teach praeter eae quae traditl sunt.  of his own evangelizing both in time before the writing of that epistle, and unto the Galathians, evident it is he meant not of evangelizing by only writing, but rather of evangelizing by word of mouth, because before the writing of that epistle, he had evangelized to the Galathians only by word of mouth, and of that evangelizing he speaketh, which before times he had used to them. And so this place maketh more for us then for Bel.  
7. As for S. Austin, and S. Basil they say not That S. Paul meant of evangelizing by only Scripture, but out of this place infer, that nothing is to be preached which is beside Scripture, in that sense wherein S. Paul used the word (Beside) vz: so beside as it is an other Gospel, inverting Christ's Gospel, which they rightly inferred. For what is so beside Scripture, as it is a new Gospel, and inverteth Christ's Gospel, is in like sort beside that which S. Paul had evangelized to the Galathians, and no Apostolical Tradition, but a cursed doctrine. And thus much of Bells proofs out of Scripture touching examination of Traditions; Now let us see his proofs out of Fathers.   

CHAP. XII. Bells arguments out of holy Fathers about the examination of Traditions answered.  
FIRST he saith, That in S. Cyprians days 
Bel p. 117. untruth 98 untruth 99  neither Tradition was a sufficient proof of doctrine, nor the Pope's definitive sentence a rule of faith. These be both untruths. For that Tradition was a sufficient proof of doctrine in S. Cyprians days is evident by the testimony of his master Tertullian, S. Ireney, and S. Dionis. before his time, 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 Thessa●. Cap. cit. parag. 6.  Chrisostom & others after his time before cited. And by his own words before alleged, and the deciding of two controversies only by Tradition, the one in his own time about the baptism of heretics, the other before his time about the time of Easter. Nether did he ever doubt that true Tradition was sufficient proof of doctrine of which S. Chrisostom said. It is Tradition, seek no more: but thought (and truly) that human, and mistaken Tradition was no sufficient rule, as hath been showed before. And that the Pope's definitive sentence in his time was a sufficient rule of faith is evident by his own saying. That false faith can 
Cyprian. lib. 4. epistol. 8. calleth Rome the Matrice and root of the Catholic Church. S. Cyprian. l. 1. epist. 3. S. Augustin. l. 6. de bapt. contr. Donat c. 2. S. Cyprian. ep. ad Pompei●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 Pope's decree.  have no access to S. Peter's chair, and that heresies, and Schisms rise not, but because it is not thought that there is for the time one Priest in the Church, and one judge in Christ's room, and by his own subscribing at the last to the Pope's commandment, though he thought it had been contrary to Scripture. Nether did he ever withstand the Pope's definitive sentence. For P. Steeven did not define as a matter of faith, but only commanded that such should not be rebaptized, but the Tradition observed, as both S. Cyprian: Eusebius. Vincent Lyrinen: and others testify. And this command S. Cyprian did not at first obey, wherein 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 well of the Pope's decrees as S Hierom did, when he wrote to P. Damasus: Decree I pray if it please you I will not fear to say three Hypostases if you bid. And requested him for Christ's sake to give authority, either to affirm or deny three hypostases. And darest thou Bel make no account of the Pope's sentence, when so great and holy a Doctor, so highly esteemed it, as without it he durst neither affirm, nor deny three hypostases, and with it doubted not to do either.  
2. After this Bell allegeth the practice 
Bel p. 118.  of Fathers, who when the Arians (saith he) would not admit the word homoousion because it 
untruth 100  was not in Scripture (mark how he confesseth himself to imitate Arians) the Fathers did not prove it by Tradition, nor say that many unwritten things are to be believed. 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.  Council did not invent that word, but set it down 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 us that our Fathers thought not as they do; and the same argument useth also S. Athanasius writing against the Apollinarists. And how untruly he affirmeth, that the Fathers did not say many unwritten things are to be believed, I refer myself to their testimonies alleged above cap. 4. But saith Bel S. Athanasius proved homoousion, because though the word was not in Scripture the sense was. A goodly reason: He proved it out of Scripture, therefore not out of Tradition; as if one should say. He proved it out of S. John therefore not out of S. Paul.  
3. Origen (saith Bel) hom. 25. in Math. 
Bel p. 118.  and hom. 1. in 1. Hierem counseleth us to try all doctrines by Scripture. This is untrue. 
untruth 101. Origen.  For Origen speaketh not of all, but only of our opinions, and doctrines. Our opinions and expositions (saith he) have no credit without their testimonies. Again: We must allege the sense of Scripture, for testimony of all the words we utter: Terrullian calling that truth which is first, and false which is after, maketh nothing to his purpose. Next he allegeth S. Austin saying, That we must not consent even 
S. Augustin. lib. de unit. eccles. c. 10. to. 7.  to Catholic Bishops error, or private opinion against Scripture. Error against Scripture is not to be followed. Ergo: neither Apostolical Traditions contested by the whole Church. Surely Bel hath great facility in inferring quodlibet ex quolibet: He bringeth also S. Chrisostom calling God's laws a 
S. Chrysost. hom. 13. in 2. Cor. to. 4.  most exact rule, and bidding us learn not what this, or that man thinks, and of these things inquire these points also out of Scripture. Answer. S. Chrysostoms' meaning is, that God's word is most exact in the matter whereof he talked: uz. whither poverty be to be preferred before riches, in which matter we ought (saith he) to leave 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.  seem to say, That all 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 neither the 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 us before. To whom he adjoineth Canus teaching. That Priests are not 
Canus l. 3. de loc. c. vlt.  to be heard unless they teach according to God's law. Certain: And then inferreth, That Papists teach plainly that no doctrine is to be received, which is not tried by God's word. True also, if it be rightly understood, uz. of such doctrine as may be tried, not of divine, (as Apostolical Traditions be,) which may not be tried. And of God's whole word, not of a part thereof (as the Scripture is. And that expounded not according to the humour of private spirits, but according to the uniform consent of Fathers & Counsels. This most just and reasonable rule of trying all matters in controversy the Council of 
Concil. Trident. sess. 18. in saluo coductu dato Protestantibus.  Trent prescribed to the Protestants. But they will try divine truth contained not only in Traditions, but also in Scripture, & that part by which they will try the rest, they will expound according to their own private spirits, which is to make themselves rule and judges of all: wherefore vainly doth Bel profess to agree with the Pope in all controversies 
pag. 120.  if he will be tried by God's word. For unless Bel be made judge, and trier both of God's word, and of his meaning, or (as Protestants speak) unless he may judge which is Scripture, and which is the true sense, there must neither trial, nor judgement pass. For unless Protestants may have all the law in their own hands they will accept no judgement.  
5. But because Bellarmin granteth, that 
Bellarm. lib. 2. de Concil. c. 52.  singuli Episcopi: all Bishops severally may err, and sometime do err, 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 remembering himself better, that though Catholics grant that every Bishop severally may err, yet deny that they can err all, when they are gathered in a Synod confirmed by the Pope, he taketh occasion to make a long digression about Counsels.   

CHAP. XIII. Of the authority of late general Counsels.  
GENERAL Counsels in these our days are as certain as before times. This is against Bel pag. 123. saying, that in our days they are like a nose of wax, and as uncertain as the wind. And because he denieth not, but that general Counsels in some times have been certain (forsooth such as defined nothing contrary to Protestantisme) I will only prove, that they are now as certain as ever. First because Christ promiseth, 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 us all truth. john. 16. That the gates of hell should not prevail 
S. john. v. ●3. S. Math.  against his Church. Math. 16. v. 18. which promises are limited to no certain time, but are extended (as he saith Math. vlt.) even to the end of the world. Likewise Christ's command 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 subject to them. Hebr. 13. v. 17. bindeth as well 
S. Paul.  in our days as before times. wherefore either the Church, Preachers, and Prelates teaching in a general Council in our days, can not err, or Christ in our days commandeth us to believe heresy and lies.  
2. Secondly the present Church of our days hath authority to decide controversies in faith: Ergo, we be bound to obey her decision: Ergo, it is no lie. The Antecedent is an article of Protestants faith. 
Article 39 Art. 20.  The first consequence I prove, because who resisteth power in matters belonging to the power refisteth God's ordinance, and purchaseth damnation to himself. Roman. 13. vers. 2. 3. which being true of temporal power, and concerning worldly matters, much more true it is of spiritual power, and in matters of faith, and salvation: The second consequence is evident. For God who is truth itself, and can not lie, can not bind us (especially 
See S. Gregory lib. 1. epist. 24.  under pain of damnation) to believe and follow lies. Thirdly as Protestants except against the Counsels in their times, all heretics may except against the Counsels of their times, and so none shall 
See l. Marciani. C. de sum. Trinit.  be condemned as Heretics, no Council certain, but all things remain as uncertain, as if there had never been any Council at all, which is to take away the end of calling Counsels. For if they can not make things certain, to what purpose are they gathered. Finally Bel can give no sufficient reason, why general Counsels be not as certain now as ever, as shall appear by the answer to this his objection.  
3. He objecteth that Bellarmin lib. 2. de Concil. cap. 11. writeth: that is the true decree of the counsel, which is made of the greater part. But Canus saith lib. 5. de locis 
Canus.  cap. 4. q. 2. That voices prevail not with us, as in human assemblies. Again, these matters of faith are judged not by number, but by weight. And the gravity and authority of the Pope is it, which giveth weight to Counsels. Ergo, (saith Bel) there can be no certainty in 
Bel p. 121. 122.  Counsels. A goodly reason sutely: Two Catholic writers agree not whether should be accounted the decree of a council, if the greater number of Bishops should define against the Pope, and the lesser number of Bishops. Ergo no council in our days is certain. As if nothing were certain, if two Catholics disagree about it. Will Bel allow me to argue so against Protestants? I believe I should find scarce any one point of faith certain amongst them. But he should rather have inferred: Bellarmin, Canus, and all Catholic writers agree, that it is the decree of the Council, and certain truth, which the greater part of Bishops defineth, and the Pope confirmeth. Ergo general counsels in our days are certain; Namely that of Trent, in which the most, yea all (as appeareth by their subscriptions) defined, the Pope confirmed.  
4. I might omit a frivolcus objection, which he maketh against Bellarmin of contradiction. Because Bellarmin saith, that 
Bellarm. lib. 2. de council. c. 18.  the assembly of Bishops in lawful counsels is an assembly of judges, and their decrees l●ws necessarily to be followed. And yet affirmeth that it is all one for Counsels to be reproved by the Pope, and 
Cap. 11.  to do against his sentence: For though Bellarmin affirm Bishops to be judges, and their judgement to be necessarily followed as law. Yet as himself explicateth cap. 11. it is not necessarily to be followed antequam accedat sententia Summi Pontificis. before it be confirmed by the Pope. As the Peers in parliament are judges, and their acts necessary to be followed, but not before they be confirmed by the Prince, who in not confirming them, disannulleth them.  
5. And because Bellarmin writeth, that 
Bellarm. lib. 2. de council. c. 19  one cause why the Pope was never personally in any Council of the East was, lest he being then the emperors temporal subject should be placed under the Emperor. Bel inferreth both that the Pope is proud, 
pag. 122.  and that the East Church never acknowledged his supremacy. But as for pride it is none, to honour (as S. Paul did) his ministry, 
Rom. 11. v. 14.  to challenged the place due to his dignity, and authority. For (as S. Gregory a 
S. Gregor. lib. 4. epist. 36. ad Eulagium.  most humble man said) Let us keep humility in mind, and yet conserve the dignity of our order in honour. No marvel then if Pope's being head and precedents of Counsels, where matters of Church and faith are handled, and Emperors (as S. Gregory Nazianz● 
S. Gregor. Nazianz. orat. 14. ad sub.  speaketh) but sheep of his flock, and subject to his power, and tribunal, did look to sit there above Emperors. Yet the great Emperor Theodosius highly commended 
Theodoret. lib. 5. c. 18.  S. Ambrose for putting him out of the Chancel: And in the Nicene Counsel 
Euseb. lib. 3. de vit. Constant.  Constantine that worthy Emperor entered last, and after all the Bishops were set; nor did not sit in a great throne beseeming his estate, but in a low chair, and that not before he had craved pardon, and asked leave of the Bishops, as Theodoret whom Bel 
Theodoret. lib. 1. c 7. Nicephor. l. 1. c. 19  calleth a Saint, Nicephorus, and others do testify. Albeit the Novatian heretic Sozomene, who lieth much (as writeth S. 
Sozome. lib. 1. c. 19 gregor. l. 6. epist. 31. Novel. 9 & C. de sum. Trinit. lib. ultimo. Concil. Calced. act. 1. Athanas. apol. 2. Socrates lib. 2. cap. 13. Sext. Synod. act. 18. Theodoret. lib. 5. c. 9 Euap. lib. 1. c. 4. Martian. ep. ad Leonem. Gelas. ep. ad Episcopum Dordon. Concil. Nicen. epist. ad ●●●●est.  Gregory) do seem to say, that he sat at the top of the Council, in a most great throne.  
6. As for the Eastern churches acknowledging the Pope's primacy, it is so manifest, as justinian Emperor of the East writeth. No man doubteth but that at Rome is Summi Pontificatus apex: the top of the priesthood. And if more witnesses need in so evident a matter, certain it is, that the general counsels in the East were called, and their decrees confirmed by the Pope. And the Council of Chalcedon professeth in plain terms, that omnis primatus, all primacy belonged to the Archbishop of Rome, & the same acknowledge the Grecians in the seventh synod in the Counsels of Lateran, Lions, and Florence. Likewise some patriarchs 
Leo epist. 59 60. 61. Conc. Constant. ep. ad Damas'. Concil. Calced. act. 16. 7. Synod. act. 2. Conc. Lateran. 13. c. 15. Concil. Florent. in lit. unionis. Concil. Lugdun. in 6. tit. de election. cap. ubi periculum. Baron. 536. Concil. Calced. act. 3. Gelas. ep. ad Faustum. Sozom. lib. 3. c. 7. Baron. Ann. 372. Baron. 342. Chrysost. epist. ad Innocent. Ex lit. Leon. & Valent. ad Theodos. Athanas. ep. ad Felicem. Basil. ep. 52. ad Athan. Chrisost. ep. ad Innocen. Theodoret. epist. ad Renatum. Gregor. l. 7. epist. 63.  of the East (to omit Bishops) were by the Pope's authority created, as Anatholius of Constantinople by Pope Leo epist. 53. ad Pulcheriam, others deposed as Anthimus of Constant: Dioscorus, and Timothy of Alexandria, and Peter of Antioch. Other being deposed or vexed appealed to Popes, as S. Athanasius and Peter of Alexandria, S. Paul, S. Chrisostom: and S. Flavian of Constantinople, Paulin of Antioch: which evidently proveth the Pope's Primacy over them. Finally to omit the testimony of S. Athanasius, S, Basil, S. Chrisostom, Theodoret, and other Doctors and saints of the East church, both the Emperor and patriarch of Constantinople did in S. Gregory's time (as he witnesseth) daily profess the church of Constantinople to be under the Roman Sea.  
7. Now to his reason. Bellarmin saith. The Emperor of the East would have sat in Council above the Pope. Ergo, the East church never acknowledged his primacy. Who seethe not the manifold weakness of this reason. First I deny, that any religious Emperor of the East would have sat above the Pope in Council, as appeareth by the fact of the two great Emperors Constantin, and Theodosius before rehearsed, and by justinus humbling himself unto the Pope prostrate on the ground, justinian's 
See Art. 1. c. 6. parag. 6.  lowly adoring, and justinian the second his kissing of his foots. Is it likely that these who so honoured the Pope out of Council, would have sat above him in Council? And albeit one graecian Emperor, after both religion, and reverence thereto was decayed in Greece, and the whole nation fallen into Schism and heresy, did in the Council of Florence attempt 
Concil. Florent. in initio.  to sit above the Pope, yet the like is not to be thought of other religious Christian Emperors, whereof, divers as Bel testifieth art. 1. pag. 17. humbled themselves, and yielded even their sovereign rights to Popes. Yea the self same Emperor, who by some evil suggestion would have sat above the Pope, would at his first meeting with him have kneeled unto him. But suppose 
Concil. Florent. sup.  that the graecian Emperors, by reason of their temporal superiority, would have sitten above the Pope, Do they therefore deny his spiritual primacy? No more surely than a gentleman doth deny his pastors spiritual authority over him, because he will sit above him. Did not the grecians even in the Florentin Council, where they attempted 
In lit. unionis.  to place the Emperor above the Pope, define together with the Latins, that the Bishop of Rome hath primatum in universum orbem, primacy over the whole world.  
8. In two other matters Bel iniuryeth 
Bel p. 127.  the Pope, avouching, that he would never show his face in any Council. And that he shamefully 
untruth 102. untruth 103.  abuseth the world, because he can not communicate his supreme judicial authority to his Legates, and will approve nothing decreed in Council, unless it be agreeable to that which he decreeth a part in his chair at home. For the first of these is a manifest untruth; because the Pope hath been personally present almost in all the general counsels held in the west, as at Florence, at Constance, at Viena, at Lions, at Rheims, at Claremount, and divers counsels of Lateran. In the other the Pope abuseth the world no more, then doth the Prince abuse the Parliament, when sending thither the L. chancellor to supply his place, and praeseed in his room, will nevertheless approve nothing what the Peers do, or decree, unless himself judgeth it convenient.   

CHAP. XIIII. Of the oath which Bishops use to make unto the Pope.  
because Bishops swear fidelity to the Pope, and to keep and defend the primacy of the Roman Church, and rules of holy fathers against all men, and nevertheless as Bellarmin writeth, are not to obey 
Bellarm. lib. 1. de council. cap. vlt.  him, but when he commandeth according to God's law, and holy canons, and may notwithstanding their oath speak their mind in council, and depose the Pope, if he become an heretic. Bel inferreth divers 
pag. 125. 126.  things requisite to be answered: First, that Bishops swear the Pope can depose all Emperors and Kings in the Christian world. Secondly, that they swear to admit his decree, whom they 
untruth 104.  freely grant may be an heretic: Thirdly, that they swear obedience to him in matters of faith, whom they can depose for heresy: Fourthly, that the Pope is not supreme judge of controversies, seeing Bishops may examine and judge, whether what he commandeth be agreeable to God's word, and the Canons. Lastly, that they swear flat rebellion against their Sovereigns, seeing they swear to defend the Pope's Primacy against all men whomsoever.  
2. Answer. As for the oath of Bishops made to the Pope the lawfulness thereof appeareth, because it is made withal Catholic princes consent, and meant only in just and lawful things, which are according to God's law, and holy Canons. And it hath been used above a thousand year ago, as is evident by the like oath made by a Bishop unto S. Gregory the great. And S. Boniface the 
S. Gregor. ●● 10. ep. 31. Baron. Ann. 723.  Apostle of Germany, and worthiest man that ever England bred, did swear when he was consecrated Bishop to concur with 
See Concil. Tolet. 11. can. 10.  the Pope and commodities of his church. And as for the first point which Bel inferreth, it is untrue, as appeareth by the answer to the first article. The second and third contain no inconvenience. For we must obey what he decreeth, or defineth judicially as sitting in S. Peter chair, though in heart he were an heretic. As our Saviour commanded 
S. Math. 23. v. 3. S. Mare. 8. v. 15. S. Math. 16. v. 6.  the jews to follow what the Scribes taught out of Moses' chair, but abstain from their private leaven. If Bel can not imagine how a man by God's disposition may utter truth contrary to his own mind, let him remember Balaam, and Caiphas, 
Numer. 22. joh. 11. v. 52. Chap. 10. parag. 9 Bellarm. lib. 4. de Rom. Pont. cap. 6. & 7. Bel p. 125.  and what hath been said before out of S. Austin. Besides we grant not freely, as Bel freely forgeth, that the Pope may be an heretic. For Bellarmin (whose only testimony saith Bel is most sufficient in all popish affairs) defendeth the contrary And by that which hath been said to these two points appeareth the answer to the fourth. Because Bishops must not examine the doctrine, which the Pope delivereth judicially out of S. Peter's chair, as supreme pastor of God's church, but only that, wherein he uttereth his own private opinion.  
3. And as for the last point; Bishops swear no rebellion: Both because they swear to defend the Pope's primacy, only according to God's word, and holy Canons, which admit no rebellion. As also 
The weapons of our warfare are not carnal. 1. Cor. 10. v. 4. Euseb. lib. 6. c. 25. Gelas. epist. ad Anast. S. Chrysost. lib. count Gent.  because the defence which Bishops are to use, is not by insurrection and rebellion, but by spiritual chastisement, and correction. In which sort S. Fabian defended the orders of the Church against the Emperor Philip. S. Innocent: defended S. Chrisostom against Archadius, S. Babilas and S. Ambrose punished their Emperors without any rebellion at al.  
4. After the foresaid collections, Bel 
pag 128. Rhemists Act. 15. untruth 105.  avoucheth an untruth upon the Rhemists affirming them to tell plainly and rowndly, that the determination of Counsels is needles, because the Pope's judgement alone is infallible. Where as they in that place which Bel citeth write, that though the Sea Apostolic have infallible assistance, yet the determinanation of Counsels are necessary for many causes, as for searching out the truth, for the recovery of heretics, and contentation of the weak, who not always giving over to one man's determination, yet will either yield to the judgement of all the learned men, and Bishops of all Nations, or else remain desperate, & condemned before God and man. As the Apostles (say they) though assisted by God, yet thought it necessary to call a Council, for deciding a controversy risen in their days. I omit three other points touched here by Bel. That the general 
pag. 128.  Counsels is above the Pope, can, and hath deposed him, because he neither proveth them, nor they concern any matter of Catholic faith. And are lardgely and learnedly handled of Bellarmin lib. 2. de council. And thus much of Bells seventh article. Be mindful therefore Bel from whence thou art fallen and do 
Apocalip.  penance. Apoc. 2.    

THE EIGHT AND LAST ARTICLE OF KEEPING GOD'S COMMANDMENTS.  

CHAP. I. The possibility of keeping Gods commandments explicated and proved out of Scripture.  
GOD'S children can by his grace keep his commandments. This Bell absolutely denieth pag. 143. 148. 149. and 152. though in the very beginning of this article he were a shamed to deny it plainly, but admitteth it (saith he) in a godly sense, and in some sort, and only denieth it in a Popish sense. But this godly sense is so ungodly, and the sort so sorry, as he is ashamed to utter it. For as S. Hierom writeth of the 
S. Hieron. epist. ad Cresiphontem. Iren. lib. 1. cap. 35.  Pelagians, to have discovered the opinions of Protestants, is to have overcome them, the blasphemy is manifest at the first: yet may we gather his meaning by that he saith pag. 149. That God hath given us those commandments, which we can not possibly keep, and pag. 144. that every breach of them is of it nature deadly. The mystery therefore of his counsel is, that God's children can not possibly, even with his grace keep his commandments, but that they must needs oftentimes break them deadly. This kind of keeping Gods commandments he termeth imperfect, and unexact keeping. But indeed it is no keeping at all, nor a point of God's children but of the devils, and a true breaking of them. For how are they Gods children, if they love him not, how love they him, if they damnably offend? If you love me saith Christ joh. 14. 
S. joh.  v. 15. keep my commandments; & how can they keep them, if they damnably, and deadly break them? can true keeping, and true breaking stand together.  
2. God commanded his precepts to be kept, not so sillily as Bel would, so as they be oftentimes deadly broken; but as David saith Nimis Sphodra Psal. 118. v. 8. God (saith 
Psalm.  S. Austin upon that place conc. 4.) hath very 
S. Austin.  much commanded his precepts to be very much kept. And according to S. james, who offendeth 
S. james 2. v. 10.  in one is guilty of al. Wherefore deadly breaking of one of God's laws, can no more stand with keeping them, than theft or murder can stand with keeping the Prince's laws. Nor they, who oftentimes deadly break God's laws, be his children whilst they do so, more than thieves and murderers be good subjects. And as for the 
Luther. sermon. de natiu. B. Mariae maketh all Christians as holy as the mother of God.  Popish sense, it is not as Bel falsely imposeth, that we can keep God's commandments so perfectly, as we be free from sin: For so (as S. john saith) we should deceive ourselves, and as Bel confesseth we do daily acknowledge our sins, but so 
Bel p. 150.  as we be free from deadly sin, which destroyeth 
The Apostles were clean, and yet had need to have their feet washed. joh. 13. ver. 10. 11. S. Hierom. dialog. 2. cont. Pelag. S. Gregor. 21. moral. c. 9 S. Augustin. hom. 19 de temp. to. 10. lib. 1. contr. duas epist Pelag. c. 14. to. 7. enchirid. c. 69.  charity the end of the law, and keep the commandments in all great, though not in small matters. For as S. Hierom saith we may be without cacia, though not sina amartia, or as S. Austin, and S. Gregory gather out of S. Paul sine crimine, though not sine peccato, that is without great sin, though not without small sin, without mortal, though not without venial. And to keep God's commandments in this sort, is substantially to keep them, because we break not the end of them, which is charity; and yet not perfectly, & exactly. as who stealeth but trifles keepeth the Prince's laws, though not perfectly; but if he steal great matters, he is said no more to keep 
1. Timoth. 1. 7. 5.  but to break them. And in this sense, do Catholics defend the foresaid conclusion, which though I might prove many ways, yet will I content myself with such proofs, as Bel undertaketh to answer, and in that order as he propoundeth them.  
3. First therefore I prove it. because a young man told Christ he had kept all the 
Math. 19 v. 20.  commandments from his youth. Bel answereth that S. Hierom saith he lied, and S. Austin 
Bel p. 150.  thinketh he spoke more proudly then truly, 
S. Augustin. epist. 89.  nevertheless more probable it is that he spoke truly, because not only our Saviour did not rebuke him (as likely it is he would have done, if he had told him a lie) but, as S. Mark testifieth, beheld him, & loved him, 
Marc. 10. v. 21.  and said, one thing is wanting to thee, go sell whatsoever thou hast, and give it to the poor, and come, and follow me. If the man's speech had been a lie, it would not have provoked Christ's love, but his offence; and if he had broken God's commandments, Christ would have advertised him whom he loved, rather of keeping the things which he commanded, than which he counseled, as is the giving all we have to the poor. Wherefore S. Chrisostome hom. 64. in Math. 
S. Chrysost.  saith, this man was no dissembler. And S. Hierom. dialog. 2. contra Pelag. affirmeth, 
S. Hierom.  that Christ loved him, because he said he had done all, omnia fecisse se dicit, quamobrem & amatur à Domino: he said that he had done all things, wherefore he was also loved of our lord; which evidently convinceth that his speech was true: for Christ could not love him for a lie. Neither will Bel I hope marvel, that we expound S. Matthew rather by S. Mark, then by S. Hierome, and S. Austin, especially seeing S. Hierome alrered his opinion, ad S. Austin spoke but doubtfully, saying I think. Nevertheless because some fathers have thought that the man's speech was not true, Catholics rely not upon this argument.  
4. Secondly S. Paul saith. For not the 
Rom. 2. v. 13.  hearers of the law are just with God, but the Doers of the law shall be justified. Ergo there are some Doers of the law, and it is possible to be done. Bel answereth that the 
pag. 151.  Apostle spoke not absolutely, but upon supposal of a thing, which (saith he) is impossible, that there were doers of the law, for such saith Bel, should be justified by their work, though they could not glory in them. But that S. Paul spoke absolutely, and not upon any impossible supposal is evident. First because in the first part of the sentence he spoke absolutely of hearers, and not upon any impossible supposal, when he said they are not just. Ergo: in the second part he spoke so of Doers, when he said they shall be justified. Wherefore as well may Bel say there are no hearers, as no doers of the law. Secondly because in the next verse before, he 
vers. 12.  had said absolutely. Whosoever have sinned in the la, shall be judged by the la. Which he proveth saying. For not the hearers etc. Wherefore as the proposition which he proved is absolute, and upon no impossible supposal; so is that by which he proveth it. And in 
vers. 14.  the verse next after he bringeth a proof, that the Doers of the law shall be justified, though they heard it not, because Gentiles who have no la, naturally (that is without 
See S. Austin. lib. 4 contra julian. cap. 3. tom. 7.  instruction of the law) Do those things which are of the la: Behold the Apostle avouching that Gentiles do the law, & by their example proving the Doers thereof to be justified.  
5. And so frequent it is in scripture to 
Psalm.  affirm, that there are Doers, and keepers of God's laws, as it is avouched more than twenty times in one Psalm 118. I will keep thy justifications v. 8. I have sought thee in my whole heart. v. 10. I have cleaved to thy testimonies Lord. v. 31. I have run the way of thy commandments. v. 32. I will keep thy law in my whole heart. v. 34. I will keep thy law always. v. 44. I have not declined from thy law. v. 51. I have kept thy law. v. 55. I have not forgotten thy law. v. 61. I am partaker of all that keep thy commandments. v. 63. I have not forsaken thy commandments. v. 87. I will keep the testimonies of thy mouth. v. 88 I have forbidden my feet from evil way, that I may keep thy words. v. 101. I have not declined from thy judgements. v. 102. I have sworn and determined to keep the judgements of thy justice. v. 106. I have not erred from thy commandments. v. 110. Deliver me because I have not forgotten thy la. v. 153. I have not declined from thy testimonies. v. 157. My soul hath kept thy testimonies. v. 167. I have kept thy commandments and testimonies. v. 168. Seek thy servant, for I have not forgotten thy commandments. v. 176. What now is it to say that there are no doers of God's law, and it is impossible to keep his commandments, but to set his mouth against heaven. Psalm. 72. and to give God the lie. 
Psalm. 98. 3. Reg. 14. Act. 13. joshua 11. v. 15.  I omit Moses, Aaron, Samuel, David, joshua, Zacharie, Elizabeth; and the Apostles, who are said to have kept God's law, and some of them in all their heart. Only S. Paul 
Luc. 1. Ioh 17. v. 6. Contradict. 19  I can not omit, because Bel artic. 4. pag. 48. granteth that he was most free, and innocent from actual sin, therefore surely he kept God's law perfectly: for if he broke it he sinned actually.  
6. Thirdly Christ said, if thou wilt enter 
Math. 19 v. 17.  into life, keep the commandments. but entering into life is possible. Ergo: keeping the commandments. Bel answereth, that Christ showed not here, how one may attain to eternal life, but how perfectly they who look to be justified by good works must keep the commandments: For Christ (saith he) being asked what good a man 
God's word shamefully wr●sted.  should do to attain eternal life, answered. If thou wilt have eternal life by doing good works, then must thou keep the commandments, but this is impossible (saith Bel.) Here is most shameful abuse of God's word, and this showeth Bel to have a seared conscience. For neither 
1. Timoth. 4. v. 3.  in the man's question, nor in Christ's answer, is there any word about what perfection of keeping Gods commandments is requisite to come to heaven by this way, or that way: uz. by believing, or by working, or by both. But only about the mean in general to come to heaven, what that was, which the man supposing to be good, asked what good he should do to come thither (which question of his is common either to faith, or works, or both; for all include doing good) And our Saviour answered him, If thou wilt enter (not this way, nor that way, but absolutely) into life, keep the commandments. As David demanding 
Psalm. 14. v. 1. 2.  absolutely, who shall dwell in God's tabernacle? answereth himself. He that walketh without spot, and worketh justice. And as himself otherwere absolutely saith. 
Math. 7. v. 21.  Not every one that said Lord, Lord shall enter into the Kingdom of heaven, but be that doth the will of my father. And surely if this man ask simply, and of a desire to learn, as Caluin 
Caluin.  granteth, had asked the way to heaven by an impossible mean (as Bel imagineth) Christ the author of truth, and who loved him, as S. Mark saith, would rather have 
Marc. 10.  bidden him give over that impossible way, and taught him the true, then how he should proceed in his erroneous, and impossible way.  
7. And though the man had asked Christ particularly, how he should come to heaven by good works, whence hath Bel, that his means to come to heaven is impossible? will not Christ say in his last sentence. Come you blessed of my father, possess the Kingdom provided for you, from the constitution of the world: because I was Hungry and you gave me to eat etc. Math. 
S. Math.  25. v. 34. 35. as well as he will say, Go you from me you cursed into everlasting fire &c. because I was Hungry and you gave me not to eat. v. 41. Are not good works accounted the means, and cause of coming to heaven, as the want of them the mean, and cause of going to hell. Yea doth not Bel say artic. 5. pag. 73. that good works are so necessary to attain eternal life, as 
Contradict. 20.  the usual, ordinary, and undoubted means (mark the word) by which God decreed from eternity, freely for his own name sake, to bring his elect to salvation. And that without them none have been, are, or shall be saved. How are they now become an impossible mean to come to heaven? how did the man inquire of an impossible way to heaven, by good works? what need this challenger any adversary, who thus overthroweth himself.  
8. fourthly I prove the conclusion: because 
Math. 11. v. 30. 1. joh. 5. v. 3.  Christ saith, my yoke is sweet, and my burden light. And S. John saith, his commandments are not heavy. Ergo they are possible. Bel answereth that these words are meant 
Bel p. 152.  not in respect of us, but of Christ, whose keeping the commandments is imputed to us: which S. Austin (saith he) meant 
S. Augustin. lib. 1. retract. c. 19 tom. 1.  when he wrote. Then are all the commandments reputed as done, when whatsoever is not done is forgiven.  
9 But this is easily refuted. For S. john spoke in respect of us assisted by God's grace, when he said. This is the law of God, that we keep his commandments, and his commandments are not heavy. He saith not (Christ) but (we) must keep God's commandments, & to animate us thereto, he addeth, that they are not heavy uz. to us. And cap, 2. v. 2. he giveth us a sign to try if we know God: uz. if we keep his commandments, 
Bel either keepeth God's commandments, or knoweth not God.  and v. 3. affirmeth, that who keepeth not his commandments knoweth not God: wherefore either Bell keepeth the commandments, or he knoweth not God. Likewise Christ meant his yoke was sweet, and his burden light to us. For immediately before he 
Cap. 11. v. 29.  said Take up my yoke upon you, & learn etc. and you shall find rest to your souls. For my yoke is sweet, and burden light. To whom meaneth he it is light, but to us, whom he biddeth take it up? and whom he promiseth shall find rest by it? or what reason had it been for Christ, to exhort us to take up his yoke, and tell us we should find rest by it, because it is sweet to himself? As for S. Austin he said our defectuous keeping 
S. Augustin. sup. to. 1.  is counted a full keeping, when the defect is pardoned; which is a far different thing from saying. That Christ's keeping is counted our keeping. And he meaneth that our keeping is defectuous, because we keep not the commandments ad unum apicem (as he saith) to the last ioat or title: But through venial sins have need to say. Forgive us our trespasses, which venial trespasses being pardoned, we are accounted to do all God's commandments.  
10. another answer Bel putteth in the 
pag. 152.  margin, and in latin. That Christ meaneth not of the yoke, and burden of the law, when he calleth it sweet, and easy, but of the Gospel. That Christ meant of the law of the Gospel, I grant with S. Hierom 
S. Hierom.  dialog. 2. contr. Pelag, and is proved out of these words: my yoke, my burden. But what is this to the purpose? Is Bel become a libertine, thinking as his father Luther did, that the ten commandments 
Luther.  belong not to Christians, or that the Gospel commandeth only faith? Did 
Math. 5. v. 19  Christ come to dissolve the law of nature, and to exempt us from all law, but of believing in him? If Bel be of this mind, let him utter it plainly, and say Christ came not to fulfil the law, but to dissolve it, that his 
Rom. 3. v. 31.  faith establisheth not the law, but destroyeth it. Or if he think that the law of the gospel. Besides the precepts of faith, includeth at least the law of nature, let him confess that the ten commandments, and all that God bindeth us unto, is not only possible, but easy, and sweet, uz. to such as 
Psalm. 118. v. 32. Omnia facilia sunt charitati cui uni Christi sarcina levis est. Aug. donat. & great. c. 69. to. 7. see the place. S. john.  love God, as was David when he said, I have run the way of thy commandments, when thou didst dilate my heart. And how sweet are thy speeches to my jaws, above honey to my mouth. The law of thy mouth is good to me, above thousands of gold and silver. For as S john saith 1. c. 5. v. 3. this is the love of God that we keep his commandments. If Bel say that it is impossible to love God as we ought to do. This is reproved, because he loveth God as he should do, who loveth him withal his heart, all his 
Deuter. 6. v. 5.  soul and power. But joshua so loved God, of whom it is written. 4. Reg. 23. That he 
4. Reg. 23.  returned in all his heart, in all his soul, and all his strength. Likewise David sought God 
David.  in all his heart. Psalm. 118. and followed him in all his heart. 3. Reg. 14. And God hath 
vers. 8.  some servants, that walk before him in all their heart, with whom he keepeth his covenant, and mercy, 2. Paralip. 6. v. 14. And Deuter. 30. v. 6. God promiseth to circumcise the jews hearts, that they might love him in all their hearts, and all their soul. And thus much for proof out of scripture, now let us go to the Fathers.   

CHAP. II. The possibility of keeping Gods commandments proved out of Fathers and reason.  
MANY holy Fathers I might allege for this verity, but I will content myself with two only, whom Bel objecteth against himself, and undertaketh to answer. 
S. Hierom. See S. Hierom in cap. 5. Mathei.  S. Hierom dialog. 1. contr. Pelag. we confess (saith he) God hath given possible commandments, lest he should be author of iniustce. Behold our conclusion both affirmed, and proved. And Dialog 2. I say a man may be without vice, which in greek is called cacia, but not anamartyton, that is without sin, which is as much as if he had said. He can be without mortal, but not without venial sin. Again: God hath not commanded impossible things, but hath ascended up to such height of patience, as for their great difficulty he may seem to have commanded almost impossible things. Again: we curse their blasphemy, who say. That God hath commanded to man any impossible thing. This Bel allegeth out of his 3. & fourth book 
pag. 153.  against Pelagians, whereas he wrote but one epistle, and three books or Dialogues against Pelagians. But it is in his epistle to Damasus de exposit. fidei. And therein S. 
pag. 149. S. Austin. See S. Austin in Psal. 56. tom. 8. where he saith the Apostles did that charity, than the which, none can be greater.  Hierom curseth this blasphemy of Bel: God hath given us those commandments, which we can not possibly keep. Likewise S. Austin ser. 61. de temp. God could not command any impossible thing, because he is just. The same he repeateth lib. de nature. & great. cap. 69. and lib. 2 de pen. mer. & remiss. and in psal. 56. I can not doubt (saith he) that God hath neither commanded any impossible thing to man, nor that any thing is impossible to God to help, whereby it may be ●one which he commandeth.  
2. For avoiding these authorities Bel deviseth three shifts. First, that God's commandments were possible to us before Adam's fall. Secondly, that they were possible to Christ, whose keeping them is accounted ours Thirdly, that even to us they are now possible to be kept imperfectly, though not perfectly, which is (saith he) the doctrine of Aquinas: yet seeing that 
S. Thom. 2. 2. quaest. 44. art. 6. untruth.  none of these shifts would serve, he falleth to prove, that we may be justly damned for not doing impossible matters; because Infants unbaptized, are damned for original sin, which saith he they could not possibly avoid. And in the margin calleth this a dilemma, which no Papist can avoid: But none of these shifts will suffice. For S. Hierome 
S. Hierom.  epist. ad Ctesiph. writeth, that the commandments are possible to us by God's grace. And dialog. 2. cit. That they are so possible, as that David we know (saith he) hath done them. If they be possible to us, than not to Christ alone; and if David did them, man after Adam's sin may do them. And the reason which he, and S. Austin after him giveth of God's justice, convinceth the same. For it is against his justice, to command us impossible things, as well after Adam's sin as before. Likewise S. Augustin after the Apostle saith, that the justice 
S. Augustin. sermon. 6. de verb. Apostol. cap. 9 Rom. 8. v. 4.  of the law is fulfilled in us. Ergo not in Christ alone.  
3. As for the third shift. S. Thomas saith indeed, that the precept of loving God withal our heart etc. can not be perfectly kept, but imperfectly, yet in a sense quite contrary to Bel. Perfectly saith he is the precept kept, when the very end intended by the commander is achieved. Imperfectly, when albeit the end be not attained, yet the way unto it is not left. As a soldier fight, and overcoming, perfectly fulfilleth the command of his captain, bidding him fight. And an other fight, and doing nothing against the duty of a soldier, but not overcoming, fulfilleth it, but imperfectly. Whereby we see plainly, that though S. Thomas deny, that the end, (uz. to be wholly united to God) for which he gave that precept of love, be not possible in this life, yet he granteth that we may so fight, or labour for the attaining it, as we do nothing against the order commanded by God, or the duty of a spiritual soldier. Which is indeed substantially to keep the precepts, though S. Thomas in respect of keeping them, and also attaining the end, for which they were made, call it imperfect keeping. For seeing God commandeth not the end, but only intendeth it (as S. Thomas saith) if the order and means commanded be fulfilled, then surely the commandment is fulfilled, though the end of the commander, which is only intended, not commanded be not attained.  
4. And as for Bells dilemma it is easily answered, and therefore might have been better left out (as himself writeth in the margin) For though Infants after they have sinned, and eaten the apple in Adam, cannot avoid the guilt thereof, but must needs contract it by origin from Adam. As a man after he hath committed adultery can not but contract the guilt of adultery: Yet because as Infants sinned in Adam, so they might have not sinned in him, and so have avoided the guilt of sin, falsely doth Bel 
Bel pag. 51. art. 4.  say they could not possibly avoid it. And I wonder why having taught before, that concupiscence (which is the effect of original 
Contradict. 21.  sin) is voluntary, he will now say that Infants could not possibly avoid original sin. But it is his custom to gainsay himself.  
5. By reason also it may be proved, that God's precepts are possible. For beside, that if the law were impossible, sin might be involuntary. I ask to whom God's commandments are impossible? To man alone? and that is not the question nor denied of any Catholic: or to man with God's grace? and that is contrary to S. Paul saying I can do all things in him that strengtheneth 
S. Paul Philip. 14 vers. 13 S. john.  me: and injurious to God's grace, making it impotent, which S. John maketh so potent, as he avoucheth, that he can not sin, in whom it remaineth 1. joh. 3. v. 9 why did God say sufficit tibi gratia mea: my grace sufficeth thee 2. Corinth 12. if his grace suffice 
S. Paul. v. 9  not. Likewise if God commanded impossible things, he should be the Author of injustice, or unjust; as affirm S. Hierom dialog. 1. contr. Pelag. and S. Austin de nat. & great. cap. 69. and serm. 61. de temp. For it is an unjust law which is impossible, and to punish breakers were against right, and equity. As Bel himself would grant if upon pain of death he were bid to fly to heaven, and executed if he did not. Wherefore S. Hierom epist. ad Ctesiphont: writhus. 
S. Hieron.  we pronounce the commander unjust, whiles we complain, that the very Author of equity, hath commanded impossible things. And Simon Magus (saith Vincent. Lirinen.) made God Author of 
Vincent. Lirin.  sin, in affirming us to sin of necessity. Now let us see Bells proofs to the contrary.   

CHAP. III. Bells arguments out of Scripture against the possibility of keeping Gods commandments answered.  
BELL proveth God's commandments to be impossible First, out of S. james saying. we all offend in many things. Answer. 
jacob. 3. v. 2. Si quis in verbo non offendit, hic perfectus est vitae. v. 2.  S. james meaneth of venial sins, as idle words are, whereof he speaketh in the same verse. And though Bel reply, that he hath already proved, that every sin is mortal in it own nature, yet neither is that true, 
Art. 6. cap. 6.  as before is showed, neither though it were, could it disprove my answer. For it sufficeth (which Bel denieth not) that there indeed 
Bel art. 6. pag. 81.  are venial sins (whether they be such by their own nature, or by God's mercy) in the which just men may offend, and not break God's law deadly.  
2. Next he allegeth S. Paul's words 
pag. 144.  Galath. 3. vers. 10. Cursed be every one that shall not abide in all things that are written in the hook of the law to do them. what can hence be inferred to Bells purpose I see not, except that all men are cursed, or else freed from all laws of God, and true libertines. But in truth it maketh more against him, then for him. For S. Paul's intention was to prove, that faith in Christ was to justification, and that the works of the bare law without faith were not sufficient. And therefore having proved by Abraham's example, that faith doth concur to justification, in the tenth verse proveth, that works of the bare law suffice not. For whosoever (saith he) are of the works of the law (uz. without faith) are under curse. For it is written accursed be etc. Because such as want faith, can not abide in all things of the law, and consequently are under curse. But what maketh this against those who have faith and grace. Such can do all Gods will with David: act. 13. Such err not from 
Act. vers. 22. Psalm.  God's commandments: Psal. 118. Such can fulfil all things, and let not pass one word of all God's commandments with joshua. 
joshua.  cap. 11. Such are doers of the law and justified. Rom. 2. v. 12. 14. finally such because 
S. Paul.  the seed of God is in them neither sin, nor can sin. 1. joh. 3. vers. 9 and consequently 
S. john.  avoid the foresaid curse. Neither do their venial sins incur the curse: for it is pronounced only against heinous crimes, namely Idolatry, incest, murder, and the like, as is evident by the 27. of Deuter. 
Deu●●.  from whence the Apostle reciteth the curse But Bel who confesseth himself to incur the crime accursed by the law, must needs confess himself to be under that curse, or say, that he is not bound to God's laws made against Idolatry, Incest, murder, and the like.  
3. The like text he bringeth out of S. 
pag. 144.  james. 2 v. 10. whosoever shall keep the whole law, and offended in one is made guilty of al. This place also maketh rather against Bel. For it supposeth that all the law may be kept, as well one point as the whole; and only teacheth, that the keeping of the whole law will not save, if one point thereof be deadly broken. But this is nothing against God's children, who as long as his seed abideth in them sin not. joh. 3. v. 9 
S. joh.  nor offend deadly in one point, but abide both in the whole law, and every point thereof.  
4. divers other places Bel allegeth to prove that all men are sinners, and that the just do sin, which no Catholic denieth, as Bel might learn out of the Tridentine Council. But how followeth it 
Concil. Trident. sess. 6. cap. 11.  thereof, that the Just whiles they are Just sin deadly, or cannot avoid all deadly sin. This is the mark which Bel should 
pag. 143.  shoot at, and hoped in the beginning of this article to hit the nail on the head; but as S. Hierom said to a Luciferian: whiles he 
S. Hierom. dialog. contra Lucifer.  followeth his vain of gainsaying, he hath missed the question, as some rather prayers than speakers use to do; who not knowing to dispute yet cease not to quarrel.   

CHAP. FOUR Bells arguments out of Fathers against the possibility of keeping Gods commandments answered.  
FIRST, out of S. Austin he allegeth, 
pag. 145. S. Augustin. lib. 1. de doctrine. Christ. c. 22. to. 3.  that God commanded us to love him with all our heart, soul, and mind, and thereby left no part of our life vacant to take fruition of any other thing. But S. Austin in these words meant nothing else, but that we must love nothing as our end, and for itself but Gods for so he useth the word fruition, and therefore addeth which Bel left forth. But what other thing cometh to our mind to be loved, let it be carried thither, whither the whole current of love runneth.  
2. Other words he citeth our of lib. de 
pag. 146.  perfect. justi. ratiocin. 16. but they are in 17. cap. 8. where S. Austin writeth. That as long as there is any thing of carnal concupiscence, which may be bridled by refraining, God is not loved (omnimodo) altogether with all the soul. And yet though none in this life have that perfection it is commanded, because it is not well run, if it be not known whither to run. Answer. What S. Augustine's meaning is herein himself explicateth, saying, that the precept of loving God withal our soul is not omnimodo altogether fulfilled whilst we have inordinate motions. He denieth not substantial fulfilling which avoideth sin (yea lib. de spir. & litter. cap. vlt. affirmeth, 
S. Augustin. tom. 3.  that though we did not love God withal our hearts, and soul, so as we had no motions of lust: yet if we did not obey them, we need not to ask God forgiveness) but only denieth omnimodam impletionem, which in the place cited he called most supereminent perfection of loving God, and saith not it belongeth to this, but to the next life, uz. to be perfectly performed. Wherefore when he saith such perfection is commanded in this life, he meaneth not that it is commanded as a thing which we are bound to perform, but only as an end to which we should run. For though (saith 
De perfect. instit. loc. cit.  he) no man perform it, yet we run not well, if we know not whither to run, and how should we know if it were showed by no precept.  
3. Next he citeth S. Thomas only because 
pag. 147. S. Thomas ●. 2 q. 44. art  he useth the words perfectly, and imfectly. But how contrary to Bells meaning hath been before explicated, which reproveth his untruth in affirming himself to teach the self same doctrine with Aquinas. What hath been said to S. Austin, and S. Thomas is to be applied to S. Bernarde, 
S. Bernard. hom. 50. i● Cant.  when he saith in the like sort, that the precept of loving God can not be fulfilled in this life. And that God in commanding impossible things made not men prevaricators▪ but humble. For beside that S. Bernard, as himself, speaketh this only, if the precept of love be understood of affectual charity, or charity in work, and granteth that so it is fulfilled, if it be perfectly observed, as (said he a little before) it may be in this life by God's grace. Besides this I say, immediately before the words which Bel citeth, he granteth, that initium perfectumque the beginning and perfection of charity may be experienced by God's grace in this life. If perfection be had, surely the precept is fulfilled. For (as himself saith soon after) dost thou not think is sufficient to the fulfilling the precept of loving thy neighbour, if thou observe it perfectly. And Bel pag. 151. granteth, that who perfectly observeth the law shall be justified.  
4. And though he differ, or (as he speaketh) defend the consummation of charity to the next life, and therefore account the precept of charity impossible, as far forth as it embraceth the consummation, yet he meaneth not, that it embraceth consummation as a thing needful to be performed, which (he saith) shall be our reward in heaven, but as the end to which men ought to endeavour, ut scirent (saith he) ad quem justitiae finem pro viribus niti oporteret, that they might know to what end of justice they ought to endeavour withal their power. Behold he saith not, that we ought to attain to the said end, but to endeavour all that we can; and therefore God in commanding that end in such sort as he doth, maketh men no finners, though they attain not to it.  
5. After these fathers he bringeth two 
pag. 150.  reasons. The one out of our Lord's prayer, where we are taught to ask forgiveness. But where pardon is demanded, this law is not exactly observed. The other is out of our daily confessions, where we acknowledge our fault, and most great fault. Answer; As the petition of forgiving our sins, doth evidently convince, that we do not so exactly keep the law, as we never serve from it: So the other petition of doing Gods will in earth as it is in heaven, evidently convinceth, that we can do it without deadly breaking it. As for our confession, we do not confess that our daily offences are most great faults, but daily confess our most great fault, whether it were done then or before. Besides that humble and penitent minds account themselves greatest sinners, and their offences greatest faults. So S. Paul 1. Timoth 1. v. 15. accounted 
S. Paul.  himself the chiefest sinner. Yea good souls (as S. Gregory saith) acknowledge sin where 
S. Gregor. epist. ad August. Cant. cap. 10. job cap. 9 S. Gregor. in Psalm. 4. Penitent.  none is, and with job, fear all their works. And as the same holy Doctor noteth, the reprobate account great sins little, and the elect little sins great, and which before they thought were light, strait they abhor as heavy and deadly. And S. Hierom 
S. Hieron. epist. ad ●●lant.  observeth, that it increaseth wariness to take heed of little (sins) as if they were great. For with so much the more facility we abstain from any sin, by how much more we fear it.  
6. And hence Bel may see, why we in daily confessions confess our most great fault, which I would God he would imitate, and both confess, and amend his heinous fault▪ of sinning against the holy Ghost, and impugning the Catholic Church, which he knoweth to be God's Church. Otherwise let him assure himself, that shame will be his end in this life, and endless punishment his reward in the next. Well he may beat against this rock, but like the waves, he shall without hurting it, beat himself in pieces, and be resolved into froth and foam. Let him write books, let him spend himself, and make nets with the Spider of his own guts, they will prove only spider webs, apt to catch or hold none, but such as like inconstant and fleshly flies are carrayed about with every mind of new doctrine, and following their carnal appetites, and licentiousness, seize upon fleshly bait And so Bel though he could become an other God Bel, he should but be Beel zebub the God of flies. Be mindful therefore (Bel) from whence thou art fallen, and do penance. Apocalip. 2.   
FINIS.  
All praise to Almighty God.   

A TABLE Of the things contained in this book wherein a signifieth 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.  
antichrist's true hindrance meant by S. Paul ar. 1. c. 9 parag. 4.  
antichrist's hindrance not taken away in Pipius time a. 1. c. 9 parag. 3.  
Angles falsely charged by Bel art. 5. c. 5. parag. 6.  
S. Antonin falsely charged by Bel art 3. c. 1. parag. 1. and 13.  
Apostates may teach true doctrine art. 7. c. 10 parag. 9  
Apostles Creed conserved by Tradition art. 7. c. 9 parag. 4.  
S. Athanasius explicated, and his reverence of Traditions art. 7. c. 4. parag. 9  
S. Austin as a Christian said he would not believe the Gospel without the Church art. 7. c. 9 parag. 22.  
Saint Austin would not believe Maniche though he had had express Scripture ar. 7. c. 9 parag. 24.  
S. Austin how he compared Concupiscence with blindness of heart. art. 4. c. 3. parag. 1.  
S. Augustine's opinion of habitual Concupiscence, art. 4. c. 1. parag. 18.  
S. Augustine's opinion of involuntary motions, art. 4. c. 1. parag 13.  
S. Austin prevented Bells objections, art. 4. c. 1. parag. 18.  
S. Austin how he meant that we love not God altogether art. 8. c. 4. parag. 2.  
S. Austin how he called our keeping the commandments defectuous. art. 8. c. 1. parag. 9  
S. Augustine's teverence 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 judas eat our price. art. 2. c. 5. paragr. 8.  
S. Austin why he said judas eat bread of our lord. art. 2. c. 5. parag. 8.  
S. Austin would not credit the Scripture if the Catholics 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 reverence of Traditions. art. 7. c. 4. parag. 13.  
S. Bede a Papist. art. 4. c. 4. parag. 4.  
Beauties' doctrine of merit the common doctrine of Catholics. a. 5. c. 6 parag. 9  
Belief in all points not prescribed at once. art. 7. c. 2. parag. 7.  
Bel a right Apostata from priesthood. art. 1. c. 9 parag. 31.  
Bel against Caluin. art. 5. c. 2. parag. 3.  
Bel admitteth Tradition. a. 7. c. 9 parag. 811.  
Bells answer about Tradition of the bible refuted. art. 7. c. 9 parag. 5.  
Bel admitteth venial sins. art. 6. c. 1. parag. 1.  
Bells belief of venial sin beside God's book. art. 6. c. 1. parag. 2.  
Bel a Papist by his own judgement. art. 4. c. 1. parag. 10.  
Bel against all God's Church which lived in the first 200. years. art. 7. c. 10. parag. 2.  
Bel allegeth authority against himself. a. 7. c. 10. parag. 5.  
Bel answereth not to the purpose. art. 7. c. 9 parag. 7.  
Bells argument returned upon himself. art. 2. c 6. parag. 3.  
Bells blasphemy against God. art. 8. c. 2. parag. 1. against his Church. a. 7. c. 9 par. 5. against justification. a. 4. c. 2. parag. 1.  
Bells blasphemy accursed by S. Hierom, art. 8. c. 2. parag. 1.  
Bells blindness discovered, art. 1. c. 9 parag 6.  
Bel bound to recant, art. 3. c. 1. parag. 13 a. 2. c 5. parag. 9  
Bells buckler the Prince's sword, art. 1. c 1. parag. 10.  
Bells challenge is Beauties' objections, art. 4. c. 3 parag. 2.  
Bells complaint against Catholics, art. 5. c 1 parag. 1  
Bel condemneth as blasphemy in the Pope which he judgeth treason to deny to Princes, art. 1. c. 9 parag. 23  
Bells contradictions, ar●. 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.  
B●l corrupted Scripture, art. 7. c. 2. parag. 8 c. 7. parag. 3. 12. corrupteth S. Ambros, art. 7 c. 4. parag. 1●.  
Bel cursed of S. Paul by his own judgement, art. 7. c. 9 parag 8.  
Bel discredited himself, art. 1. chap. 9 parag. 10.  
Bells dissimulation, art. 1. c. 1. parag. 1. a 2. c 1. par. 5 art. 3. c. 1 parag. 2.  
B●l denieth divine faith to proceed from man's teaching, art. 7. c. 9 parag. 20.  
Bel disproveth himself, art. 5. c. 6. parag. 6. art. 4. c. 1. parag. 17.  
Bel exceedeth Pelagius, art. 7. c. 7. parag. 1.  
Bells faith ground upon reason, art. 2. c. 1. parag 7.  
Bel slenderly ground in faith, art. 2. c. 5. parag. 6.  
Bells false translation, art. 2. c. 3. parag. 8. c. 4. parag. 13 a. 4 c. 2. parag. 4. 7. 10. c. 5. parag. 4. c. 6. par. 3. 4. 7. 8. art. 7. c. 1. parag. 2. c. 9 parag. 22. c. 12. parag. 3.  
Bel a foolish physician, art. 7. c. 7. parag. 17.  
Bells godly sense an ungodly shift, art. 5. c. 3. parag. 2.  
Bells godly keeping Gods commandments an ungodly breaking of them, art. 8. c. 1. parag. 1.  
Bel keepeth God's commandments or knoweth him not, art. 8. c. 1. parag. 9  
Bells ignorance in history, art. 1. c. 9 par. 2.  
Bells ignorance in latin, art. 5. c. 4. parag. 10. art. 7. c. 9 par. 19 art. 2. c. 4 parag. 13.  
Bells ignorance in logik, art. 2. c. 6 par. 2. 4.  
Bells ignorance in preaching, a. 7. c. 7. par. 10.  
Bel impugneth errors, histories & opinions in steed of Traditions, a. 7. c. 10. par. 7. 10.  
Bel impugneth an opinion of Protestants and Canonists as a point of Popery, art. 3. c. 1. parag. 2.  
Bel impugneth his own slanders as a point of Popery. art. 1. c. 1. parag. 5.  
Bel impugneth a school point as a point of Popery. a. 2. c. 1. parag. 6. a. 5. c. 2. parag. 4.  
Bells ladder of lying, art. 2. c. 5. parag. 7.  
Bel maketh Srripture like a neck verse, art. 7. c. 7. parag. 1.  
Bells malice and folly in reprehending the Rhemists, art. 5. c. 4. parag. 3.  
Bel noteth S. Austin what is quite against himself, art. 2. c. 5. parag. 6.  
Bel overthroweth at once what he intended to prove in all the Article, a. 4. c. 3. parag. 8.  
Bel preferreth reason in matter of faith before authority, art. 2. c. 1. parag. 9  
Bells question like to that of the Capharnaits, art. 2. c. 1. parag. 11.  
Bel recanting, art. 5. c. 6. parag. 8.  
Bel seemeth a Libertin, art. 8. c. 1. parag. 10.  
Bells shifts to avoid authority, a. 8. c. 2. par. 2.  
Bells vain boast, art. 5. c. 4. parag. 9  
Bells vain protestation, art. 7. c. 12. parag. 4.  
Bel cursed by the law or keeperh it, art. 8. c. 3. parag. 2.  
Bells untruths whereof divers are slanderous, a. 1. c. 1. parag. 1. c. 7. par. 4. c. 9 parag. 28. 33. a. 2. c. 4. par. 14. c. 6. par. 8. a. 3. c. 1. par. 1. 10. 13. a. 4. c. 1. parag. 9 c. 2. par. 1. 4. 5. 6. a. 5. c. 5. par. 7. 9 10. c. 6. par. 1. 2. 4. 5. 9 a. 6. c. 2. par. 9 a. 7. c. 3. par. 7. c. 4. parag. 6. 8. c. 5. par. 1. 4. 5. 8. c. 7. par. 4. 18. 19 c. 9 parag. 22. c. 10. parag. 6. 11. c. 12. parag. 1. 2. 3. c. 13. par. 8. c. 14. par. 1. 4. a. 8. c. 2. par. 2.  
Bel will not have us hear Scripture read in Churches, art. 7. c. 7. parag. 16.  
Bel will examine Scriptures, art. 7. c. 9 par. 12.  
Bel wresteth Scripture, art. 8. c. 1. parag. 6.  
Berengarius died a Catholic, a. 2. c. 5. par. 1.  
Berhaeans example explicated & what they examined, art. 7. c. 11. parag. 4.  
S. Bernard's meaning about possibility of loving God, art. 8. c. 4. parag. 3. 4.  
S. Bernard's meaning about merit, art. 5. c. 5. parag. 9  
Bible alone canonical Scripture but not alone Canonical, art. 7. c. 11. parag. 3.  
Bible conserved and believed to be God's word by Tradition, art. 7. c. 9 parag. 4.  
Bilson attributing to King's participation of God's name, power, honour & homage, art. 1. c. 7. parag. 7.  
Bishop's oath to the Pope made with consent of all Catholic Princes, a. 7. c. 14. par. 2.  
Bishop's oath to the Pope lawful, and ancient, art. 7. c. 14. parag. 2.  
Bishops swear no rebellion. a. 7. c. 14. par. 3.  
Britanny converted first to Popery, art. 7. c. 10. parag. 2.   

C.  
Catholics and Protestants true difference in whom the supremacy is, art. 1. c. 2. parag. 3.  
catholics never attributed to the Pope power proper to God, art. 1. chap. 7. parag. 5.  
catholics faith of the Eucharist ground upon Scripture and Fathers, art. 2. c. 1. parag. 7. 8.  
Catholic Church like a prudent nurse, art. 7. c. 7. parag. 17.  
Catholics and Protestants opinion about deposition of Princes compared, art. 1. c. 3. parag. 8.  
Catholics falsely charged where Protestants might better, art. 7. c. 1. par. 4.  
Catholics falsely charged about disobedience to evil Kings, art. 1. c. 9 parag. 34.  
Catholics how they think the commandments possible, art. 8. c. 1. parag. 2.  
Catholics have Tradition even from S. Peter, art. 7. c. 9 parag. 10.  
Catholics use Scripture in vulgar tongue, art. 7. c. 8. parag. 4.  
Caluin attributeth divine power to Magistrates, art. 1. c. 7. parag. 3.  
Caluin confesseth S. Austin to think involuntary concupiscence no true sin, art. 4. c. 1. parag. 18.  
Caluin accounteth the sacrifice of the cross insufficient, art. 2. c. 4. parag. 5.  
Caluin father of the new Arrians, art. 7. c. 1. parag. 5.  
Caluins' small account of God's word when it is against him, art 2. c. 1. parag. 10.  
Caluinists become Arrians, and Mahometans, art. 7. c. 1. parag. 5.  
Ceremonial law perfectly prescribed to the jews, art. 7 c. 2 parag. 5 6.  
Charles made Emperor without consent of Eastern Emperors, art. 1. chap. 9 paragr 19  
Choice propounded to Protestants about Emperors made by Popes, art. 1. c. 6. parag. 3 an other about Traditions, art. 7. c. 9 parag. 3. about Luther, art. 7. c. 9 parag. 16.  
Christ's body to be organical in the sacrament no point of faith, a. 2. c 1. parag. 6.  
Christ's body in his narivity in a little room art. 2. c. 1. parag 12.  
Christ's body in on● place naturally in many sacramentally, art. 2. c. 2. parag. 6.  
Christ's body broken in a sign, art. 2. c. 5. parag. 3.  
Christ's body broken in a sign which really containeth it. art. 2 c. 5. parag. 4.  
Christ's blood is a testament, a 2. c. 3 par. 7.  
Christ's blood how powered out, or shed at his supper, art 2. c. 4. parag 8.  
Christ carried himself literally or really in his own hands, art. 2. c. 4 parag. 1.  
Christ neither killed nor dieth at Mass, art. 2. c. 3. parag. 6.  
Christ offered sacrifice at his last supper, art. 2. c. 2. parag. 2.  
Christ's sacrifice at his last supper not imperfect nor at his passion needles, art. 2. c. 4. parag. 4.  
Christ sacramental being, a representation of his natural being, a. 2. c. 4. parag. 1.  
Christians bound to obey as well the present as the primitive Church, a. 7. c. 13. par 2.  
S. Chrisostom about Traditions explicated, art. 7. c. 4. parag. 11.  
S. Chrisostom about reading Scripture explicated, and opposite therein to Protestants, art. 7. c. 7. parag. 8.  
S. Chrisostom how he meant that Christ bid us not imitate his fast, a. 7. c. 10. par. 6.  
S. Chrisostom giveth not people liberty to expound Scriptures contrary to their Pastors, a. 7. c. 7. parag. 8.  
Church's authority not mere humane, art. 7. c. 9 parag. 21.  
Church's authority concurreth to divine saith, art. 7. c. 9 parag. 20.  
Church's authority both first brought and continued S. Austin in belief of the Gospel, art. 7. c. 9 parag. 19  
Church within 200. years after Christ highly esteemed Traditions, a. 7. c. 10. parag. 2.  
Church may justly abridge any liberty given by S. Chisostom, art. 7. c. 7. parag. 8.  
Church of late days as infallible witness of God's truth as the primitive, art. 7. c. 9 parag. 5. 6.  
Church present only infallible external witness of Scripture, art. 7. c. 9 parag. 7.  
Church believeth not the old testament for any tradition of jews, art. 7. c. 9 par. 10.  
Church of the east acknowledgeth the Pope's primacy, art. 7. c. 13. parag. 6.  
S. Cyprian wherein he erred, a. 7. c. 4. par. 6. 7.  
S. Cyprian rejected one only Tradition, art. 7. c. 4. parag. 7.  
S. Cyprian opposite to Bel about Traditions in most things, art 7. c. 4. parag. 7.  
Commandment may be substiantially kept by God's grace, art. 8. c. 1. parag. 1.  
Commandments truly kept of the man Math. 19 art. 8. c. 1. parag. 3.  
Commandments can not be truly kept and deadly broken, art 8 c. 1. parag. 2.  
Communion book made out of the Missal and Portesse, art. 2. c. 6. parag. 10.  
Counsels acknowledge the Pope's primacy, art. 7. c. 13. parag. 6.  
Counsels determination not needles, art. 7. c. 14. parag. 4.  
Counsels in our days as certain as before time, art. 7. c. 13. parag. 1.  
Counsels in some sort like to Parliament, art. 7. c. 13. parag. 4.  
In Confiteor why we say our great fault, art. 8. c. 4. parag. 5.  
Concupiscence diversly named, art. 4. c. 1. parag. 3.  
Concupiscence how commanded not to be at all according to S. Austin, art. 8. ●. 4. parag. 2. art. 2. c. 3. parag 6.  
Concupiscence actual though involuntary is evil, art 4. c. 1. parag 4.  
Concupiscence actual involuntary no formal sin, art. 4. c. 1. parag 7.  
Concupiscence actual if voluntary is formal sin, art. 4. c. 1. parag. 5.  
Concupiscence if never involuntary nothing is involuntary, art 4. c 1 parag 10.  
Concupiscence habitual both positive and privative evil, art. 4 c. 1. parag. 1.  
Concupiscence habitual in the not regenerate materially original sin, art. 4. c. 1. parag. 2.  
Concupiscence habitual in the regenerate no formal sin, art. 4. c. 1 parag. 14.  
Concupiscence how it need for givenes, a. 4 c. 3 parag. 3.  
Concupiscence habitual and actual in whomsoever may be called sin, art. 4. c. 1. parag. 6.  
Concupiscence indirectly voluntary known by the law to be true sin, art. 4. c. 3. parag. 9  
Concupiscence directly voluntary not executed, hardly known to be sin without the law, art. 4. c. 2. parag. 9  
Condign merit no point of faith, art. 5. c. 3. parag. 4.  
Condign merit proved, art. 5. c. 3. parag. 4. 6. 7.  
Condign merit what it requireth, art. 5. c. 3. parag. 7.  
Condign merit of man explicated by the labours of a slave, art. 5. c. 6. parag. 2.  
Condign merit denied by some Catholics, but differently from Protestants, art. 5. c. 6. parag. 10.  
Condign merit of man not absolute but conditional, art. 5. c. 3 parag. 5.  
Condign merit of man not arithmetically equal, but proportionate to the reward, art. 5. c. 3. parag. 5.  
Condign merit riseth not merely of God's acceptance, art. 5. c. 3. parag. 5.  
Condignity riseth partly of our work, as it is the fruit of the holy Ghost, art. 5. c. 3. parag. 5.  
Condign merit honourable to God and to Christ's merits, art. 5. c. 3. parag. 7. 8.  
Condign merit only true merit, a. 5. c. 3. par. 6.  
Conjugal copulation may be meritorious, & give grace, art. 3. c. 1. parag. 9  
Copulation rather Ministerish then Popish art. 3. c. 1. parag. 7.  
Consciences timorous fear little sins as great, art. 8. c. 4. parag. 5.  
Constantins departure from Rome no step to the Pope's primacy, art. 1. c. 8. parag. 3.  
Constantin honoured the Pope, a. 1. c. 6 par. 6.  
Constantins humility in the Nicen Council, art. 7. c. 13. parag. 5.  
Consumption may be without killing, art. 2. c. 3. parag. 6.  
Curse of the law pronounced only against heinous crimes, art. 8. c. 3. parag. 2.   

D.  
DAnger in not crediting Roman Traditions, art. 7 c. 10. parag. 11.  
Dealing with heretics we must have other help beside Scripture, and why, art. 7. c. 5. parag. 1. 2.  
Denial of the commandments to be possible injurious to God's grace, a. 8. c. 2. par. 4.  
Deposition of Princes first decreed by S. Gregory the great, art. 2. c. 5. parag. 4.  
Difference of the doctrine in pulpit, and school, art. 7. c. 7. parag. 9  
Dilemma about the Pope's superiority over Emperors, art. 1. c. 6. parag. 3.  
Dilemma for Bel, art. 1. c. 9 parag. 21.  
disagreement of Authors about time and circumstances disproveth not the fact, art. 1. c. 9 parag. 17.  
Disagreement of school men far different from that of Protestants, a. 4. c. 4. par. 7.  
Differences between S. Chrisostom & Protestants about reading Scripture, art. 7. c. 7. parag. 5.   

E.  
EAst Empire when it began to decay, art. 1. c. 9 parag. 1.  
Eckins foiled Luther, art. 5. c. 6. parag. 4.  
Emperors called the Pope's arbitrement celestial, art. 1. c. 9 parag. 28.  
Emperors have confessed the Pope's superiority over them, art. 1. c. 6. parag. 4.  
Emperor's subject to Bishops according to S. Gregory Nazianz. art. 7. c. 13 parag. 5.  
Emperor's subject to the sea of Rome, according to S. Gregory the great, a. 1. c. 5. par. 2.  
Emperors who have humbled themselves to Popes, named, art. 1. c. 6. parag. 6. 7.  
Emperors of the East why offended with Charles creation, art. 1. c. 9 parag. 19  
England named feasts of the Mass, art. 2. c. 3. parag. 5.  
English bibles all hitherto il translated, art. 7. c. 8. parag. 1.  
English bibles contain untrue and seditions notes, art. 1, c. 3. parag. 7.  
S. Epiphanius & S. Cyril explicated, their reverence of Traditions, art. 7. chap. 4. parag. 10.  
Epistles of S. Peter, S. John, S. james, and S. Jude, written against solifidian justice, art. 7. c. 6. parag. 2.  
Eternal life sour ways grace, and yet true reward, art. 5. c. 4. parag. 2.  
Eternal life may signify justification, art. 5. c. 4. parag. 6.   

F.  
FAith can not discern any thing clearly art. 7. c. 9 parag. 15.  
Faith in all points not actually in Scripture, art. 7. c. 1. parag. 9  
Faith in all points not sufficiently, and immediately proved by Scripture, art. 7. c. 1. parag. 10.  
Faith in all points virtually in Scripture two ways, art. 7. c. 1. parag. 7.  
Faith why not so perfectly prescribed to jews as ceremonies, art. 7. c. 2. parag. 7.  
Faith in no point may be denied of any, art. 7. c. 1. parag. 1.  
Faith in divers points need not be actually believed of many, art. 7. c. 1. parag. 1.  
Fathers proved consubstantiality by Tradition, art. 7. c. 12. parag. 2.  
Fale of the western Empire no step to the Pope's primacy, art. 1. c. 8. parag. 4.  
Figure or represent one thing may itself, art. 2. c. 6. parag. 2.  
Figure what inferior to the thing figured what not, art. 2. c. 6. parag. 1.  
Figurative exposition usual shift of heretics, art▪ 2. c. 1. parag 9 10.  
First Protestants haunted of Devils, art. 2. c. 1. per ●ot.  
Formal object of faith, art. 7. chap. 9 parage. 24.   

G.  
GOds precepts both possible and easy to them that love him, art. 8. c. 1. paragr. 10.  
God how he can put a great body into a little, how not, art. 2. c. 1 parag 13. 14. 1●. 16.  
God not imputing sin taketh it away, art. 4. c. 3. parag. 4.  
God's word by itself can not be discerned as easily as light, art. 7 c. 9 parag. 13  
Gods word how an explication of the two precepts of love, art. 7. c. 1. parag. 8  
Gods word why called a light & lantern, art. 7. c. 9 parag. 17.  
Good gotten of Protestants by English bibles, art 7. c. 8. parag. 1.  
Good works are condign merit, art. 5. c. 3. parag. 2. 4.  
Good works follow not every parson justified, art. 5 c. 2. parag. 1.  
Good works give no security of salvation, art. 5. c. 2. parag. 3.  
Good works possible, and usual mean to salvation, art. 8. c. 1. parag 7.  
God's word not known at first to Samuel Gedeon Manue, S. Peter, art. 7. c. 9 parag. 13.  
Gospel a supply of the old testament, art. 7. c. 2. parag. 3.  
S. Gregory a saint with Luther and Caluin, a Papist with Bel, art. 1. c. 5. parag. 5.  
S. Gregory accounted Kings subject to him, and how he called the Emperor lord, art. 1. c. 5. parag 2. 3.  
S. Gregory first decreed deposition of Princes, art. 1. c. 5. parag. 4.  
S. Gregory said Mass in honour of Martyrs, art 1. c. 5. parag. 5.  
S. Gregory Nazianz. discommended common people's reading Scripture, art. 7. c. 7. parag 19  
Greater authority may be contested by lesser, art. 7. c. 9 parag. 23.   

H.  
Heretics shift is to expound Scriptures figuratively, art. 2. c. 1. parag. 9  
Heretics reject Traditions, art. 7. c. 4. parag. 14.  
S. Hieroms high esteem of the Pope's definition, art. 7. c. 12. parag. 1.  
S. Hierom whom and how he exhotteth to read Scripture, art. 7. c. 7. parag. 17.  
Hatred of Mass whence it first rose, art. 2. c. 3. parag. 3.   

I.  
S. james epistle contemned by Luther, art. 7. c. 9 parag. 16.  
S. james c. 2. v. 2. meaneth of venial sins, art. 8. c. 3. parag. 1.  
Iewes added signs and words to the law according to Protestants, a. 7. c. 2. par. 2.  
Ignorance of itself no holiness, art. 7. c. 7. parag. 18.  
Ignorance what better than what knowledge, art. 7. c. 7. parag. 18.  
Ignorance of Scripture not the whole cause of the Sadduces error, a. 7. c. 11. par. 3.  
S. John what he bid us try, a. 7. c. 11. parag. 5.  
S. John c. 20. v. 30. meaneth of miracles, art. 7. c. 3. parag. ●.  
S. John ep. 1. c. 3. v. 4. meaneth of mortal sin, art. 6. c. 2. parag. 2.  
Impossible to be guilty of sin, & to have sin forgiven, art. 4. c. 1. parag. 15.  
Imputing of sin what with S. Austin, art. 4. c. 3. parag. 4.  
not Imputation of Protestants mere contradiction, art. 6. c. 1. parag. 4.  
Inclination to faith justifieth infants with Bel, art. 7. c. 1. parag. 6.  
Iniquity & formal sin differ, a. 6. c. 2. par. 6.  
Iniquitas used in a different sense, 1. joan. a. 6. c. 2. parag. 5.  
Inuoluntary motions are not voluntary in their origin from Adam, a. 4. c. 1. par. 11.  
Inuoluntary motions though they were voluntary in their origen could be no sin, art. 4. c. 1. parag. 12.  
S. joseph called rather keeper than husband of our Lady, art. 3. c. 1. parag. 11.  
S. Ireney his high account of the Roman Church, art. 7. c. 10. parag. 4.  
Italy not all possessed of Barbers from 471. till Carolus Magnus, art. 1. chap. 8. parag. 5.  
justice of man how imperfect, art. 5. chap. 5. parag. 3.   

K.  
Keeper's of the commandments avouched more than twenty times in one psalm, art. 8. c. 1. parag. 5.  
Kings of Lombardy called Kings of Italy, art. 1. c. 9 parag. 7.  
Kings not so much as ministerial heads of the Church with Protestant's, a. 1. c. 2. par. 1.   

L.  
Our Lady's conception without sin no point of faith, art. 7. c. 10. par. 10.  
Latin sermons not read to common people, art. 7. c. 8. parag. 4.  
Law of the Gospel includeth law of nature, art. 8. c. 1. parag. 10.  
Law fulfilled by not consenting to Concupiscence, art. 4. c. 3. parag. 6.  
Lay men when and how forbidden to dispute of faith, art. 7. c. 8. parag 4.  
Lent an Apostolical Tradition, art. 7. c. 10. parag. 5. 6.  
Lent fast lawfully broken in divers cases, art. 7. c. 10. parag. 6.  
Love of God as we ought, possible to men, art. 8. c. 1. parag. 10.  
Love of God how imperfectly kept according to S. Thomas, art. 8. c. 2. parag. 3.  
Luther begun Protestantisme, art. 7. c. 1. parag. 16.  
Luther instructed of a Devil by his own confession, art. 2. c. 1. parag. 2.  
Luther hated the word homoousion, art. 7. c. 1. parag. 5.  
Luther convinced by Scripture to confess the real presence, art. 2. c. 2. parag. 1.  
Lutherans opinions of the Caluinists, art. 2. c. 1 parag. 10.   

M.  
Marriage broken for six causes, amongst Protestants, art 3. c. 1. parag. 3.  
Marriage contracted why it can not be broken by the parties, art. 3. c. 1. parag. 10.  
Marriage a sacrament before consummation, art. 3. c. 1. parag. 8.  
Marriage contracted is d●●ure divino and of the continuance thereof, a. 3. ●. 1 parag. 6.  
Marriage perfected by consummation, art. 2. c. 1. parag. 8.  
Mass● honoured in the whole world, art. 2. c. 3. parag. 5.  
Mass said of the Apostles, and Saints, art. ●. c. 2. parag. 4.  
M●n rather do not, then do▪ what is against their will, art. 4 ●. 2. parag. 4.  
Men all sinners but not deadly, a 8 c. ●. par. 4.  
Men can be without crime not without sin, ar●. 8. c. 1. parag. 2.  
Merit far different from impetration, art. 5. c. 3. parag. 2.  
M●rit no more injurious to C●rists merit then prayer to his prayer, a 5 c 3 parag. 8.  
Merit why no sin out of S. Austin, art. 4. c ●. parag. 4.  
Merit in resisting Concupiscence, art 4 c. 1. parag 13.  
Ministers subscribe against their conscience, art. 1 c. 2. parag. 2.  
More required to formal sin then to evil, art. 4. c. ●. parag. 4.  
Mortal, and venial sins such of their own nature, art. 6. c. 1. parag. ●.   

N.  
NIcholas 1 words of earthly & heavenly empire expounded, a. ●. c. 9 par. 34.  
Not only predestinate do good, art: 5 c. 2. parag. 3.  
None ought to deny any point of faith, art. 7 c 1 parag. 1.  
Not to perfect good is not to si●n●, art. 4. c. 3. parag. 5.   

O.  
O●d Roman religion Catholic, sound and pure, art. 6. c. 2. parag. 8.  
Omission, or alteration what doth hinder consecration, art. 2. c 6 parag 8  
Original ●ustice what it is, a. 4. c. 1. parag. 2.  
Original sin what, art. 4. c. 1. parag. 2.  
Original lust made actual oy Bel, art. 4. c. 3. parag. 7.   

P.  
S. Paul how he understood the word (beside) Galat 11. v. 2. a 7 c. 11. parag. 5.  
S Paul loc. cit. meant of his preaching not of Scripture, art. 7 c. 1. parag 6  
S. Paul might have called glory a stipend, ar●. 5. ●. 4. parag 2.  
S Paul Rom. 7 explicated. a. 4 c. 2 per tot.  
S. Paul Rom 8 explicated, a. ●. c. 4. par. 10.  
Pelagians thought knowledge of Scripture necessary to every one, art. 7. c. 1 par. 3.  
Pelagians licensed women to be skilful in Scripture & to sing with them, a 7. c. 7. parag 13.  
People's owing no obed●ē●● to evil Princes no doctrine of catholics, art. 1. c. 9 par. 4.  
S. Policarps account of the Pope's sentence art. 7. c. 10. parag. 4.  
Popes accounted loyal excommunicated Emperors, art. 1. c. 5. parag. 4.  
Pope as Pope challengeth no royal right to either sword, art. 1. c. 9 parag. 22.  
Pope can not depose Princes ordinarily even for just causes, art. 1. c. 1. par. 5. 6.  
Pope can not depose princes for his pleasure, art. 1 c. 1. parag. 5.  
Popes and Protestants proceed in deposing Princes compared, a. 1. c. 9 par. 26.  
Pope cold not become Antichrist by the acceptance of the Exarchate, a. 1. c. 9 par. 4.  
Pope as Pope hath no temporal jurisdiction at all, art. 1. c. 1. parag. 4.  
Pope's confirmation by Emperors when it began, and when it left, a. 1. c. 8. par. 8.  
Pope hath censured all that molest our King art. 1. c. 4. parag. 6.  
Pope did never challenge power proper or equal to God, art. 1. c. 7. parag. 3.  
Pope how he is said to have more than human power, art 1. c. 7 parag. 3.  
Pope how he may be called King of Kings, art. 1. c. 7. parag. 6.  
Pope how he may he King now though he were not in Pippins time, art 1. c. 9 par 8.  
Pope highly esteemed by S. Bernard, art. 1. chap. 7. parag. 6.  
Pope's sentence highly esteemed by S. Hierom, art. 7. c. 12. parag. 1. and by others▪ ibid. c. 10. parag. 4.  
Pope's definitive sentence a rule of faith in S. Cyprians time, art. 7. c. 12. parag. 1.  
Pope never dispensed to marry a full sister, art. 3. c. 1. parag. 13.  
Pope in Council as King in parliament, art. 7. c. 13. parag. 8.  
Pope's have given three Kingdoms to England, art. 1. c. 9 parag. 17.  
Pope's liberality to Christian Princes, art. 1. c. 9 parag. 37.  
Pope's most cruelly handled by Christian princes, art. 1. c. 9 parag. 27.  
Pope's might have apostatated from faith & yet not taught heresy, art. 7. c. 10. par. 9  
Pope's name ever from the Apostles time, art. 1. c. 5. parag. 6.  
Pope's never apostated in heart, a. 7. c. 10. par. 9  
Popes not proud in maintaining their dignity, art. 7. c. 13. parag. 5.  
Popes or princes of what nothing they can make something, art. 1 c. 9 parag. 29.  
Popes or princes of what things they can alter the nature, art. 1. c. 9 parag. 28.  
Pope's true step to his primacy, a. 1. c. 9 par. 32.  
Pope neither spiritual nor temporal superior to all princes on earth, a. 1. c. 1. par. ●. 4.  
Pope's primacy acknowledged by Grecian Emperors, Counsels, and Patriarches, art. 7. c. 13. parag. 6.  
Pope's private doctrine may be examined but not his judicial sentence of faith, art. 7. c. 14. parag. 2.  
Pope's present in most Counsels of the west art. 7. c. 13. parag 8.  
Popes taught always the doctrine of S. Peter, art. 7. c. 10. parag. 8.  
Pope translated the Empire, and appointed the Electors, art. 1. c. 6. parag. 3. 4.  
Popery confessed to have been with in 200. years after Christ, art. 7. c. 10. parag. 2.  
Prayers in an unknown tongue commended by S. Paul, art. 7. c. 8 parag. 2.  
Prince's absolute have no temporal superior, art. 1. c. 1. parag 4.  
Princes deposed by Prophets, a. 1. c 5. par. 3.  
Protestants admit Tradition, a. 7. c. 9 par. 11.  
Protestants have no reason to admit one tradition, & no more, art. 7. c. 9 par. 11.  
Protestants arrogate more power and authority than the Pope, a. 1 c. 7▪ par. 3.  
Protestants call Catholics Papists and Popish of the Pope yet will not call him Pope, art. 1. c. 5. parag. 5.  
Protestants censure of the communion book, art. ●. c. 6 parag. 10.  
Protestants contradictions about the Eucharist, art. 2. c. 6. parag. 11.  
Protestants innumerable explication, of four words, art. 2. c. 6. parag. 7.  
Protestant's judgement of Fathers when they are against them, art. 5▪ c. 4 parag. 5.  
Protestants dissensions touched in the late conference, art. 4. c. 4 parag. 7.  
Protestant's enemity to good works by word and deed, art. 5. c 1. parag 2. 3.  
Protestant's friendship to evil works, Ibid. parag. 3.  
Protestants had the bible from Catholics and how, art. 7. c. 9 parag. 9  
Protestants in 70. years have attempted to depose to. princes, art. 1. c. 4. parag 6.  
Protestants have murdered divers princes, art. 1. c. 4. parag. 6.  
Protestants have burnt two Kings bodies, Ibid.  
Protestants abuse princes, art. 1. c. 9 par. 3●.  
Protestants make and unmake Emperors as they list, art. 1. c. 6 parag. 3.  
Protestant's opinion of deposing princes, art. 1. c. 3 per tot.  
Protestants and the Pope's deposing princes compared, art. 1. c. 4. parag 6.  
Protestant's opinion of prince's supremacy, art. 1. c. 2. parag. 1. 2.  
Protestants and Catholics opinion about supremacy compared, ibid. parag. 3.  
Protestants make their professed enemies papists, art. 7. c. 1. parag. 13.  
Protestant's manner of answering Catholics, art. 1. c. 6. parag. 1.  
Protestants new light, art. 1. c. 6. parag. 9  
Protestants overthrow their own arguments against. Tradition, art. 7. c. 9 par. 11.  
Protestants persuade to read Scripture as the serpent to eat the apple, art. 7. c. 7. parag. 2.  
Protestants good by english bibles, art. 7. c. 8. parag. 1.  
Protestants promise with Manichees undoubted truth for to overthrow authority, art. 7. c. 9 parag. 23.  
Protestants teach doctrine of Devils, art. 2. c. 1. parag. 1. 2. 3.  
Protestants try divine truth, a. 7. c. 12. par. 4.  
Protestant women preached publicly in Germany, art. 7. c. 13.  
Puritans subscribe to the communion book only in respect of time, art. 1. c. 2. par. 2.  
Puritans urge the supremacy only for policy, art. 1. c. 2. parag. 2.   

Q.  
Q. Elizabeth's affiance in Catholics fidelity, art. 1. c. 4. parag. 4.   

R.  
REading of Scripture not debarred from the godly, art. 7. c. 7. parag. 3.  
Reading or hearing God's word without understanding, of great effect, ibid.  
Reading of Scripture not necessary nor expedient to all, art. 7. c. 7. parag. 1. 2.  
Real presence proved out of Scripture and Fathers, art. 2. c. 1. parag 7. 8.  
Reason not to be sought in God's works, art. 2. c. 1. parag. 11.  
Remaining of sin what it is, a. 4. c. 1. p. 16.  
reprobates not all positively damned for original sin, art. 4. c. 2. parag. 6.  
reprobates how may be said to be damned for original sin, art. 4. c. 2 parag. 6.  
Reinolds proof against himself, art 7. c. 3. parag. 3.  
Royal power far inferior to Pontifical, art. 1. c. 9 parag. 31.  
Rome the top of high priesthood, art. 7. c. 13. parag. 6.  
Roman religion above a thousand years ago out of Bel, art. 7. c. 10. parag. 9  
Roman Church always kept the Apostles Traditions.  
Rule of trying truth prescribed by the Council of Trent, art. 7. c. 12. parag. 4.   

S.  
SAbbath translation not warrented by Scripture, art. 7. c. ●. parag. 9  
Sabbath translation warrented by Tradition, art. 7. c. 9 parag. 4.  
Sacrament of Eucharist improperly called Christ's body, art. 2. c. 4. parag. 14.  
B▪ Sacrament bo●h a sacrifice and a testament, art. 2 c. 4. parag. 6.  
Sacrifice requireth not kill a. 2. c. 3 par. 8.  
Sacrificing of flesh by Priests hands allowed by Bel, art. 2 c. 4. parag 13.  
no Sacrilege to dispute o● the Pope's power, art 1 c 9 parag. 34.  
Sadduces erred for ignorance both of Scripture and God's power, art. 7 c. 11. par 3.  
Sal●mon deposed not Abiathar, art. 1. c. 5. parag. 10.  
Samuel cold not discern God's word from man's word but by Hely his teaching, ar●. 7. c. 9 parag. 13.  
Saint's honour, an Apostolical Tradition, art. 7. c. to parag 11.  
Satisfaction supposeth remission of sins, art. 5. c. 6. parag. 5.  
Search the Scriptures explicated, art. 7. c. 11. parag. 3.  
Scriptures, and the Church's authority differ, art. 7. c. 9 parag. 23.  
Scripture believed both for Gods, and the Church's testimony, art. 7. c. 9 par. 18.  
Scripture how of itself worthy of credit, art. 7. c. 9 parag. 18.  
Scripture the storehouse of truth, art. 7. c. 5. parag. 1.  
Scripture hath all points actually to be believed of every one, art. 7. c 1. parag 2.  
Scripture containeth virtually not actually all points of Christian faith, art. 7. c. 1. parag. 7. 9  
Scripture can not sufficiently & immediately prove all points of faith, a. 7. c 1. par. 10.  
Scripture how able to make men wise to salvation, art. 7. ●. 3 parag. 8.  
Scripture no poison but food of li●e, art. 7. c. 7. parag. 18.  
Scripture easy in things necessary to every one's salvation, art 7. c. 6. parag. 1.  
Scripture absolutely hard, ibid.  
Scripture more in sense then in words, art. 7. c 9 parag. 14  
Scripture not so clearly discerned as light from darkness, art. 7. c. 9 parag. 15.  
Scripture why called a lantern or light, art. 7. c. 9 parag. 17.  
Scriptures vulgar reading, what monsters it hath bred in England, art. 7. c. 7. parag 2.  
Service of God in the old law some time neither heard nor seen of the people, art. 7. c. 8. parag. 3.  
Service in an unknown tongue discommended only of idiots, and infidels, art. 7. c. 8. parag 2.  
Sin habitual what it is, art 4 c. ●. parag. 3.  
Sin some of it nature breaketh friendship with God, some not, art 6. c. 1 par. 6.  
Sin ordinarily taken only for mortal, art. 6. c. 2. parag. 1.  
Socrates' his error, art. 7. c. 10 parag. 5.  
S. Steeven P. defined not the controversy about rebaptisation, art. 7. c. 12. parag. 1.  
Superior and inferior not contradictions but relatives, and may be verified of the same thing, art. ●. c. 6. parag. 2.   

T.  
S. Thomas how he called our keeping the commandments 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 book, ibid.  
Traditions there are containing things necessary to salvation, 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 undoubted, 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 avouched by the Fathers, art. 7. c. 4. per tot.  
Traditions defended by S. Paul, and S. John art. 7. c. 9 parag. 1. 2.  
Traditions in S. Cyprians days sufficient proof of doctrine, art. 7. c. 12. parag. 1.  
Tradition of Easter certain, a. 7. c. 10. par. 3.  
Tradition of as equal force to piety as Scripture, art. 7. c. 4 parag. 13. 14.  
Tradition rejected by old heretics, art. 7. c. 4. parag. 1.  
Treason disannulleth not the gift, art. 1. c. 6 parag. 3.  
Truth evidently known, to be preferred before authority, art. 7. c. 9 parag. 23.  
Truth what and how to be tried, art. 7. c. 12. parag. 4.   

V  
Value of the Mass, art. 2. c. 4. parag. 9 Variety of fasting lent rose of ignorance or negligence, art. 7. c. 10. par. 5.  
Venial sins admitted by Bel, art. 6. chap. 1. parag. 1.  
Venial sin why not against the law, art. 6. c. 1. parag. 8.  
Venial sin 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 evil why expressly forbidden in the tenth commandment, art. 4. c. 3. parag. 10.  
Use and abuse of a thing to be distinguished, art. 7. c. 10. parag. 11.   

W.  
WItnesses sufficient of God's truth by what made, art. 7. chap. 9 parag. 6.  
Women ought to be instructed of men, art. 7. c. 7. paragr. 5.  
Women may teach in case of necessity▪ or particular inspiration, art. 7. chap. 7. parag 13.  
Words of consecration when and how they work their effect, a. 2. c. 6. parag. 5.  
Worshipping an vnconsecrated host upon ignorance no offence, art. 2. c. 6. par. 8.  
Wiat's rebellion defended and praised by Protestants, art. 1. c. 3. parag. 6.   

X.  
XArisma well translated by grace, art. 5. c. 4. parag. 4.   
FINIS.