properly Bishops THE CONFERENCE The Scripture expressely saieth that Iudas had the office of a Bishop which an other Apostle tooke The same say Catholiks The Protestants say that Iudas was no Bishop THE SVMME OF THIS CHAPTER OF SAINT Peter and the Apostles Out of that which hath beene rehearsed in this chapter it clearly appeareth that the Protestāts in an other māner describe S. Peter and the Apostles thē the holie Scripture and Catholiks doe For the Scripture and Catholiks teach that S. Peter was first of the Apostles that he was the rock on which Christ built his Church that he had the keyes of the kingdome of heauen that his faith did not faile All which Protestants denie Besides the Scripture and Catholiks say that the Apostles were foundations of the Church were simply to heard without examining their doctrine were sufficient witnesses of trueth learnt diuers things of the holie Ghost All which are denied by Prorestants Moreouer the Scripture and Catholiks say that Iudas was truely a disciple and Apostle of Christ and also a Bishop which Protestants in like manner denie Wherefore Protestants steale from S. Peter his honour that he is the first of the Apostles his authoritie that he is the rock of the Church and his power of the keyes and stedfastnesse of faith And frō the rest of the Apostles they steale that they were foundations of the Church simply to be hearde sufficient witnesses of truth and that they learnt any thing of the holie Ghost CHAPTER VI. OF PASTORS OF THE CHVRCH ART I. WHETHER THERE BE ALwaies pastors of the Church SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. HIEREMIE 33. v. 21. Thus saieth the Lord If my Pastours alwaies couenant with the day can be made voide and my couenant with the night that there be no day and night in their time also my couenant may be made voide with Dauid my seruant that there be not of him a sonne to reigne in his throne and leuites and preists my ministers Ephes 4. v. 12. And he gaue Pastours and Doctours to the consummation of the saintes vnto the worke of the ministeric vnto the edifying of the bodie of Christ vntill we meete all into the vnitie of faith and knowledge of the Sonne of God CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME D. Stapleton in 1. Cor. 15. v. 15. Impious Caluin doth bouldly and often times say that Pastours Doctours Prelats Bishops Maisters of Churches all vniuersally for manie ages haue wholy straied from the Christian trueth and beene seducers PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Luther in psal 129. to 3. The Church vnder Antichrist had no true ministerie Caluin de vera reform p. 322. Not without cause we auouch Not alwaies that for some ages the Church was so torne and scattered that it was destitute of true Pastours And p. 322. I graunt indeed that it can neuer come to passe that the Church perish but when they referre that to Pastours which is promised of the perpetuall continuance of the Church therein they are much deceaued Beza de notis Eccles vol. 3. Forsooth it fell out that the lawfull order was then wholy abolished in the Church as it is manifest that it hath beene now for some ages not so much being left as the smalleste shadow of the cheifest partes of ecclesiasticall vocation Sadeel ad Art abiurat pag. 533. It is false that the externall ministerie must be perpetuall Daneus Controu 3. p. 426. The Church eftsones hath no man Postour And Controu 4. p. 757. The true Church hath ofte wanted Prelats Lukbertus l. 5 de Eccles cap. 5. We say that for some short time the Church may be depriued of Pastours CONFERENCE OF THE FORESAIED WORDS Scripture expressely saieth that there shal be Pastours as long as there shal be day and night that Pastours are giuen vntill we meete all in one faith The same say Catholiks Protestants expressely say that the Church may be depriued of Pastours that Pastours may perish that the ministerie must not be perpetuall that the Church sometime had no true ministerie was for some ages destitute of true Pastors that lawfull order was for some ages quite abolished in the Church not so much as the slēderest shadow of the chiefest partes of ecclesiasticall vocation being left Which are so plaine against Scripture as sometimes Protestants confesse it See l. 2. c. 30. ART II. WHETHER AVTHORITIE of gouerning the Church be in the Pastours them selues SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. Matth. 16. v. 18. seq Thou art Peter c. And to thee I will giue Pastours haue authoritie to gouerne the keyes of the kingdome of heauen Actes 20. v. 28. The Holie Ghost hath placed you Bishops to rule the Church of God 1. Cor. 4. v. 21. What will you In a rodde that I come to you or in charitie and the spirit of mildnesse 2. Cor. 13. v. 10. These things I write absente that being present I may not deale hardly according to the power which the Lord hath giuen me And c. 10. v. 6. Hauing in readinesse to reuenge all disobedience 2. Tim. 1. v. 11. I am appointed a preacher and Apostle and Maister of the Gentils Hebrews 13. vers 17. Obey your Prelats and be subiect to them CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME D. Stapleton in Triplicat cont Whitaker c. 13. We see that Paul putteth the authoritie in the Prelats PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Whitaker l. 1. de Script c. 13. sect 12. The authoritie is not Authoritie is not in the Pastours in the Prelats but in the worde for whose administration the Prelats do serue Againe I acknowledge no ruling which the Church hath All the authoritie is in God and in his word the Church hath nothing but mere ministerie Spalatensis l. 5. de Repub c. 2. n. 40. Church gouernours are most like to Phisitiās The Phisitian appointeth holesome things and forbiddeth vnholesome prescribeth diete c. but hath no They haue no iurisdiction iurisdiction or cōmand ouer the sick As it is the Phisitians office to gouerne the sick that is without iurisdiction So it is the office of the ecclesiasticall rectors to gouerne the Church that is the faithfull Caluin 4. Instit c. 8. § 2. We must remember that what authoritie or dignitie the Holie Ghost in the Scripture doth giue to Preists or Prophets or Apostles or Successours of Apostles all that is giuen not properly to the men themselues but to the ministerie whereof they are officers or to speake brefly to the word whose ministerie is committed to them The same he hath in Ioan. 16. v. 8. in Math. 20. v. 25. and in Iacob 4. v. 12. Beza in Math. 20. v. 25. What then will you say Haue the No power at all ouer consciences Ministers of the word of God no power at all None truely they no not ouer cōsciences for instructiō whereof they are appointed But they are legats of Christ to say and doe in his name sacred not ciuill matters who alone hath all right of commanding and
he commandeth them to be heard as legats not as maisters THE CONFERENCE Scripture expressely saieth that the power of keyes was giuen to S. Peter that the Holie Ghost placed Bishops to gouerne the Church that S. Paul had a rodde and power ouer the faithfull could deale hardly and punish all disobedience was Maister of the Gentils and that we ought to be subiect to our Prelats The same say Catholiks Protestants expressely say that there is no authoritie in the Prelats themselues that the Church hath no rule but mere ministerie that Pastours haue no more iurisdiction ouer the faithfull then Phisicians ouer the sick that they haue no power ouer the consciences but that all authoritie or right of commanding is in God onely and in his worde ART III. WHETHER ANIE ONE PAStour haue authoritie to excommunicate SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. Math. 16. v. 19. Thou arte Peter And whatsoeuer thou shalt S. Peter had authoritie to excommunicate And S. Paul binde vpon earth it shal be bound also in heauen 1. Timoth. 16. v. vlt. Of whome is Hymenaeus and Alexander whome I haue deliuered to Sathan that they may learne not to blaspheme CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME D. Stapleton Cont. 2. q. 1. art vn The Ecclesiasticall power first principally of it selfe and immediatly is in particular persons PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Beza in Conf. c. 5. sect 43. We must remēber that this power No one man can excommunicate of excommunicating is giuen to no one man but to the whole companie of the Presbyterie Caluin 4. Instit c. 11. § 5. The spirituall power of excommunicating must not be exercised at the pleasure of one man but by the lawfull assemblie § 6. This kinde of power was not in one but in the assemble of the Elders Peter Martyr in 1. Cor. 5. v. 4. So great an Apostle doth not not take vpon him to excōmunicate of himselfe and alone which yet the Pope and manie Bishops dare Bucanus in Institut loco 44. In whome must the power of excommunicating be not in anie one ether Bishop or ordained of the Bishop THE CONFERENCE Scripture expressely saieth that power of binding was giuen to S. Peter that S. Paul excommunicated or deliuered some to Sathan Catholiks say the same Protestants expressely say that power of excommunicating is in no one mā Bishop or other that S. Paul tooke not vpon to excommunicate of himselfe ART IV. WHETHER PASTOVRS OF the Church haue power to command or make lawes SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. Actes 15. v. 28. It hath seemed good to the Holie Ghost and Pastours can command to vs to lay no further burden vpon you then these necessarie things That you abstaine from the things imolated to idols and blood and that which is strangled And ver 41. And he Paul walked through Syria and Cilicia confirming the Churches and commanding them to keepe the precepts of the Apostles and the Ancients 1. Thessalon 4. v. 11. We desire you brethren that you worke with your owne hands as we haue commanded you And Epistol 2. cap. 3. vers 4. And we haue confidence of you in our Lord that the things which we command you both doe and will doe 1. Cor. 7. v. 12. For to the rest I say not our Lord If any brother haue a wife an infidell and she consent to Diuel with him let him not put her away CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME C. Bellarm. l. 4. de Pontif. c. 17. The Pope and other Bishops can iudge and make lawes PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Caluin in Antidoto Concilij Sess 6. con 20. As for laws of They cannot command the Church let them looke to them we acknowledge one lawmaker who can giue rules of life as we haue our life from him In actor 15. v. 28. The sottish Papists who out of these words would The Church hath no authoritie No power to make lawes proue that the Church hath some authoritie Musculus in locis c. de Magistrat The Church hath no power to make lawes but she is commanded to heare and obey Luther de Captiuit to 2. fol. 76. Nether Pope nor Bishop nor any man hath any right to put a tittle vpon a Christian man vnlesse it be done by his owne consent THE CONFERENCE Scripture expressely affirmeth that the Apostles put precepts and burdens vpon the faithfull that S. Paul commanded Christians to keepe them and that himselfe commanded diuers things The same say Catholiks Protestants expressely say that the Church hath no authoritie of lawmaking hath no power to make laws that no Bishop or other can command a Christian man any thing but what he will himselfe ART VIII WHETHER BISHOPS BE rulers of the Church SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. Act. 28. v. 28. The Holie Ghost hath placed you Bishops to Bishops rulers of the Church rule the Church of God 2. Tim. 1. ver 11. I am appointed a preacher and Apostle and Maister of the Gentils 7. c. 5. v. 19. Against a Preists receaue not accusation but vnder twoe or three witnesses CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME Councel of Trent sess 23. c. 4. Bishops are put of the Holie Ghost for to rule the Church of God PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Spalatensis or Lohetus Respons ad Marium cap. 1. The true nature of a head and the true nature of a ruler is in no pure No mā ruler of the Church man one or manie nether Monarchically nor Aristocratically Of the same opinion are others as appeareth by what hath beene saied before art 2. and 4. THE CONFERENCE Scripture expressely saieth that Bishops are rulers of the Church that S. Paul was maister of the Gentils that S. Timothe was iudge of Preists The same say Catholiks Protestants expressely say that no pure man one or manie can be head or true ruler of the Church ART VI. WHETHER DO RVLE THE true Church of God SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. Act. 20. v. 28. The holie Ghost hath placed you Bishops to Bishops rule the true Church rule the Church of God which he hath purchased with his owne blood Ephes 4. v. 11. And he gaue other some Pastors and Doctors to the consummation of the Saints vnto the worke of the ministerie vnto the edifying of the bodie of Christ Isaie 62. v. 6. Vpon thy walls Hierusalem I haue appointed watch men CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME Councel of Ttent Sess 6. c. 1. The Holie Ghost hath put all Bishops of Patriarchall Primatiall Metropolitan and Cathedrall Churches to rule the Church of God which he hath purchased with his blood PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Whitaker Controu 2. quaest 2. c. 2. The rule of the Catholik Not the true Church Church could yet neuer be seene Againe The Catholik Curch which containeth onely good men can nether be seene nor comen vnto nor saluted And q. 1. c. 10. There are some Prelats who say and do not but these are not of the Catholik Church Bellarmin should remember that Bishops are Pastors of particular Churches not of the Catholik
be in it selfe cleare So Pareus in Gal. 2. lect 25. The Ghospell teacheth good works not of it selfe but borroweth the doctrine of workes from the law So the some Pareus Colleg. Theol. 9. disput 39. The Thessalonians tooke not vpon them to iudge or to debate whether Gods trueth were to be admitted but onely examined Pauls doctrine according to the touchestone of Scripture So Caluin act 17. vers 13. As if Paules doctrine and Gods trueth were not all one The Ghospell in a most large sense is taken for the whole doctrine of Christ and the Apostles Largely for the doctrine both of grace and faith and of repentance and new obedience but straitely and properly for the doctrine of grace by faith So Pareus l. 4. de Iustif c. 3. Finally the Scripture speaketh as the law not as the Ghospell by which distinction they delude manie places of Scripture as is to be seene in Luther de seru arbit to 2. f. 449. Caluin in Math. 19. vers 17. Pareus l. 4. de Iustif cap. 2. Schlusselb to 8. Catal. p. 441. to 2. p. 270. Of S. Peter and the Apostles they haue inuented these Of the Apostles new distinctions S. Peter is first of the Apostles in order not in iurisdiction The Apostles are foundations of the Church as those that found the Church not as those on which it is founded or as Iunius spaketh Cont. 3. l. 1. c. 10. The Church is founded vpon Peter as vpon a pillar not as on a foundation Of Pastors they distinguish That authoritie is in the Of Pastors word which they preach not in themselues That they gouerne the visible Church but not the Catholike That in case of necessitie they are made without mission but not otherwise See l. 1. c. 7. Of the Church they haue brought in these new distinctions Of the Church That for professiō of faith there is one Church visible an other inuisible That she is infallible in fundamentall points but not in others That she is to be heard when she preacheth Scripture but not otherwise That she is the pillar to which trueth is fastened not on which it relieth So saieth Riuet Tractat. 1. sec 39. Or as Andrews writeth in Resp ad Apol. Bellar. c. 14. She is so the pillar of trueth as that she relieth vpon trueth not trueth vpon her That the Church is necessarie to beleiue the Scriptures not to know them So whitaker lib. 3. de Script 396. That the Church is the staye and pillar of trueth not the foundation of trueth Heilbruner in Colloq Ratisb sess 7. Of the Sacraments they distinguish in this sorte They iustifie as signes or seales not as causes They are receiued Of Sacramēts whole and intire of the good but not of the badde that baptisme is the lauer of regeneration passiuely not actiuely So Daneus Contr. 2. c. 12. That baptisme is but one taken wholy but is twoe taken by partes So Beza part Resp ad Acta p. 44. That the Church is cleansed significatiuely by the baptisme of water but really by the baptisme of the spirit So Beza ib. p. 115. or as Polanus saieth in Disp priu p. 37. Sinnes are saied to be blotted out by baptisme not properly but in a figuratiue sense The same Beza in Hutter in Analysi p. 54. saieth I neuer simply saied that baptisme was the obsignation of regeneration in children but of adoption Perkins in Galat. 3. By baptisme actuall guilt is taken away but not potentiall Pareus in Gal. 2. lect 23. Absolutely we are all borne sinners but in regard of the couenant we are borne Christians or Gods confederats Of the Eucharist they haue these distinctions That it Of the Eucharist is the symbolicall bodie of Christ but not his true bodie That Christ his flesh killed doth profit vs but not eaten That it is exhibited in the Supper according to the vertue thereof not according to the substance That when S. Paul saieth 1. Cor. 11. He eateth iudgement to himselfe he meaneth not of damnation but of correction So wolfius in Schusselb l. 1. Theol. art 25. In like sorte they say that Preists forgiue sinne indirectly not directly directly as it is an offense of the Church indirectly as it an offense of God So Spalata l. 5. de Repub. c. 12. Of faith they make these distinctions That one is Catholike Of Faith or vniuersall or historicall an other speciall Againe that one is abstract naked simple an other concrete compounded incarnate So Luther in Gal. 3. to 5. That there is one habituall and actuall of men an other potentiall and inclinatiue of infants So Pareus l. 3. de Iustif c. 14. or as Polanus saieth part 2. thes p. 651. Infants haue not altogether the same faith that men haue yet they haue some thing proportionable Piscator in Thesibus l. 2. pag. 252. Adam before his fall had not iustifying faith or as Pareus writeth l. 1. de Amiss Grat. c. 7. Adam lost faith of the commandement but not faith of the promise Bullinger dec 5. serm 7. Infants are faithfull by the imputation of God Agayne They are baptized in their owne faith to wit which God imputeth to them Zanchius in Supplicat to 7. Manie reprobates are endued with a certaine faith much like to the faith of the elect but not with the same Perkins in Cathol 4. c. 5. There is one generall and Catholike faith wherewith a man beleiueth the articles of faith to be true and an other iustifying or particular faith Thus they distinguish of faith And in like sorte they distinguish of the iustification of faith to wit that it iustifieth relatiuely or correlatiuely not absolutely and as an instrument not as it is a worke Bucanus in Institit loc 3. Faith is saied to be imputed to iustice not properly but relatiuely Polan part 2. thes pag. 197. We are iustefied by faith not properly but relatiuely Reineccius tom 4. Armat cap. 21. Faith iustifieth as well absolutely as considered relatiuely Pareus in Galat. 3. lection 32. Faith is imputed to iustice relatiuely Agayne Faith iustifieth organically And in Colleg. Theol. 2. disp 10. We are saied to be iustified by faith but not formerly nor meritoriously but organically Touching the losse of faith they thus distinguish Zanchius in Supplication citat The elect loose faith in parte but not wholy Beza in Prefat 2. part respons ad Acta Faith sometimes sleepeth sometimes seemeth to be quite lost but yet is not lost Agayne There is a lethargie of faith but no losse The feeling or vse of faith is lost for a time but not faith it selfe Some reprobates do beleiue with a generall and historicall faith common to the Diuels themselues Tilenus in Syntagm capit 43. The faithfull become sometimes outliers but not runawaies or forsakers In like sorte they say that faith without works at the time of iustification is not dead but at other times if it be without workes it is dead Likewise Reineccius
conferred by them and ioyned with some humane principle and brought into sillogisticall forme Whereas a Iudge must be such as by himselfe without anie helpe of ether of the parties he can giue sentence Besides the sentence of the Iudge and especiallie if there can be no appeale from him must be so cleare as no man can doubt for whether partie it is But such is not the sentence of Scripture in manie controuersies Agayne there is controuersie betwene vs about diuers bookes of which the rest of the Scripture saieth nothing Finallie before Moises the Church had no Scripture and for sometime after Christ it had no parte of the new testament and yet she neuer wanted a Iudge And as we saw in the Chapter before Protestants confesse that Scripture of it selfe is not sufficient to determine all controuersies of faith and therefore not to iudge all Wherefore we must needs haue some other Iudge For these and the like causes some Protestants seing how absurd it is that Scripture is the onely Iudge in the Church say that Christ or the holie Ghost speaking in the Scripture is the Iudge Whitaker c. 7. cit We say that this Iudge is the holie Ghost speaking in the Scripture In like sorte Confes Heluet. c. 12. Academia Nemaus loc cit Lutherans in Colloq Ratisb sess 9. and others But seing Christ or the holie Ghost is no otherwise in the Scripture then as in a signe of his will to say that the holie Ghost as he is in Scripture is Iudge is no other thing indeed then to say that the Scripture is iudge And as the King as he is in his written laws is not a sufficient iudge of the common wealth because els eueÌ„ after his death he should be iudge but besides there must be a liuing iudge who both heareth and speaketh who can heare the parties and giue senteÌ„ce So nether is the holie Ghost a sufficient iudge is in the holie Scripture Others therefore acknowledge that there must be in the Church a speaking iudge or man For thus Eliensis loc cit Wherefore we all of long time demand a free and lawfull synod Protest admit a liuing Iudge in words And Lutherans in Colloq cit sess 9. We professe that God hath giuen some power to the Ministers and Doctors of the Church to iudge of controuersies of religion Neuerthelesse in trueth they denie the verie nature of the Iudge For ether they will not admit such a Iudge as we are bound to obeyâ— as appeareth by that they denie the vniuersall Church all Pastors or generall Councels to be infallible yea Moulins in the preface of his Bucler saieth that there But not in effect can be no greater temeritie then to desire that men sinners may be infallible iudges of the seÌ„se of the law And the LutheraÌ„s loc cit It is simply and absolutely certaine that the Ministerie may erre But this in trueth is to denie the Iudge whose end is The iudge in the Church admitteth not appeale to make peace and to compose debates which he cannot doe vnlesse men be bound to obey him and all the foresaied authorities reasons which proue that there ought to be a iudge in the Church proue also that he ought to be such from whome we may not appeale Wherevpon Whitaker CoÌ„t 1. q. 5. c. 4. thus writeth I answere that those words Deuteron 17. cit are to be vnderstood of authoritie to define hard contentions and controuersies as Ecclesiasticall by the Minister and politicall by the Magistrate that there might be in both some from whome there should be no appeale els there would be no end of contending But this he meaneth onely in the Nether in outward nor inward Courte externall or outward courte not in the inward courte of conscience For thus he addeth A great weight of iudgement was in the Priest and what he had once determined was good in the externall courte that so controuersies and debates might be ended And Cont. 4. q 1. cap. 2. Controuersies may be brought to the externall Courte and there defined but conscience resteth not in that Courte But this shift is easilie refuted First because the distruction of the externall Courâ—e is without cause deuised in this matter Secondlie because the peace of the Church especially consisteth in the internall courte to wit in faith Wherefore in this Courte we may not appeale from the Iudge of the Church otherwise there would neuer be peace of conscience Thirdly the practise of the Church in the Councell of the Apostles and in other generall Councels sheweth that the Iudge of the Church hath power to end controuersies euen in the inward courte of conscience Finallie if one were bound to obey the iudgement of the Church in the outward Courte and not in the inward it would follow that sometimes he were bound to denie Gods trueth before men to wit if the Church should define against Gods trueth Besides the authoritie of the Church is spirituall and ouer the soule and therefore her power of iudging extendeth it selfe euen to the inwarde Courte of the â—oule Wherefore let this be our 29. argument Whose doctrine in manie and weightie matters doth so contradict the expresse words of Scripture as they dare not admit anie Iudge in the Church they are to be thought to contradict the true sense of the Scripture But such are Protestants Therefore c. CHAPTER XXX THAT PROTESTANTS DOE SOMEtimes confesse that their doctrine doth contradict the holie Scripture THE last proof which we will make to shew that Protestants doe contradict the true sense of Scripture shal be taken from their owne confession wherewith sometimes they confesse it implicitlie sometimes plainelie and expressely Implicitly they confesse it diuers wayes First because they acknowledge that they Protest cannot reconcile their doctrine with the Scripture know not how to reconcile their doctrine with the holie Scripture Luther de seru arbit to 2. fol. 466. How this is iust that he God condemneth those that deserue it not is now incomprehensible yet it is beleiued till the Sonne of man be reuealed Et f. 486. In the light of grace it is vnanswerable how God condemneth him who with all his power can doe nothing but sinne and be guiltie Here both the light of nature and the light of Grace teach that it is not the fault of wretched man but of vniust God Et to 1. f. 390. It is a wonderfull probleme that God rewardeth iustice which himselfe reputeth iniustice Melancthon in Rom. 9. edit 1. This misterie is inexplicable that God both willeth sinnes and yet truelie hateth them Peter Martyr in locis Class 1. c. 16. § 9. It is no meruaile that we cannot vnderstand how it is not contrarie to Gods iustice to punish sinnes and by tempting to enforce them because God can doe more then we can vnderstand Caluin 1. Institut capit 18. § 3. By reason of the weaknesses of our vnderstanding we doe not
to giue his life for vs 120 15 VVhether he merited any thing for himselfe 121 16 VVhether he sufficiently redeemed vs 123 17. VVhether he redeemed vs with his blood 125 18. VVhether he died for reprobates 127 19. VVhether he died for all 129 20. VVhether his blood be corrupted 131 21. VVhether his soule descēded to hell 132 22. VVhether he suffered the paines of hell 134 23. VVhether he entred to his disciples the doores being shut 136 24. VVhether he penetrated the heauēs 138 25. VVhether he praieth for vs in heauen 139 Chap. 4. Of Angels and Saints Art 1. VVhether Angels and Saints doe the will of God 144 2. VVhether Saints enioye their felicitie 145 3. VVhether the glorie of Saints be equall 147 4. VVhether Angels and Saints pray for vs. 148 5. VVhether Saints haue care of vs 150 6. VVhether they heare our praiers 152. 7. VVhether Angels offer our praiers to God 153 8. VVhether they be to be praied vnto 155 9. VVhether God be to be praied vnto by the names of Saints 156 10. VVhether God haue mercie on vs for Saints sake 158 11. VVhether Angels or Saints be to be bowed vnto 159 12. VVhether Saints be to be imitated of vs 161 13. VVhether holie men receaue vs into heauenlie tabernacles 162 14. VVhether anie Saint may be termed our hope 163 15. VVhether anie had power to worke Miracles 164 16. VVhether Saints do reigne with Christ 166 17. VVhether anie was full of grace 167 Chap. 5. Of the Scripture or worde of God Art 1. VVhether anie place of Scripture be hard to vnderstand 170 2. VVhether Scripture can be vnderstood without the holie Ghost 172 3. VVhether the Ghospel containe any law 174 4. VVhether the Ghospell preach pennance 167 5. VVhether the Ghospell reproue sinne 178 6. VVhether the Ghopell promise saluation without conditiō of works 180 7. VVhether the Gospell be contrarie to the law 182 8. VVhether the law of Moyses commanded faith in Christ 184. 9. VVhether anie vnwritten traditions be to be kept 186 Chap. 6. Of S. Peter and the Apostles Art 1. VVhether S. Peter were first of the Apostles 189. 2. VVhether the Church was built on S. Peter 190. 3. VVhether the keyes were giuen to him 192. 4. VVhether his faith failed 193. 5. VVhether the Apostles were foundations of the Church 195. 6. VVhether the Apostles were simply to be heard 196. 7. VVhether they were sufficient witnesses of the trueth 198 8. VVhether they learned anie point after Christs ascension 200. 9. VVhether Iudas was truely a disciple 201. 10. VVhether Iudas was a Bishop 202. Chap. 7. Of Pastors of the Church Art 1. Whether Pastors alwaies continew 204. 2. VVhether authoritie be in the Pastors 206. 3. VVhether one Pastor can excommunicate 208. 4. VVhether Pastors can make lawes 209. 5. VVhether Bishops be rulers of the Church 210 6. VVhether they rule the Church 211. 7. VVhether Pastors be to be called Priests 213. 8. VVhether a Pastor can be without calling 214. 9 Whether a Pastor may haue temporall iurisdiction 216. 10 VVhether Moyses were a Preist 218. Chap. 8. Of the Church Art 1. VVhether the Church be one 220. 2. VVhether ill men be of the Church 223. 3 Whether reprobats be of the Church 225. 4 VVhether the Church euer continew 226. 5. VVhether it be alwaies visible 228. 6. VVhether it be infallible 230. 7. VVhether it be simply to be heard 231. 8. VVhether trueth relieth on the Church 232. Chap. 9. Of Temples or materiall Churches Art 1. VVhether Churches be for priuat Praiers 235. 2. VVhether Churches be to be adorned 237. 3. VVhether Images may be set in Churches 4. VVhether Heatens thought their idols to be Gods 240 Chap. 10. Of Baptisme Art 1. Whether water be necessarie to baptisme p. 242. 2. Whether inuocation of the Trinitie be necessarie to baptisme p. 243. 3. Whether baptisme be necessarie as by precept p. 245. 4. VVhether it be necessarie as a meane p. 246. 5. VVhether Simon Magus and such were baptized p. 248. 6. VVhether baptisme be effectuall in reprobats p. 150. 7. VVhether baptisme clenseth sinne p. 252. 8. VVhether it pardonneth sinnes to come p. 256. 9. VVhether before baptisme children be in state of damnation p. 258. 10. VVhether the baptisme of S. Ihon and of Christ were different p. 261. 11. VVhether certaine Ephesians had receaued S. Ihons baptisme p. 262. 12. VVhether they had heard of the holie Ghost p. 264. Chap. 11. Of the Eucharist Art 1. VVhether the Eucharist be the bodie and blood of Christ p. 266. 2. VVhether Christs flesh be to be eaten and his blood to be drunk p. 280. 3. VVhether Christ gaue the blood of the new testament to be drunk p. 283. 4. VVhether the Eucharisticall Chalice be Christs testament p. 284. 5. Vhether at the time of his Supper his blood was shed p. 286. 6. VVhether the Eucharisticall Chalice was shed for vs p. 288. 7. VVhether bread be necessarie to the Eucharist p. 289. 8. VVhether the Eucharist be to be made of azime bread p. 290. 9. VVhether bread and wine whereof the Eucharist is made be to be blessed p. 292. 10. VVhether there ought to be anie preparation to the Eucharist p. 293. 11. VVhether there be anie Sacrifice in the Church p. 295. 12. VVhether is there anie altar in the Church p. 296. 13. VVhether the Paschal lambe was sacrificed p. 297. Chap. 12. Of the other Sacraments Art 1. VVhether Preists can forgiue sinnes p. 300. 2. VVhether we must cōfesse our sinnes p. 302. 3. VVhether grace be giuen by imposition of hands p. 305. 4. VVhether hands be to be imposed vpon those that are baptized p. 305. 5. VVhether Matrimonie be a Sacrament p. 306. 6. VVhether one may marrie after diuorce p. 307. 7. VVhether the sick are to be anoiled p. 310. 8. VVhether the new Sacraments excell the ould p. 311. Chap. 13. Of faith Art 1. VVhether faith be a worke 314. 2. VVhether faith beleiue onely God his promises 315. 3. VVhether to beleiue that Christ is God be iustifying faith 317. 4. VVhether faith be one 319. 5. VVhether all articles of faith may be beleiued without the holie Ghost 321. 6. VVhether faith differ from hope and charitie 322. 7. VVhether faith be greater then charitie 324. 8. VVhether faith be without charitie 325. 9. VVhether it be without confession 328. 10. VVhether without good works it be dead 329. 11. VVhether faith whereof S. Iames speaketh be iustifying faith 331. 12. VVhether anie faith be perfect 333. 13. VVhether faith be perfected by good works 331. 14. VVhether by faith we onely know that we are iustified 336. 15. VVhether faith be necessarie to iustification or saluation 338. 16. VVhether faith be anie cause of iustificatien 340. 17. VVhether faith alone cā iustifie 342. 18. VVhether faith iustifie as it is beleife 344. 19. VVhether faith it selfe be imputed to iustice 346 20. VVhether faith be proper to the iust 348 21 VVhether it be
Church to the den of theues from the assured path of saluation to the open way of damnation Finally I aduertise the Reader that if at anie time I vse anie sharp words against Protestants I intend them onely against their teachers and leaders yet vse I the common name of Protestants that the rest may know that the crimes which I obiect vnto them proceed of their doctrin and thereby flie and reiect it lest they become partakers of the crimes I shew them the gulfe of impietie into which their guides doe lead them let them not be offended with me that I set before their eyes the impietie of the doctrin which they are tought but let them be angrie with their teachers who vnder the most false pretense of Scripture and Gods word haue thaught them such impious doctrin and so contrarie to Gods words And I hartely pray God and euer shal that he open their eyes that they may see the most imminent and greiuous danger wherein they stand and auoide it lighten with his true light that zeale which they haue to his word Rom. 10. lest they perish for euer with them who had zeale but not according to knowledge Whether Catholiks or Protestants be the true owners of the holie Scripture FIRST CHAPTER BECAVSE this question of the true owners How important this question is of the holie Scripture is of such moment as by it may be decided all controuersies as shall hereafter appeare and withall the decision thereof is so easie and cleare as euerie one may perceaue it and notwithstanding hath not as yet to my knowledge beene particularly handled of anie albeit as we shall see out of Tertullian it should haue beene handled before anie question of Scripture I will begin first with it And because Protestants auouch them selues to be the true owners of the Scripture I need not proue to them that ether Catholiks or they are the true owners thereof which the very question doth suppose but it will suffice against them that I shew that according to all reason Catholiks are to be iudged the true owners of Scripture rather then they The first proofe hereof I will take from the actuall The first title for Cathol actual possession possession of the Scripture in which Catholiks peacably were when Luther and the Protestants first began to chalenge the Scripture for theirs For reason teacheth vs to iudge the Possessor of anie thing to be the true owner of the same and possession to be a sufficient title of houlding it vnles the contrarie be manifestly proued and conuinced as we see dayly in lands and temporall goods and otherewise the dominion of things would be vncertaine amongst men Wherevpon the law teacheth the Possessor to plead possession as a sufficient title and to say possideo quia possideo I possesse because I possesse But Protestants can not manifestly disproue no nor yet colourably impugne the right of the Catholiks possession of the holie Scripture as shall hereafter appeare Therefore according to all reason Catholiks vpon this title of their possession are to be iudged true owners of the Scripture The second proof I will take from the Catholiks vndoubted Second title peacable possession possession thereof and vnquestioned by Protestants for manie ages That Protestants did not for manie ages call the Catholiks possessions of the Scripture into question is manifest by the manie and plaine confessions of Protestants that their Church was inuisible before Luther for manie ages which I haue related in my second booke of the Author of the Protestant Church c. 4. And reason teacheth vs to accounte him the true owner of a thing who without all question or clame of anie hath hould it peacably for manie ages together Wherevpon the law alloweth prescription of certaine yeares after which time expired it permitteth not the possession to be called in question Besides it is no way likelie that the true Church of God would suffer her self to be bereaued of so heauenlie a treasure as is the holie Scripture and yet not once in anie corner of the world for manie ages crie after the theefe or chalenge her treasure which she did see was held of others Will men euerie day venture their liues for sauing or recouering a little land or goods and would not the Church of God the onely true owner of the Scripture for manie ages once open her mouth to chalenge so heauenlie a treasure especially the Scripture being as Protestants teach the onely Martyr in disput oxon p. 143. Pareus Coll. Theol. 3. disp 2. externall infallible meane to attayne faith and as necessarie to the saluation of the Church as meate is to the life of man what care had the Church offo great a treasure left vnto here by Christ what account made she of faith and saluation if for manie ages she would not so much as chalenge the onely externall infallible and necessarie means to obtayne them Would the primitiue Church suffer so manie torments and cruell death as we read in the Ecclesiastical Historie rather then loose the holie Scriptures which the Heathens would haue taken from her and would she afterward suffer Papists to take it from her without muttering one word or laying clame to it for manie ages together Moreouer how had she faith how obtained she saluation if for maine ages she lost the onely externall infallible and necessarie meanes to obtayne them The third proof is that the Catholiks possession of the Scripture is farre more ancient then the Protestāts possession Third title ancientest possession thereof For euident it is that that Christian Church which is the first and ancientest possessor of the holie Scripture is the onely true owner of the same because the Apostles and Euangelists left their writings first and Qui prior est tempore potior est iure Reg. iuris onely to the true Church and gaue her the testament and last will of Christ her sponse so that the true Christrian Church had the Scripture before anie false Christian Church had it and likewise certaine it is that she neuer lost it since it was deliuered vnto her but as she is the pillar of truth so she hath faithfully kept this heauenly truth deliuered vnto her in writing and consequently is ancienter possessor of the Scripture then anie false Christian Church can be And this reason the ancient Christians vsed against Heretiks as appeareth by these words of Tertullian lib. de Praescript c. 37. It is my possession I possesse it of ould I possesse it first I am the herie of the Apostles And lib. 4. cont Mart. c. 4. I say my Bible is true Marcion saieth His. I say Marcions Bible is corrupted Marcion saieth Mine is corrupted what shall end our controuersie but order of time giuing authoritie to that which is found to be ancienter and reiecting that which is later For in that falsitie is a corruption of trueth trueth must needs be before falsitie
of faith in Christ of iustifying faith of faith of remission of sinnes The like hath Ambing apud Hospin in Concord discordi fol. 140. Beza de Praedest cont Caste l. vol. 1. p. 393. There is no mētion in the law of this benefit of free redemption by Christ For the declaratiō of this will belongeth to an other parte of Gods word which is called the Ghospell Apol. Cōf. Augustan c. de Iustific The Ghospell preacheth iustice of faith in Christ which the law doth not teach THE CONFERENCE Scripture expressely saieth that Moises wrote in the law of Christ that Moises wrote things concerning Christ That Moise commanded the people to heare Christ in all things The same say Catholiks Protestants expressely say that the law neuer knew faith in Christ that Moises cōmandeth not faith in Christ that the law knoweth nothing of faith in Christ that in the law there is no mention of free redemption in Christ that the law teacheth nothing of faith in Christ ART IX WHETHER ANY VNWRITTEN word or Traditions be to be kept SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. 2. Thessal 2. v. 15. Therefore brethren stand and hould the traditions Traditions not written to be helde which you haue learned whether it be by word or by our epistle CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME Coūcell of Trent Sess 4. The holie Coūcell doth with equall pious affection reuerently receaue and honour traditions belonging to faith or manners as ether deliuered by Christs mouth or the holie Ghost and by continuall succession conserued in the Catholik Church PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Whitaker Cont. 1. q. 3. cap. 10. We care not for vnwritten Not to be helde traditions And Contro 2. q. 5. c. 18. We acknowledge no other word then that which is written And what doctrine soeuer is not written we hould for bastard doctrine Perkins in Cathol ref Contr. 20. c. 2. We acknowledge the onely written word of God Luther Postil in ferias S. Stephani Nothing is to be affirmed Nothing but that which is expressed in Scripture which is not expressed in Scripture Iacobus Andreae l. cont Hosium p. 169. That faith is no faith but an vncertain opinion which is not grounded vpon an expresse testimonie of Scripture Wigand apud Scusselb to 7. Catal. Haeret. p. 681. Onely those doctrines whose very words or equiualent for sense are extant in the Scripture are to be tought and deliuered in the Church Caluin in Gratulat ad Praecentorem pag. 377. Nothing is to be beleiued which is not expressed in Scripture And cont versipellem pagin 353. There is no mention of vnwritten traditions Beza in Rom. 1. v. 17. Christians acknowledge no other object of this faith then the written word of God Etad Reprehens Castell p. 503. Whosoeuer beleiueth in doctrine of religion that which is not written I say he embraceth opinion for faith and an idol for God Vallada in Apol. cont Episc Luzon c. 13. In all the holie No speech of an vnwritten word Scripture there is no speech of an vnwritten word Daneus Controu 7. pag. 1350. The foundation of Christian faith is one onely to wit the word of God and that onely written Hospinian part 2. Histor Sacram. fol. 23. The Magistrates of Zurich commāded that hereafter nothing should be proposed or preached in their Church but the pure fined word of God contained in the bookes of the Prophets and Apostles THE CONFERENCE Scripture expressely teacheth that traditions as well they which are learned by word as they which are learned by writing are to be obserued Catholiks teach the same Protestants expressely teach that onely written doctrin is to be tought nothing to be beleiued but what is written onely the pure fined written word to be tought no obiect of faith but what is written nothing to be beleiued but what is expressed in Scripture and that in verie words or in equiualent sense that there is no mention of vnwritten traditions no speech of vnwritten word that they care not for vnwritten traditions A SVMME OF THIS CHAPTER OF THE WORD of God or Scripture What we haue rehearsed in this chapter doth clearly shew that Protestants do farre otherwise iudge of Scripture then the Scripture it selfe and Catholiks doe For the holie Scripture together with Catholiks teacheth that in it are some things hard to be vnderstood that it cannot be vnderstood without the light of the holie Ghost that the Ghospell is or containeth a law that it doth preach pennance and good workes reproueth sinne promiseth saluation vnder condition of good workes and is not contrarie vnto the law of God that the law of Moises commandeth faith in Christ and that vnwritten traditions are to be obserued And Protestants defend all the contrarie They shew also that Protestants steale from the Scripture Protestants steale from Scripture her excellencie wherewith she surpasseth the capacitie of mans wit and from the Ghospell that it containeth any law preacheth pennance or good workes reproueth sinne promiseth saluation vpon condition of well doing and agreement with Gods law whereby we see what a libertin Ghospell they bring in to wit such as containeth Libertin Ghospell of Protestants no law preacheth no pennance or good workes reproueth no sinne promiseth saluation without all condition of well doing and is quite contrarie to the law of God And that they steall from the law of Moises that it commandeth faith in Christ and finally they take away all the vnwritten word of God CHAPTER V. OF SAINT PETER AND THE APOSTLES ART I. WHETHER S. PETER WERE first of the Apostles SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. MATHEW 10. v. 2. And the names of the twelue S. Peter first of the Apostles Apostles be these The first Simon who is called Peter CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME C. Bellarm. l. 1. de Pontif. c. 18. Peter was put first by reason his dignitie PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Whitaker Contr. 3. q. 5. c. 3. Wheresoeuer mention is made Not first of Peter if we looke well into the place we shall find that nothing is giuen to him which agreeth not to the other Apostles And Controu 4. quaest 2. c. Paul maketh himselfe equall to Peter in all points Tindal in Fox his Acts p. 1139. S. Paul is greater then Peter by the testimonie of Christ Articuli Smalcaldici pag. 345. We giue no prerogatiue to Peter Luther in Gal. 2. to 5. This place clearely sheweth that all the Apostles had equall vocation and commission There was altogether equalitie amongst them no Apostle was greater then an other Illyricus in Praefat. lib. de Sectis It appeareth that Christ gaue no primacie at all in his Church to any man Caluinus in Matth. 20. v. 25. Christ shewed that in his kingdome No primacie or firstnesse there was no primacie for which they contended Beza in Matth. 10. v. 2. What if this word First were added of some who would establish Peters primacie Festus Homius disput 12. All the Apostles were equall in dignitie authoritie
title and power Againe Peter had no primacie amongst the Apostles CONFERENCE OF THE FORESAIED WORDS Scripture expressely saieth that S. Peter was the first of the Apostles Catholiks say the same Protestants expressely say that S. Peter had no primacie at all and suspect that the word First is added to the Scripture they say also that Saint Peter had nothing which was not common to the other Apostles that all the Apostles were equall in dignitie authotitie title and power that there was altogether equalitie amongst thē and none greater then an other that S. Paul was equall to S. Peter in all points nay greater then he by the testimonie of Christ ART II. WHETHER THE CHVRCH was built vpon S. Peter himselfe PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME Math. 16. v. 18. And I say to thee That thou art Peter and vpon The Church built vpon S. Peter this rock will I build my Church And I will giue thee the keyes of the kingdome of heauen CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME D. Stapleton in Promptuar Cath. in Festo Petri Pauli S. Chrisostome doth diligently teach that twoe things were here giuen to Peter The one the guift of the Father to wit the reuelalation of the word incarnate The other the proper guift of the Sonne to be the rock of the Church PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Whitaker Controu 4. q. 2 c. 2. Peter is not the rock because Not vpon S. Peter Christ doth not build his Church vpon Peter Luther in Matth. 16. to 5. vpon this that is vpon me not vpō thee Item He cannot be vnderstood to build vpon Peter Zuinglius l. de vera falsa relig cap. de Clauibus I will build my Church vpon this rock not vpon thee for thou art not the rock Againe Onely Christ not Peter is the rock vpon the which the Church standeth Bucer in Matth. 16. Faith in Christ is that rock vpon which the Church is saied to be built not that man Peter Caluin in Math. 16. v. 19. He faigneth that Peter is called the foūdation of the Church But who seeth not that he giueth that to the person of a man vhich was spoaken of Peters faith Beza in Matth. 16. v. 18. But Mathew or whosoeuer was his interpretour seemeth by this difference of words to distinguish Peter from that rock on which the building relieth Zanchius l. de Eccles c. 9. The opposition of the Fathers is not admitted in this place vpon this rock that is vpon Peter Vorstius in Antibell p. 64. Our men vse to answere that by the name of Rock not the person but the faith or confession of Peter or Christ himselfe is to be vnderstood More of their like sayings may be seene in my Latin booke c. 5. art 2. THE CONFERENCE Scripture expressely teacheth that Christ speaking to Peter himselfe hath in the words which immediatly goe before that clause vpon this rock c as also in the which immediatly follow it and designing S. Peters person both by his Father and by his proper name Peter which he had giuen to him Which both in the Syriack tongue in which Christ spoake and in the Hebrew tongue in which Saint Mathew wrote his Ghospell is wholy one and the selfe same word that Rock is and also in the Greek language is equiualent or synonimall with it as Protestants confesse and finally designing him by that pronoune This saied vpon this Rock which is as much as is he had saied vpon this Peter I will build my Church The same say Catholiks Protestants expressely say that S. Peter is not the Rock of the Church not the foundation not he vpon whome the Church is built Which is so manifest a contradiction of Scripture as manie Protestants confesse it See libr. 2. cap. 30. ART III. WHETHER THE KEYES OF the kingdome of heauen were giuen to S. Peter himselfe SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. Mathew 16. vers 18. 19. And I say to thee That thou The keyes giuen to S. Peter art Peter And I will giue to thee the keyes of the kingdome of heauen CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME D. Stapleton in Prompt Cathol in Festo Petri Pauli The power of the keyes was promised by Christ to Peter alone and therefore it was truely giuen PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Whitaker Controu 9. quaest 5. c. 3. Surely the keyes of the Not to any one men Church were not giuen to any one singular man but to the Church it selfe Bucher in Matth. 16. This power of the keyes is in the whole Church but the authoritie of administring it is in the Preists and Bishops as in ould time in Rome the power was in the people the authoritie in the Senate Articuli Smalcaldici We must needs confesse that the keyes belong not to the person of any one man hut to the Church Daneus Contr. 3. c. 10. p. 244. Christ called faith the rock Not to Saint Peter to which rock not to Peter he gaue these keyes and the strength against the power and gates of Hell THE CONFERENCE Scripture expressely teacheth that Christ promised and consequently gaue the keyes of Heauen vnto S. Peter The same say Catholiks Protestants expressely teach that the power of the keyes is not in the priests and Bishops that they were not giuen to Peter nor to any one singular man Which contradiction of the Scripture is so plaine as some Protestants acknowledge it See l. 2. c. 30 ART IV. WHETHER S. PETERS faith failed SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. Luc. 22. v. 31. And our Lord saied Simon Simon behould Saint Peters faith failed not Sathan hath required to haue you for to sift as wheat But I haue praied for thee that thy faith faile not CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME D. Stapleton in Lucae 22. v. 32. Christ doth in those words manifestly teach that S. Peters faith should not faile PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Whitaker Cont. 4. q. 2. c. 2. Whē Bellarmin had saied Peter lost charitie but not faith when he denied Christ answereth It seemeth that a greater wound was giuen to his faith then to his Saints Peters faith failed charitie Againe That was surely a short apostasie Hutterus in Analysi Cōfess Augustan art 12. It is a blasphemous speech of Beza when he writeth That Peter denying Christ did not loose his faith Reineccius to 1. Armat c. 22. Peter retained not faith And to 3. c. 4. For a time Peters faith surely failed whiles he denyed Christ Daneus Contr. 3. c. 10. Bellarmin dreameth when he saieth that Peters faith could not faile For by the deniall which afterward he made it appeareth to be false which he impudently affirmeth of the indefectibilitie of Peters faith The same he hath ibid. lib. 4. cap. 3. Lambertus and Schusselb l. 1. Theol. Caluin art 14. saieth that Peter when he fell had not that true faith wherewith we trust in God alone and the infidelitie preuailed against Peter Iunius Contro 3. l. 1. c. 10. Certainly Peter erred from faith THE CONFERENCE Scripture expressely
sect 8. In all these things the Apostles did alledge their testimonie and themselues also as witnesses of that trueth which they tought And l. 3. sect 3. The Apostles were witnesses of their doctrine and they gaue authoritie to their doctrine See him Cont. 4. l. 8. c. 9. PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Whitaker Controu 1. q. 3. c. 11. God alone is a sufficient witnesse None but God is a sufficient witnesse of himselfe And l. 3. de Scriptura c. 13. sect 3. The people did not beleiue Moises for himselfe but for that diuine and great miracle Beleife was giuen to Moises and Paul not for themselues but for Gods authoritie which appeared in their ministerie And ib. sect 1. The testimonie of the Church as of the Church is but humane And Contr. 1. q. 3. c. 11. cit The iudgment of the Church is humane The same followeth euidently of that which they saied in the former article For if the Apostles doctrine must be examined it is manifest that they are not sufficient witnesses of their doctrine The same Whitaker Contr. 2. q. 4. c. 3. Yea after Christs Not the Apostles ascension and that descent of the Holie Ghost vpon the Apostles manifest it is that the whole Church erred about the vocation of the Gentils and not the vulgar Christians onely but euen the very Apostles and Doctors These were great errours and yet we see that they were in the Apostles euen after the Holie Ghost had descended vpon them THE CONFERENCE Scripture expressely affirmeth that the Apostles had the holie Ghost giuen them to testifie of Christ that they were ioyned with the holie Ghost witnesses of Christ that they were witnesses appointed of God that their testimonie is true that all may beleiue through Saint Ihon that the faithfull beleiued God and Moyses The same say Catholiks Protestants expressely say that none but God is a sufficient witnesse of the trueth that nether Paul nor Moises were to be beleiued for themselues that the testimonie of the Church is but humane That the Apostles erred and that greatly euen after the holie Ghost had descended vpon them ART VIII WHETHER THE APOSTLES learnt anie point of Christian doctrine after Christs ascension SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. Ihon 16. v. 12. Yet manie things I haue to say to you but you The Apostles learnt some thing after Christ cannot beare them now but when he the Spirit of trueth cometh he shall teach you all trueth CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME D. Stapleton in Ioan. 16. v. 12. By this testimonie is clearly proued that Christ tought not all by word of mouth but that both the Apostles and the Church learnt many things of the Holie Ghost PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Whitaker Contr. 1. q. 6. c. 10. The holie Ghost did suggest no They learnt nothing other things then those which Christ had tought Caluin in Ioan. 14. vers 26. Marke what all these things are which he promiseth that he Spirit shall teach He saieth He shall suggest or bring to mind whatsoeuer I haue saied Whence it followeth that he shall not be a coyner of new reuelations And 4. Institut c. 8. § 8. That limitation is carefully to be noted where he appointeth the holie Ghost his office to suggest whatsoeuer he had tought by worde of mouth Beza in Ioan. 14. v. 26. The Apostles nether learnt nor tought any point of Christian and sauing doctrine after the departure of the Lord. THE CONFERENCE Scripture expressely saieth that manie things were tould to the Apostles which they could not beare in Christs time that the holie Ghost was to be sent to teach them all trueth The same say Catholiks Protestants expressely teach that the Apostles learnt no point of Christian doctrine after Christs departure that the Holie Ghost reuealed no new thing to them that he suggested no other thing then Christ had tought ART IX WHETHER IVDAS WAS TRVELY a disciple or in the true Church of Christ SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. Matth. 10. v. 1. seq And hauing called his twelue disciples Iudas was truely a disciple of Christ together he gaue them c. And the names of the twelue Apostles be these The first Simon who is called Peter and Iudas Iscariot who also betrayed him Et c. 20. v. 14. 47. Marc. 14. v. 10. 43. Luc. 22. v. 3. 47. he is called one of the twelue Ihon 12. v. 14. One therefore of his disciples Iudas Iscariot Actes 1. v. 17. Iudas who was the captaine of them that apprehended Iesus who was numbred among vs and obtained the lot of this ministerie v. 25. Shew of these twoe one whome thou hast chosen to take the place of this ministerie and Apostleship from the which Iudas hath preuaricated And the lot fell vpon Mathias and he was numbred with the eleuen Apostles CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME Card. Bellarm. l. 3. de Eccles c. 7. Iudas was once of the true Church for he was an Apostle one of the twelue and called a Bishop of the Prophet Dauid psal 108. Which could not be true vnlesse he had beene of the Church PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Whitaker Controu 2. q. 1. cap. 7. I answere that the reprobate Iudas neuer of the Catholik Church Iudas was neuer of the true Catholik Church He held for a time a principall place in the outward societie of the Church because he was an Apostle but this made him not of the true Catholik Church But how he was one of the Apostles Austin telleth Tract 61. in Ioan. That how he was one in number not in merit Neuer an Apostle indeed Neuer true member of the Church are in shew not in vertue But what is in shew seemeth to be but is not indeed Daneus Controu 4. c. 2. Iudas Iscariot and Simon Magus were neuer true members of the true Church of God Of the same opinion are Protestants commonly who denie that anie reprobate can be in the true Church as we shall see hereafter c. 8. THE CONFERENCE Scripture expressely saieth that Iudas was one of Christs disciples one of the twelue Apostles was numbred amongst them obtained the lot of their ministerie had the place of Apostleship which S. Mathias afterwards had The same say Catholiks Protestants expressely say that Iudas was neuer of the true Catholik Church seemed to be one of the Apostles but was not indeed ART X. WHETHER IVDAS WAS a Bishop SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. Actes 1. v. 20. For it is written in the booke of psalmes Be Iudas was a Bishop their habitation made desert and be there none that dwell in it and his Iudas Bishoprick let an other take CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY DENIE C. Bellarm. cited in the former article Iudas is called a Bishop of the Prophet Dauid PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Whitaker Cont. 2. q. 1. c. 7. Iudas was an Apostle therefore no He was no Bishop Bishop because the Apostles were no Bishops The same say other Protestants who denie that the Apostles were
that the lawe coÌ„mandeth onely the wicked that that being iustified all lawes cease that the lawe compelleth no more that we are not buÌ„od with the lawe that Christ hath abrogated all lawes that that the lawe is not giuen to the iust in anie vse that no lawe bindeth anie more Which is so contrarie to Scripture as some Protestants confesse it See lib. 2. c. 30. THE SVMME OF THIS CHAPTER of Gods lawe By what hath beene reported in this Chapter clearely appeareth that Protestants teach quite contrarie to the holie Scripture concerning Gods lawe For the Scripture together with Catholiks teacheth that Gods lawe is possible that some kept it that some haue loued God in all their harte that Gods lawe is in the harte of some that we pray to fulfill it that the keeping of it is necessarie to saluation and that the morall lawe of the ten coÌ„mandments is not taken away from the faithfull all which Protestants denie By the same also appeareth that the Protestants also in this matter play the theeues For they take from Gods lawe that it is possible that it hath beene kept of anie that it is in the hartes of anie that it is necessarie to saluation and that it obligeth the faithfull CHAPTER XIX OF MANS LAVV AND SVPERIORITIE ART I. WHETHER THERE BE ANIE Superioritie among Christians SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. PROVERB 8. vers s 15. By me Kings do reigne Math. 24. v. 45. Who thinkest thou is a faithfull Christ appointed some ouer his familie All power is of God wise seruant whome his Lord hath appointed ouer his familie Rom. 13. v. 1. Let euerie soule be subiect to higher powers for there is no power but of God Tite 3. v. 1. Admonish them to be subiect to Princes and Potestates Hebr. 13. v. 17. Obey your Prelats and be subiect to them Subiect to Prelats and Princes Act. 2. v. 28. The Holie Ghost hath placed you Bishops to rule the Church of God CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME C. Bellarm. l. 3. de Laicis c. 3. The Prophets foretould that all the Kings of the earth should serue Christ and the Church which cannot be vnlesse there be Kings in the Church PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Luther l. de saeculari potestate apud Coccium tom 1. l. 7. No Superioritie among Christians A Christian subiect to none art 1. Among Christians there can be no superioritie De libertate Christiana to 2. f. 3. A Christian man is the most freest Lord of all subiect to none De votis ibib fol. 270. Christ hath giueÌ„ me so much libertie that I man subiect to none but to himselfe onely Christ is my immediate Lord I know no other anie more In 1. Petri c. 2. to 5. f. 462. Christ hath coÌ„mitted the badde to profane power for to gouerne theÌ„ as they ought to be gouerned the good that is those who beleiue he hath reserued to himselfe whome he gouerneth by his word onely CONFERENCE OF THE FORESAIED WORDS Scripture expressely saieth that Kings reigne by God that we must obey the higher powers that we must be subiest to Princes and Prelats and to rulers of the Church The same say Catholiks Protestants expressely say that there is no superioritie among Christians that a Christian is subiect to none vnder none but Christ that Christ is his immediate Lord and that he knoweth no other ART II. WHETHER MAN HAVE AVthoritie to make lawes SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. Act. 15. v. 29. It hath seemed good to the Holie Ghost and to The Apostles made lawes vs to lay no further burde vpon you then these necessarie things That you abstaine from things immolated to idols and blood and that which is strangled Ibid. v. 41. Paul walked through Syria and Cilicia confirming the Churches commanding them to keepe the precepts of the Apostles and the Ancients 1. Cor. 7. vers 12. For to the rest I say not our Lord If anie Also S. Paul brother haue a wife an infidel and she consent to dwel with him let him not put her away CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME D. Stapleton in Act. 15. v. 28. The Church can impose temporall lawes as precepts for some good end to wit to keepe peace in the Church which binde the faithfull in conscience and before God to obey them PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Confession of Basle art 10. None can forbidde that which None can forbidde that which Christ forbade not God alone caÌ„ make lawes Christ hath not forbidde Lutherl cont R. Angliae to 2. f. 346. The power of making lawes belonges to God alone De Captiu Babyl fol. 77. Nether men nor Angels can by anie right impose anie lawe vpon Christians but as they will themselues Caluin 4. Instit c. 10. § 7. We heare that God chalengeth God onely a lawgiuer this as proper to himselfe alone to gouerne vs by the command of his word and by lawes Ibid. § 8. If God be the onely lawgiuer men must not take this authoritie vpon them In Iacobi 4. v. 12. They draw to themselues all the maiestie of God who chalenge authoritie to make lawes THE CONFERENCE Scripture expressely saieth that the Apostles had authoritie to impose necessarie burdens and to command that which Christ had not commanded to command their precepâ—s to be kept and to make lawes for married persons The same say Catholiks Protestants expressely say that none can forbidde that which Christ hath not forbidde that the power of making lawes is proper to God alone that no lawe can be imposed vpon Christians but as they will themselues ART III. WHETHER MANS LAW CAN binde the conscience SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. Rom. 13. v. 2. Who resisteth the power resisteth the ordinaÌ„ce Mans lawe can binde conscience of God and they that resist purchase to themselues damnation v. 5. Therefore be subiect of necessitie not onely for wrath but also for conscience sake CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME D. Stapleton in Rom. 13. v. 1. The breach of humane lawes offendeth also God The verie consciences of the faithfull are bound with ciuill lawes PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Whitaker Contr. 4. quaest 7. c. 1. We say that the lawes of Princes lawes bind not conscience Princes binde not the conscience for this is proper to God lib. 8. cont Dur. sect 103 Who impose lawes vpon the conscience chalenge power of sauing and destroying and robbe God of his right The lawes of Magistrates haue no power ouer the conscience Perkins in Anatomia Conscientiae tom 1. col 1215. We Conscience subiect to no mans lawe acknowledge no subiection at all of the conscience to mens lawes In Galat. 5. tom 2. col 258. The Magistrates lawe maketh a thing necessarie externally Neuerthelesse the thing in it selfe is not made necessarie but remaineth indifferent and you may vse it or not if you auoide contempt or scandall Luther in 1. Petri c. 2. tom 5. f. 464. The Magistrate cannot binde the conscience De seruo arbit to 2. fol. 431.
them publicans and harlots haue beene saued nether if they be knowne make they a man better Finally they vse to vnderstand the Saintes departed this life by this terme The dead For so doth the Apologie of the Confession of Auspurg c. de Inuocat Sanctorum The confession of Saxonie c. 21. Melancthon in locis c. de Sacramentis c. de Caeremonijs c. de scandalo c. de libertate Whitaker l. 9. cont Dureum sect 36. Wherevpon Kemnitius 3. parte Examinis p. 228. saieth that the Saintes departed are vsually termed The dead CONFERENCE OF THE FORESAIED WORDS Scripture expressely saieth that the soule cannot be killed and that it returneth to God The same say Catholiks Protestants expressely say that the soule dieth that it is a Popes decree that the soule dieth not that it is a monstruous thing to say that it is immortall they adde also that it is by transfusion that after death it feeleth nothing that all or most infantes perish as beasts that the knowledge of the state of soules after this death is not necessarie to saluation nor maketh a man the better ART II. WHETHER MANS SOVLE BE the forme of his bodie SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. Gen. 2. v. 7. Our Lord God formed man of the styme of the Soule forme of the bodie earth and breathed into his face the breath of life and man became a liuing soule CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME S. Thomas 1. parte q. 76. art 4. A reasonable soule is vnited to the bodie as a substantiall forme PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Luther cited in the former article I giue leaue that the Not substantiall forme of the bodie Pope make articles of faith to his followers Such are That the soule is a substantiall forme of the bodie In psal 22. to 3. f. 348. It is not determined according to the spirit of trueth nor according So also Farellus to the authoritie of Scriptures but by the Popes reed according to vaine traditions of men That the essence of God is nether generated nor generateth That the soule is a substantiall forme of the bodie That bread and wine are trāssubstantiated on the altar that one kinde is to be giuen to lay men for the whole Sacrament and like monsters Polanus in Sylloge Thesium parte 2. p. 518. Mans soule is No forme of the bodie no forme of the bodie against Bellarmin Bucanus Instit loco 8. p. 89. The soule is in one onely mēber Not in euerie member of the bodie and place of the bodie THE CONFERENCE Scripture plainely saith that the soule was infused of God into man and that by it he was made a liuing creature The same say Catholiks Protestants plainely say that mans soule is no forme of the bodie that it is monstrous to say that it is the forme of the bodie that it is in one onely parte and place of the bodie and not in the whole bodie ART III. WHETHER THERE BE ANIE resurrection of the dead SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. 1. Cor. 15. v. 16. For if the dead rise not againe nether is Christ The dead shall rise risen againe And if Christ be not risen againe vaine is your faith 1. Thessalon 4. v. 14. For if we beleiue that Iesus died and rose againe so also God them that haue slept by Iesus will bring with him And the same is most plainely taught in innumerable places CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME Catechismus ad Parochos in Exposit Symboli As we beleiue that manie haue beene raised from death so we must beleiue that all shal be raised to life PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Luther l. de seruo arbit to 2. fol. 442. Behould experience what the most excellent witts amongst the Gentils thought of the life to come and the resurrection How much more excellent they were of wit did they not the more thinke the life to come and resurrection to be ridiculous Finally to this day the most Luther not free from denying the resurrection of the dead by how much they are of greater wit and learning do they not the more laughe at that article and accoūt it afable and that opēly And I would to God thoum y Erasmus and I were free from this leauen So rare is there anie faithfull soule touching this article Brentius apud Reginaldum cited in the first article Yea such wordes fall from diuers Protestants by which they signifie No resurrection of the dead that they beleiue not the resurrection of the dead as well when there are drunken as when they are sober in their familiar talkes Vorstius in Apologetica resp ad Homium p. 41. writeth thus Let them see who will enquire these things more curiously what amongst our men Caluin himselfe sometimes thought of this matter in his epistles p. 85. Where Farellus plainely enough Caluin denied the resurrection of the flesh telleth that he not onely doubted of the resurrection of this flesh but thought plaine contrarie from others at that time And neuerthelesse none accursed him therefore of heresie Yea among the Lutherans Iames Schegkius in Antisimonic sect 9. p. 420. Schegkius denied the resurrection of these bodies Openly denied that the same bodies should rise hereafter And yet he was curteously excused of his parteners and it no where appeareth that he was for that condemned of heresie ether of his owne men or of ours Caluin Epistola 104. thus writeth to Laelius Sozinus Sozinus denied the resurrection of the flesh whome Camerarius in vita Melancthonis much commendeth I see that you are not satisfied about the resurrection of the flesh Farellus who was the first Minister of Geneua and whome Caluin and Beza highly cōmend and his picture is put amongst the worthies of the new reformers denied the resurrection of this flesh For thus writeth Caluin to him as reporteth M. Reinalds in Caluinoturcismo l. 3. c. 22. It is no meruaile that the resurrection of this flesh seemeth a Nether Caluin maruaileth at it thing incredible to thee Thou thinkes it sufficeth if thou beleiuest that sometime we shall haue new bodies Behould the first Apostle of Geneua thought the resurrection of this flesh a thing incredible nether that seemed anie meruaill to his Coapostle Caluin Besides all they who as we rehearsed cap. 3. artic 20. denie that Christs blood rose againe denie that there was a perfect resurrection of Christ of whome his blood was a parte and consequently they must denie that the blood of other men shal rise againe and so there shall not be a perfect resurrection of men Moreouer Caluin in 4 c. 1. § 27. saieth that those Corinthians who denied the resurrection were not excluded from Gods mercie Sadeel and Theses Posnan c. 12. pag. 806. Protestants account deniers of the resurrection to be members of the Church and children of God and faithfull that they kept the name of a true Chruch which also saieth Riuet tract 1. sect 39. Beza 2 parte respons ad Acta Montisbel pa. 253.
words of Christ but thinke of some other thing and with inward eyes behould them as mysteries And Victorinus ib. In the question of the Supper of the Lord we must looke with the left eye vpon the words of Christ and with the right behould the natures of Christ and the writings of Antiquitie Yee see them professe that the foundation and strength of their opinion is a humane principle that their reasons are to be preferred before Christs words that we must not simply looke vpon Christ words but thinke vpon some other thing that we must looke vpon Christs words with the left eye and with the right vpon nature Which is the very doctrine of Suencfeldius in Schlusselburg art 23. cit Remoue saieth he from thy sight Take and Eate This is my bodie and then consider what is the nature of mans bodie of eating of Sacraments and of ould figures and so thou shalt find most certaine trueth In like sorte they confesse that they learnt not their faith out of Scripture Zuinglius Resp ad Serm. Lutheri to 2. fol. 372. Faith cannot be learnt or discussed out of words but the Protest haue not their faith out of Scripture teacher of it is God and after we haue it deliuered from him we may see the same in words And in Exegesi fol. 347. We do not thinke that faith can be gathered out of words but that faith being the mistresse the words which are set before vs may be vnderstood How I pray you should we gather faith out of words sith we ought not to come to expound Scriptures But being already armed with faith And OEcolampadius in Hospin part 2. Histor fol. 70. I come not to Scripture but being before hand armed with faith Their first shift is to scoffe and deride the manner of Protecst soffe at plaine proofes out of Scripture arguing out of the expresse words of Scripture P. Martyr in Schlusselburg l. 4. Theol. Caluin artic 20. calleth our argument taken out of the words of the institution of the Eucharist a Fiue word proofe And in Dial. col 130. thus speaketh I alwaies thought that yee were not so wise as yee Gods word not enough should be in labouring so much for an opinion both absurde and vnprofitable and hauing nothing to mantaine it but Christs word This is my bodie Caluin 1. Instit cap. 2. § 3. saieth that they are madde who endeauour to defend the images of God and Saints by the example of the Cherubins The same saieth Hospin l. de orig Templorum pag. 254. and Beza 2. part respons ad Colloq Montisbel pag. 31. termeth the same a stinking argument Whitaker ad Rat. 3. Campiani maketh this to be a Sophisme Saint Iames commandeth to Foolish to striue about Christs words anoint the sick therefore we must anoint them Zuinglius de Peccat orig tom 2. fol. 122. saieth How foolish should he seeme who for words of Scripture would auouch that we are washed from originall sinne by the water of baptisme OEcolāpadius cōplaineth that the words of the Institutiō of the Eucharist are obiected to him as a Helene and the samewords Caluin termeth Aiax his buckler and the onely refuge of Papists Finally they are sometimes driuen to blaspheme the They blaspheme the very words of Scripture words of Scripture and to say that they will nether beleiue them nor God himselfe P. Martyr cont Gardiner col 423. termeth the words of the Institution of the Eucharist a litle speach of fiue words and col 1095 a fiue word speach Zuinglius Respons ad Billican tom 2. f. 264. Poore letters Burensis in Schlusselburg Praefat. in tom 3. Catal. Haeret. Foure impotent words Sheldon l. of Antichrist pag. 82. in scoffe Fiue omnipotent words Hospin part 2. Histor fol. 63. Fiue magicall words Gratianus Anties tom 6. doctrinae Iesuit fol. 158. speaketh in this sorte To be present according to Gregorie is to draw Christs bodie out of heauen by fiueuerbicall or magicall power Volanus l. 2. cont Scargam pag. 1047. Feigning to your selues a new Christ of bread made by the fiue-word-breath of a Preist Moreouer Zuinglius as before is rehearsed called Christs words of the indissolubilitie of mariage drie words and l. de Relig. c. de Euchar. saieth that the words of conscration are too drie for some mens capacitie Poach in Schlusselburg tom 4. Catal. pag. 305. thus writeth It must needs be that the law sith it nether Gods law in lie is Christ nor in Christ is contained in error lie and death And the Scripture as Luther saieth in his disputations is not to be vnderstood against Christ but for Christ and therefore to be referred to him or not to be accounted true Scripture Luther being sore vrged by the words of Scripture touching works and the law teacheth his followers to answere thus tom 5. in 3. Galat. fol. 345. Simply we must answere in this sorte Here is Christ there the testimonies of the Scripture touching workes and the law But Christ is Lord of the Scripture Thou vrgest the seruant that is the Scripture this seruant I Luther leaueth the Scripture to Papists leaue to thee I vrge the Lord who is King of the Scripture And speaketh yet more plainely German edit Wittemb tom 1. in these words Albeit the Papists do bring a huge loade of Scriptures in which good works are commanded I care nothing He careth not for all the Scripture for all the sayings of the Scripture though more were brought Thou Papist art very insolent and proud with the Scripture which yet is vnder Christ and the Lord. Wherefore I am nothing He is not moued with it moued thereby Go too foresooth relie vpon the seruant as much as thou wilst but I relie vpon Christ the true Maister Lord and Emperour of the Scripture Him I will beleiue and I know he cannot lie to me nor lead me into error I had rather honour and beleiue him then to suffer my selfe to be drawne one finger breth from my opinion for all the sayings of the Scripture Loe how Luther careth not for all the sayings of the Scriptures is nothing moued with will not alter his opinion for them all and leaueth them to the Papists And in like sorte tom 1. disput de Fide fol. 387. saieth But if our aduersaries vrge the Scripture against Christ we vrge Christ against the Scripture We haue the Lord they haue the seruant Papist haue the Scripture And in Colloq cap. de verbo Dei fol. 22. speaking of his followers saieth The Scripture is contemned corrupted and mocked of vs. Yea Zuinglius in Elencho tom 2. fol. 10. affirmeth that when Paul wrote the Commentaries of the Euangelists and the Epistles of the Apostles were not of authoritie and that Paul did not attribute so much to his Epistles as that Paul did not thinke his Epistles diuine whatsoeuer was contained in them was holie The like is insinuated by