was not whashed by baptisme See artic 7. Scripture We were by nature the children of wrathe as also the rest As by the offence of one vnto all men to condemnation Protestants Originall sinne is not imputed to them the children of the faithfull are borne Saintes See art 9. Scripture In what then were ye baptized who saied in Ihons Some baptized in Saint Ihons Baptisme Not in that baptisme Some knew not of the Holie Ghost They knew of him baptisme Protestants It is demonstrated that they were neuer baptized in Ihons outward baptisme See more art 11. Scripture But they saied to him Nay nether haue we heard whither there be a Holie Ghost Protestants How could it be that Iewes had heard nothing of the Holie Ghost Se more art 12. CHAPTER XI OF THE EVCHARIST SCripture This is my bodie which is giuen for you This is my The Eucharist is the bodie of Christ It is not his bodie bloud of the new testament that shal be shed for manie Protestants The Sacramentall bread is called Christs bodie although indeed it be not Christs bodie The Eucharist is not truely the bodie of Christ Some do vrge that the lords bread is the verie bodie of Christ but we say the contrarie See more art 1. Scripture Vnles ye eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and Christs flesh to be eaten drinke his blood ye shall not haue life in you Protestants Christ did not command his bodie to be eaten Not to be eaten but symbolicall bread VVe eate and drinke nothing but bread and wine Christs corporall flesh can be no way eaten See more art 2. His flesh truly meate Scripture My flesh is truely meate Protestants It is farre from the bodie of the lord to be truly Not truly meate eaten See art 2. cit Scripture Drinke ye all of this For this is the blood of the Blood of the new testameÌ„to be drunk Not to be drunk The Chalice is the new testament There is sacrifice new testament Protestants Christ did not giue the blood of the new testament to drink See art 3. Scripture This chalice is the new testament in my blood Protestants That Cuppe was not the new testament This Cuppe was not the new testament it self See more art 4. Scripture In euerie place there is sacrificing and there is offered to my name a cleane oblation Protestants There is no more Sacrifice remayning in the There is none Church See more art 11. Scripture This is the chalice the new testament in my blood The Chalice shed for vs. which chalice as is euident by the Greek text shal be shed for you ProtestaÌ„ts The chalice was not shedde for vs. See more art 6. Not shedde for vs. We haue an altar We haue none Scripture We haue an altar whereof they haue no power to eate who serue the tabernacle Protestants Paule maketh no mention of an altar In the Apostolicall writings there is no mention of an altar Altars haue no place in the time of the Ghospell See more art 24. Scripture And the whole mulâ—â—tude of the children of Israel The Paschall lambe sacrificed Not sacrificed shall sacrifice him the paschall lambe at euen Protestants The holie Bible no where teacheth that the paschall lambe was immolated and sacrificed The paschall lambe was no sacrifice See more art 13. OF THE OTHER SACRAMENTS CHAPTER XII SCripture Whose sinnes you shall forgiue they are forgiuen Men can forgiue sinnes They can not Protestants Men do not forgiue sinnes who attributeth remission of sinnes to a creature robbeth God of his glorie It is proper to God alone to remit sinnes and so proper as he communicateth this glorie to none See more art 1. Scripture Confesse your sinnes one to an other Sinnes to be confessed to men Not to be coÌ„fessed to theÌ„ Grace by imposition of hands Not by it Protestants God requireth not this confession to manne Confession of sinnes is forbidden Nether Christ nor his Apostles would command it See art 2. Scripture Resuscitate the grace of God which is in thee by the imposition of my hands Protestants Grace was not giuen by the externall signe of imposition of hands Imposition of hands of it self hath no efficacie but the effect dependeth of God alone See more art 3. Scripture Euerie one that dismisseth his wife and marrieth an To marie after diuerce is aduantrie Not aduantrie Men dying are to be auoiled other committeth aduoutrie Protestants Who dismisseth his wife for whoredome and marrieth an other doth not commit aduoutrie See more art 6. Scripture Is anie man sick among you let him bring in the preists of the Church and let them pray ouer him anoiling him with oile Protestants The Preists were commanded that they should Not to be not anoile those that died See more art 7. CHAPTER XIII OF FAITHE SCripture This is the worke of God that you beleiue in him Faith is a worke whom he hath sent Protestants Faith is no worke It is false that faith is a Not to worke worke See more art 1. Scripture And now there remaine Faith Hope and Charitie Faith distinct from Hope these three c. Protestants Who wnderstand not that Faith Hope and Not distinct Charitie are the selfe same thinge wil be forced to let passe manie knotâ—es in Scripture vnloosed See more art 7. Scripture And now there remaine Faith Hope and Charitie Faith inferior to Charitie Not inferior these three but the greater of these is Charitie Protestants Faith is greater then Charitie Faith is better more worthie more noble then Charitie See more art 7. Scripture Of the Princes also manie beleiued in him but for Faith without confessioÌ„ the Pharises did not confesse Protestants True faith can no more be separated from confession Not without confession Faith of Christs Godhead helpeth of mouth then fire from heate See more art 9. Scripture These are written that you may beleeue that Iesus is Christ the Sonne of God and that beleiuing you may haue life in his name Protestants To beleiue that Christ is one person which is Helpeth not God and man would helpe none See more art 3. Scripture Of the Princes also manie beleiued in him but Faith without charitie for the Pharises did not confesse For they loued the glorie of man more then the glorie of God Protestants It is impossible to beleiue where charitie wanteth Not without charitie True faith can no more be without workes then fire without heate See more art 8. Scripture Faith without workes is dead Faith some times dead Neuer dead Protestants Who beleiue that true faith can be dead beleiue against the Confession of our Church True faith can neuer be saied to be dead See more art 10. Scripture VVithout faith it is impossible to please God Faith necessarie to saluation Not necessarie Faith without workes saueth not It saueth Beliefe doth iustifie Protestants
with the baptisme of S. Ihon and after with the baptisme of Christ Catholiks say the same Protestants expressely say that they were not baptized againe were not baptized with Ihons baptisme and that it is madnesse to say it that in the foresaied place of the Acts there is no speech of baptisme or baptizing Which are so contrarie to Scripture as Protestants sometime confesse it See lib. 2. cap. 30. ART XII WHETHER THE FORESAIED Ephesians had heard of the Holie Ghost SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY DENIETH. Act. 19. v. 2. And he S. Paul saied to them Haue ye receaued The Ephesiās had not heard of the holie Ghost the Holie Ghost beleiuing But they saied to him Nay nether haue we heard whether there be a Holie Ghost CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY DENIE D. Stapleton in Actor 19. v. 5. S. Paul saied to these Ephesians because they had answered that they had heard nothing of the Holie Ghost In what then were you baptized PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME Caluin in Actor 19. v. 2. How could it be that Iewes had heard They had heard of the holie Ghost nothing the Holie Ghost Surely hence we gather that Paul spoake not so much as in generall of the Holie Ghost and therefore there is a figure in the word Ghost Beza in Actor 19. v. 2. It were most absurd to beleiue that they who had beene baptized of Ihon and professed themselues disciples of Christ were ignorant that there was anie holie Ghost Bucanus in Instit loco 47. What those twelue men denie that they had heard that there was a Holie Ghost is not to be vnderstood of the being or person of the Holie Ghost but figuratiuely of the visible manner of powring downe his guifts Reineccius to 4. Armaturae c. 18. If demaund and answere had beene simply made of the Holie Ghost in respect of his person and grace it would follow that they had had no knowledge of the person of the Holie Ghost But the consequent is absurd THE CONFERENCE Scripture plainely saieth that the saied Ephesians had not so much as heard that there was a Holie Ghost Catholiks say the same Protestants plainely say that it could not be that they had not heard of the Holie Ghost that it is absurd most absurd to thinke that they were ignorant of the Holie Ghost THE SVMME OF THIS CHAPTER OF BAPTISME The things which we haue in this Chapter rehearsed do clearly shew how differently Protestants beleiue of baptisme from the Scripture For the Scripture together withe Catholiks teacheth that water and the inuocatiō of the holie Trinitie be necessarie to baptisme that baptisme is necessarie by necessitie both of precept and of meane to saluation that Simon Magus and reprobats receaue whole baptisme that baptisme is effectuall in the reprobates that baptisme cleanseth sinnes but pardoneth not sinnes that are to be done that children of the faithfull are in state of damnatiō before they be baptized that Christs baptisme is different from S. Ihons baptisme All which Protestats denie They shew also that Protestants play the theiues with baptisme and steale from it the necessitie of water and of the inuocation of the holie Trinitie the necessitie of precept and meane to saluation the integritie and efficacie thereof in the reprobates the vertue of cleansing sinnes in anie whomsoeuer the difference and excellencie aboue the baptisme of S. Ihon which being taken away Christs baptisme remaineth onely in name and they likewise Christians in name onely Thus much of Baptisme Now of the Eucharist CHAPTER X. OF THE EVCHARISTE ART I. WHETHER THE EVCHARIST or that which Christ after his last supper gaue with his hands vnto his Apostles was his bodie and blood SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. MATHEW 26. v. 26. Christ saied of that which with his hands he gaue to his Apostles to eate This is my bodie The same is Marc. 14. v. The Eucharist is the bodie of Christ 14. And Luc. 22. ver 19. This is my bodie which is giuen for you And 1. Cor. 11. v. 24. This is my bodie which shal be deliuered for you Moreouer Ihon. 6. ver 15. he saieth The bread which I will giue is my flesh for the life of the world Mathew 26. v. 28. Christ saieth of that which he gaue The blood of Christ his Apostles to drinke This is my blood of the new testament which shal be shed for manie vnto remission of sinnes Marc. 14. v. 24. This is my blood of the new testament that shal be shed for manie Luc. 22. v. 20. This is the Chalice the new testament in my blood which shal be shed for you 1. Cor. 11. v. 25. This chalice is the new testament in my blood CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME Councel of Trent sess 13. c. 3. The Apostles had not yet receaued the Eucharist of the hands of our Lord and yet he truely affirmed that to be his bodie which he gaue And cap. 4. Because Christ truely saied that that was his bodie which he offered vnder forme of bread therefore c. PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Iuel in Denfense of the Apologie part 2. c. 10. diuis 1. p. Not the flesh of Christ 209. The bread of the Sacrament is one thing and the flesh of Christ is an other There is great difference betweene the bread of the Sacramēt and the flesh of Christ Art 8. sect 5. The sacramentall bread is called Christs bodie although indeed it be not Not indeed his bodie Christs bodie So also art 21. sect 1. Bel in his Iesuits Antepast p. 44. The meaning of Christ is Not his reall blood not This is my naturall bodie and my reall blood Spalatensis l. 5. de Repub. c. 6. n. 108. The holie bread is not Not the bodie of Christ the bodie of Christ n. 112. The bread is called the bodie of Christ not that it is the bodie of Christ The Eucharist though it be Not truely called the bodie of Christ Yet it is not truely and really the bodie of Christ ibid. pag. 165. It is false to say The bread is the bodie of Christ Melancthon epist ad Com Palatin apud Hospin part 2. Not the true bodie of Christ Histor f. 260. Paul doth not say as they of Breme do Bread is the substantiall bodie of Christ nor as Hes husius doth Bread is the true bodie of Christ Hospinian himselfe lib. cit f. 261. The bread of the Supper Not his substantiall bodie is not the substantiall bodie of Christ Which he repeateth fol. 254. The verie like words of the Heluetians her rehearseth f. 161. 153. of the Tigurins 161. of the Strasburgians f. 100. of the Witenbergians fol. 292. of Hardenberg 297. and of Engelhard fol. 25. Zuinglius l. de Caena to 2. f. 283. These words of Christ This Not corporall flesh is my bodie can no way be vnderstood of substātiall and corporall flesh Which he hath againe l. de relig c. de Euchar. and in Subsidio to 2. fol. 247. And Sermon
1. Bernen f. 532. As if the Apostle should say this is the meaning of those things which we haue tould It is not flesh which is set afore vs albeit now I haue vouchsafed it that name nor likewise blood but bread and drinke OEcalampadius in Hospin lib. cit f. 41. Not without follie Not the selfe same bodie would we binde men to confesse that this selfe same bread is the bodie of Christ. And f. 118. Some do vrge that the Lords bread is the very bodie of Christ But we say the contrarie Not his verie bodie Bucer in Hospin l. cit fol. 191. Nether is bread the very bodie of Christ but a Symboll of it And 192. All acknowledge that bread and wine are symbols and not the very things themselues of this great misterie Peter Martyr cont Gardiner col 147. The Sacrament of Not lawfull to say This is c. the Eucharist being shewne it is not lawfull for them to say of it all This is my bodie Col. 359. Manifest it is that the Eucharisticall bread is not properly the bodie of Christ And in Dialog col 137. This is my bodie is thus to be expoūded This to wit that which was shewed signifieth my bodie Caluin in Math. 3. ver 16. The bread of the holie Supper is Not Christs bodie called the bodie of Christ not that it is it but because it testifieth to vs that it is truely giuen to vs for meate Beza in Catechismo sect 9. This bread and this wine are Not our spirituall food they not our spirituall food No but they signifie to vs that from which life euerlasting proceedeth And lib. quaest quaest 207. pag. 356. So if you properly vnderstand this saying it wil be no lesse false that bread is the bodie of Christ then that a gourd As false that it is his bodie as that a gourd is a man Not Christs true bodie is a man Daneus Cont. de Euchar. c. 10. That Sacramentall bread is not the true and reall bodie of Christ The bread which Christ reached to the Apostles was not the true bodie of Christ And c. 1. Whēce it followeth that the signes remaine signes and seales and neuer become the thing it selfe which is signified to wit the true flesh and true blood of Christ Volanus l. 1. cont Scargam p. 793. Surely bread is not that Not the naturall bodie true and naturall bodie of Christ albeit it be called but sacramētally his bodie Musculus in locis tit de Signis The bread of the lords Not the verie bodie Supper is not the verie bodie of Christ CONFERENCE OF THE FORESAIED WORDS Scripture expressely saieth that the Eucharist or that which our Sauiour after his last supper gaue with his hands to his Apostles to eate and drinke was his bodie blood and to put vs out of doubt what bodie and blood he added His bodie giuen for vs deliuered for vs His blood of the new testament and shed for remission of sinnes And otherwhere that the bread which he would giue vs was his flesh which he would giue for the life of the world The same say Catholiks Protestants expressely say that the bread the holie bread the bread of the Sacrament the Sacramētall bread the lords bread the bread of the supper the bread of the holie supper the bread of the lords supper the bread which Christ reached to his Apostles the Symbols the Signes the Eucharist the sacrament of the Eucharist the Eucharisticall bread is not the bodie of Christ not his very bodie not his bodie it selfe not his true bodie not his substantiall bodie not flesh not Christs true flesh an other thing and much different from Christs flesh not the thing it selfe of this misterie not our spirituall food that Christs words can no way be vnderstood of Christs substantiall flesh that his meaning is not This my naturall bodie That the Eucharist being shewed we may not say if it This is my bodie that though it be called Christs bodie yet it is not his bodie Which are so directly contrarie to the Scripture as many of these men sometimes confesse it as shal be seene cap 30. of the 2. booke But because they do not onely contradict the Scripture in denying the Eucharist to be the bodie of Christ which the Scripture so often and clearly affirmeth but diuers other waies also I will likewise set them downe Secondly therefore they contradict the Scripture in saying that the Eucharist is nothing but a simple ceremonie onely bread onely a type or figure onely a seale or signe of the bodie and blood of Christ which the Scripture so oftentimes saieth is his true bodie and blood Whitaker Cont. 2. q. 5. c. 19. Sacraments are onely seales of Onely aseale those goods which are proposed to vs in the word Cartwright in disput Oxonien apud Martyrem p. 134. Onely a signe The Eucharist is onely a signe Spalatensis l. 5. de Rep. c. 6. n. 113. The bread is not the bodie of Christ indeed but onely a signe of it Perkins de Caena to 1. col 858. The bread is called the bodie Onely a signe and seale whereas it is onely a signe and seale of the bodie Melancthon as Luther reporteth in Hospin part 2. Histor A simple ceremonie fol. 194. Accounted the Eucharist no better then a simple ceremonie Confessio Czinge in Syntagmate pag. 196. The Eucharisticall Hath onely the name signes haue not the substance of the things signified but onely their names Helueti in Hospin libr. cit fol. 153. The bread is not the Onely a signe verie bodie of Christ but onely a signe and Sacrament of it Iuel art 10. sect 1. p. 313. The bread in it selfe is very naturall Very naturall bread bread art 21. sect 1. p. 443. The misticall bread is not Christ himselfe but onely a sacrament of Christ Zuinglius de Caena to 2. f. 286. The bread is onely a figure Onely a figure wherewith is signified that bodie which we ought to remember f. 291. This drinke was nothing else indeed but wine 293. Nothing Nothing els but a signe Nothing but bread and wine else but a signe and figure And. 296. The Apostles themselues neuer called this bread the bodie of Christ but onely bread And in Respons ad Lutherum fol. 431. It is nought els but bread OEcolampadius apud Zuinglium to 2. fol. 503. These particles This that we denie not to be certaine infallible tokens No hing but commō bread but such they are as teach that here is nothing els but common bread And ibid. 510. The drinke is a pure and bare creature and nought els beside Caluin de administr Caenae p. 41. Let vs account it enough Nothing but a note and signe if bread and wine be giuen vs for a note and signe In admonit vlt. ad Wesphal p. 826. What other is the bread As the Doue was the Holie
Ghost and wine of the Supper then a visible word Cont. Heshus pag. 861. The bread of the Eucharist in the same maner is called the bodie of Christ as the doue is called the holie Ghost And 4. Instit c. 17. § 14. The Supper is nothing els but a visible testificatiō of that promise which is Ioan. 6. to wit that Christ is the bread of life which came from heauen Beza in Colloq Montisbel p. 42. The disciples saw that Mere bread and wine Christ held bread and that it was mere bread and wine which he gaue with his hands Cont. Illy ric col 2. Theol. p. 149. I say No better then water of baptisme that the water of baptisme is as well the blood of the Lord as that bread is his bodie Cont. Heshus vol. 1. p. 308. The bread is no otherwise the bodie and wine no otherwise the blood then the water of baptisme is blood And in 1. Corint 5. vers 7. The No otherwise then the pascall lambe Pascall lambe is called Christ in the selfe same manner that that bread is saied to be the bodie of Christ which was giuen for vs. Daneus Cont. de Euchar. cap. 13. The Fathers will haue the Onely symbol and signe bread and wine to be onely symbols and signes of the true and essentiall bodie and blood of Christ Peter Martyr apud Coccium to 2 l. 6. art 1. The bread and Onely type and signe wine are onely types and signes of the bodie and blood of Christ And hereupon albeit as Zanchius confesseth in Resp ad Arian col 876. the Roman Church doth keepe baptisme and the Supper or as Caluin speaketh the halfe parte of the Supper is remaining in Poperie yet neuerthelesse they sometime terme our Eucharist a Crust of bread as doth Whitaker Contr. 1. q. 2. c. 16. and Perkins de Sermon Dom. col 554. Sometimes a small crust of bread as Caluin Admonit vlt. p. 800. cont Versipel p. 358. in Math. 19. v. 13. Sometimes a Crust as Whitaker Contr. 2. q. 6. c. 3. Beza in Confess c. 7. sect 11. Sometimes a gobbet of bread as Whitaker in place last cited Sometime a most profane crust as Beza li. quaest vol. 3 p. 355. Sometime a cake and crust as Peter Martyr orat 1. Tigurin Sometime a wafer of pastie as the same Martyr cont Gardiner col 422. Thus reproachfully they terme that which in their owne opinion is the lords Supper or at least the halfe parte thereof but no meruaile if they so speake so of our Eucharist who say that theirs is nothing els but bread nothing but common bread nothing but a bare creature nothing but a bare signe or figure nothing but mere bread and wine But farre otherwise saied Christ that his Eucharist was his bodie giuen for vs his blood shedde for remission of sinnes and not as Protestāts say onely a signe onely a seale onely a figure onely a tokē onely a testificatiō onely a symbol onely a type of Christs bodie which onely hath the name of Christs bodie onely a simple ceremonie and no otherwise the bodie of Christ Then the Pascal lambe was Christ the doue the Holie Ghost or the water of baptisme the blood of Christ Thirdly they contradict the Sripture in saying that the Eucharist is onely figuratiuely and in some sorte the bodie and blood of Christ which the Scripture in the places cited simply and absolutely saieth to be his bodie and blood and addeth Ihon 6. v. 55. My flesh is truely meate and my blood truely drinke Which is most clearly opposite to mere figuratiuely Spalatensis l. 5. de Repub. c. 6. n. 45. The wine in the Chalice is the blood of the lord onely ostensiuely or in shew that is figuratiuely Onely figuratiuely and typically And num 115. The Eucharist is not Christ substantially but onely significantly and figuratiuely And 118. It is but figuratiuely and typically called the bodie of Christ Perkins in Cathol ref Cont. 11. c. 2. We take the bread to By resemblance and no otherwise be the bodie of Christ sacramentally by resemblance and no otherwise And Cont. 10. cap. 4. These words must not be vnderstood properly but by a figure Rogers on the 28. Article of Protest Confess pag. 174. Abhominable be the Popish errours that substātially and really the bodie and blood of Christ is contained in the Sacrament Eucharisticall Iuel art 5. sect 10. p. 255. As Christ is herbes or milke euen so As he is herbs or milke As manna and none otherwise he is bread or flesh Art 8. sect 25. p. 303. As the bread is Christs bodie euen so was manna Christs bodie Vsher in his Answere to a Chalenge p. 58. Nothing in this Not substantially world is more plaine then when our Sauiour saied It was his blood he could not meane it to be substantially And ib. pag. 60. Not really The things which he honoured with those names cannot be really his bodie and blood but figuratiuely Whitaker l. 2. cont Du. sect 10. The bread is the true bodie Metonimycally of Christ and the wine the true blood of Christ but mistically metonymicall Sacramentally Melancthon apud Hospin lib. cit fol. 69. This is my blood is a metonimie as if you should say The ensigne or Maze is the Roman Empire Caluin cont Heshus p. 844. Bread may truely be saied to Symbolically be symbolically the true bodie of Christ Which also he hath Admonit vlt. ad Westphal pag. 836. Where also pag. 821. he saieth It appeareth that to them bread was symbolically the bodie and p. 830. In some sorte it is the bodie And 4. Instit c. In some sorte 17. § 23. The bread is figuratiuely the bodie And cont Heshus Improperly l. cit p. 847. Could he more clearly testifie that bread is improperly called the bodie of Christ in respect of likenes Beza respons ad Selneccer vol. 2. pag. 270. The names But metonymically of the bodie and blood are but metonymically giuen to the bread and wine Daneus Cont. de Euchar. c. 10. The bread is tropically called Tropically the bodie of Christ Peter Martyr l. cont Gardin col 293. We say that speach Not properly This is my bodie is not proper but metaphoricall and tropicall And in Hospin l. cit f. 259. The words This is c. cannot be taken simply and without a figure Peucer apud Hospin in Concordia discordi fol. 206. The Not simply consecratea bread and chalice are the bodie and blood of Christ Relatiuely relatiuely as figures and signes Wolfius in Schusselburg l. 1. Theol. Caluin art 22. The Significantly bread is the bodie and the wine the blood of Christ significātly no other waies then a keye deliuered is a house More of their mere figuratiue expositiōs of these words may be seene in my Latin booke l. 2. c. 20. But by that which here we haue rehearsed it clearly appeareth
that what the Scripture simply saieth is the bodie and blood of Christ Protestāts say is onely ostensiuely or in shew onely figurasiuely by resemblance and no otherwaies but metonymically not properly no otherwise then a keye is a house is the bodie and blood of Christ Fourthly they cōtradict the holie Scripture in that they denie that Christs bodie is present in the Supper in the Eucharist in the Eucharisticall bread or in the Sacrament in which according to Christs words it was so present as he badde his Apostles take it with their hands and eate it The Pseudosynod of London in Hospin part 2. Histor d. 220. No faithfull man ought to beleiue or professe the reall Reall presence not to be beleiued Christs bodie not in the Sacrament Not present in substance and substantiall presence of Christs flesh in the Eucharist Whitaker in Respons ad Demonstr Sanderi pag. 741. Christs bodie is not in the Sacrament nor in infinite Sacraments Iuel Defens Apol. p. 221. Thus is Christs bodie present not really nor in suhstance but onely in misterie Agayne As Christ is present in the one Sacrament of Baptisme euen so and none otherwise is he present in the other of the Eucharist which Absent in bodie he repeateth p. 264. And p. 234. Christ is present in maiestie absent in bodie 272. By abuse of speech they say the bodie of As the people in the Cuppe Christ is laied vpon the table 273. As people is in the Cuppe so is Christs blood in the Cuppe The like he hath artic 8. diuis As he dieth in the Sacrament 1 And art 12. diuis 14. As Christ dyeth in the Sacrament so is his bodie present in the Sacrament Perkins in his Ref. Cathol Contr. 10 ca. 1. We hould and Present as a thing to the name teach that Christs bodie and blood are not present with the bread and wine in respect of place of coexistence but by Sacramentall relation or this manner When a word is vttered the same comes to the eare and at the same instāt the thing signified comes to the mynde and thus by relation the word and the thing spoaken of are both present together Zuinglius in Respons ad Propos Eckij to 2. fol. 576. of this proposition The true and liuelie bodie of Christ and his blood are present in the Sacrament if the Altar Maketh this Not present in the Sacrament censure This proposition is nether pious nor Christian Serm. 1. Bernae fol. 527. Three articles of Christian faith directly fight against the presence of the bodie and blood of Christ in the Supper Not in the Supper Present by cōtemplation In Respons ad Lutherum fol. 363. By contemplation Christ is in the Eucharist 420. As for substance there is nothing present besides bread and wine 456. We willingly graunt and confesse that Christs bodie is in the Supper in the same manner As our bodies are in heauen that our bodies are now in heauen And in epist ad Principes fol. 546. Seing all this presence is nothing without the speculation Present by speculation of faith it belongeth to faith that these things are or be made present And apud Hospin part 2. Histor fol. 102. I By contemplation beleiue that in the Supper of the Eucharist Christs true bodie is present by contemplation of faith that is that they who giue thāks to the Lord for the guifts giuen vs in his Sonne do acknowledge him to haue taken true flesh truely to haue suffered in it truely to haue wiped away our sinnes with his blood and so that all the matter done by Christ is made as it were present by contemplation of faith But that Christs bodie should be really and in substance present we do not onely denie but auouch to be an error Tigurini in Hospin part 2. fol. 161. The sacramentall vnion By signification wholy consisteth in significatiō And in Scusselburg l. 1. Theol. Caluin art 21. The bodie and blood of Christ are by mere imagination By mere imagination in the Sacrament of the Supper And Carolstadius ib. art 20. The bodie of Christ is not in the Supper Christ is not in Not in the Supper the Sacrament nether can be in it Caluin 4. Instit c. 17. § 30. Whereas our Mediatour is euerie where whole he is alwaies present to his seruants and in the Supper affor deth himselfe present in a speciall manner but so as he is whole there not wholy * Totus nō totum because in his flesh he is contained in heauen vntill he come to iudgment In Defens 2. cont Westphal p. 774. I saied that Christs bodie is exhibited Not present in substance effectually in the Supper not naturally according to vertue not according to substance Se more ib. p. 778. 779 In Consens de re Sacrament art 25. It must needs be that Christs bodie be As farre frō vs as heauen from carth as farre distant from vs as heauen is from earth Which Beza often times repeateth as cont Brent vol. 1. pag. 574. De hypostat vnione pag. 638. lib. quaest resp pag. 673. Resp ad Andream pag. 130. Apol. 1. cont Sainctem p. 302. Resp ad Repetit eiusdem c. 10. p. 50. also Daneus cont Kemnit c. 30. and others Beza cont Heshus vol. 1. p. 278. We say not that Christs Not present in the bread bodie is present in the bread Respons ad Acta Torgensia vol. 368. We may easily vnderstand and declare out of the word the sacramentall manner of presence to wit such as the thing signified Present as the abiect is the thought is offered to the vnderstanding to be knowne and approued and by faith to be embraced and applied to the beleiuer And epist 76. What this presence is we clearly vnderstand and perceaue out of the word of God to wit such as the thing thought vpon is present to our thought and the thing beleiued is present to faith And as Grauerus in Absurdis Caluin cap. 3. § 43. saieth This presence he plainely putteth in imagination Present in imagination Zanchius in Hospin l. cit f. 316. Touching the presence of Christs bodie in the Supper I protest that I do not willingly dispute No ward of presence in the Scripture of it because I read no word of it in Scripture The like he hath l. 2. Epist p. 69. and 89. Peter Martyr in Schusselburg l. 3. Theol. Caluin art 8. I remoue the presence of Christs bodie from the Eucharist And l. Presence remoued from the Eucharist cont Gardiner col 815. The presence of Christs bodie in heauen directly feighteth with the presence thereof in the Sacrament col 994. If besides signification he will that there is a reall presence No presence besides signification that we altogether denie More of their like speaches may be seene in my Latin booke c. 10. art 1. But by these it is
cleare that they say that Christs bodie is not in the sacrament is not present in the Sacrament is not in substance present is absent in bodie is not in the Sacrament nor can be in it is not in the Supper according to substāce is not present in the bread is remoued from the Eucharist that there is no word in the scripture of the presence of Christs bodie in the Supper that his blood is in the chalice as the people are there that he is no otherwise in the Eucharist then in baptisme that he is not there otherwise then a thing is present to our cogitation or a thing to the name thereof or our bodies are now present in heauen finally onely present by speculation and mere imagination Fiftly they contradict the Scripture by saying that no other thing is receaued in the Eucharist or Supper then in baptisme or in the simple word Caluin cont Heshus p. 860. There is no cause why Christ No more present in the Supper then in baptisme Then in the word should be saied to be more present in the Supper then in baptisme p. 847. Surely there is a plaine solution That God giueth not more to the visible symbols then to the word Therefore communication is no lesse truely giuen vs by the Ghospell then by the Supper 4. Instit c. 14. § 14. He is deceaued who thinketh that any thing more is giuen him by the Sacraments then which offered by the word of God he receaueth by true faith § 17 There is no other function of the Sacraments then of the word of God And c. 16. § 5. he saieth that the Sacrament is inferiour to the word Beza in Colloq Montisbel p. 136. There is the same receauing of Christ in the Sacrament which is in the simple word In 2. part respons ad Acta Colloq p. 109. Nothing more is to be sought in the Sacraments then in simple word l. cont Heshus p. 287. Nothing more is giuen in the Supper then in baptisme or in the preaching of the word Bucer in Hospin l. cit p. 161. The memorie of this bodie may More in the word then in the Sacramēt be refreshed by the bread but more fully by the word Peter Martyr in 1. Cor. 11. This is the summe that we vnderstand the bodie and blood of Christ to be offered to vs no lesse by the words of God then by Sacraments In Disput Oxonien pag. 225. We receaue no lesse the bodie and blood of Christ in the word of God then in this Sacrament And cont Gardiner col 1041. I denie not that that is our speach Christs bodie is receaued no lesse in words then in the Sacraments Nether am I afraied to say that we come much better to them by words then by Sacraments Willet Cont. 11. q. 3. c. 557. There is the same substance of both Sacraments Iuel art 5. diuis 5. The word of God is the bodie and blood of Christ and that more truely then is the Sacrament Art 21. diu 1. As Christ entreth into vs by a minister by his word euen so he entreth into vs by the Sacrament of his bodie and no otherwise Defense of the Apol. p. 221. As Christ is present in the one Sacramēt euen so and no otherwise is he present in the other Hereupon Apologia Confess Augustanae cap. de vsu Sacrament saieth that the Sacrament is as it were a picture of the word Melancthon in Disputat tom 4. pag. 513. The Sacrament is like a picture of the promise And lib. contr Anabaptistas As the will of God is shewed in the worde or promise so also it is shewed in the Sacrament as in a picture And oftentimes they say that there is no other presence of Christs bodie in the Eucharist then there is in the simple word as you may see in Beza Apol. 1. cont Sanctem p. 297. in Hospin l. cit fol. 36. 39. and in Concordia discordi f. 205. So that they plainly say that Christ is no more present in the Supper then in baptisme no more cōmunicated in the Supper thē in the Ghospell no more receaued in the Sacramēt them in the word that there is the same receauing of Christ in the Sacrament and in the simple word nothing more giuē in the Supper them in preaching no more offered by the sacrament then by the word yea that the Sacrament is inferiour to the word the memorie of Christs bodie more fully refreshed by the word then by this Sacrament that we may better come to Christs bodie by words then by this Sacrament Which are so contrarie to Scripture as sometimes themselues confesse it See lib. 2. cap. 30. Sixtly they contradict the holie Scripture whiles they say that they Iewes receaued Christs bodie before it was borne as truely as we receaue it in the Eucharist Willet Cont. 11. q. 2. p. 544. We do hould and constantly affirme The Fathers no lesse receaued the bodie of Christ thou we and teach that the Fathers in the law receaued no lesse the substance of Christ by faith in their Sacraments then we do in ours Christ was as well exhibited to them in their Sacraments as he is in ours Beza in Colloq Montisbel p. 96. He was as present in their Sacraments as he is to vs in ours p. 69. The Fathers were no lesse partakers of the bodie and blood of Christ then we are in the Lords Supper Respons ad Acta Colloq p. 119. The Fathers as truely receaued Christs true bodie and true blood in the word and in their Sacraments as we by the instrument of the same faith now receaue them Peter Martyr cont Gardiner col 150. The Fathers in the ould testament did no lesse then we eate and drinke the bodie and blood of Christ for so much as pertaineth to the thing it selfe Seuenthly they contradict the holie Scripture in saying that the Eucharist is a symbolicall mysticall and Sacramentall bodie of Christ which the Scripture plainely saieth to be his true bodie Zuinglius de ver falsa relig c. de Euchar. to 2. f. 208. We are here compelled plainely to confesse that this selfe same which Christ gaue with so great diligence and maiestie is his symbolicall Christs symbolicall bodie Sacramentall bodie bodie Respons ad Luther ib. fol. 514. It is easie to vnderstand that this bread which Christ giueth vs is Christs sacramentall bodie that is the signe of his bodie in that manner and forme of speach wherewith shewing the statue of Cocles we say Behould Cocles that stout champion of his countrie Epistola ad Principes fol. 548. The bread is made the sacramentall bodie of Christ Againe Our aduersaries say that Christs naturall and substantiall bodie is giuen we say his sacramentall Hereupon the contention And in Hospin l. cit fol. 143. We are forced will we nill we to confesse that these words This is Misticall bodie my bodie are thus to be vnderstood that is A sacrament of my bodie
or This is my sacramentall or mysticall bodie Oecalampadius in Beza Resp ad Repet Sanctis pag. 48. That bread is a symbolicall bodie Zanchius lib. 1. Epistolarum pag. 280. These three bodies Misticall bodie of Christ we reade in the holie Scriptures His true and naturall his Misticall which is the Church and sacramentall which is bread Daneus Cont. de Euchar. c. 10. Austin confesseth that the Onely Sacramentall bodie bread is onely the sacramentall bodie of Christ but not his naturall bodie Againe The bread which Christ gaue to his Apostles was his sacramentall bodie Vrsinus in Miscellaneis p. 172. There is a bodie of Christ properly so called and a sacramentall which is the Eucharisticall bread Thus we see how plainly they say that the Eucharist is Christs symbolicall bodie his sacramentall bodie his mysticall bodie and not his true bodie Which himselfe saieth most plainly to be his true bodie that very bodie which was giuen and deliuered for vs. Finally we see how manie wayes the Caluinists do contradict the expresse word of God in this one matter First in expressely denying the Eucharist to be the bodie of Christ which the Scripture so often and so plainely affirmeth Secondly in saying that it is onely a signe or figure of Christs bodie which the Scripture plainely and often saieth is his true bodie Thirdly in saying that it is but onely figuratiuely his bodie which the Scripture simply and absolutely saieth is his bodie Fourthly in saying that Christs bodie is but figuratiuely or by faith and imagination in the Eucharist Which the Scripture directly affirmeth to be the substance of the Eucharist Fiftly in saying that Christs bodie is no more receaued in the Eucharist then in the simple word whereas Christ bidde vs take and eate his bodie in the Eucharist but not in his word Sixtly by saying that the Fathers in the ould law receaued Christs bodie in their Sacraments as truely as we do in the Eucharist when as they were neuer bidden to take and eate Christs flesh in their Sacraments as we are in the Eucharist Finally in saying that the Eucharist is Christs symbolicall sacramentall and mysticall bodie which the holie Scripture saieth is his bodie which was giuen and deliuered for vs. ART II. WHETHER CHRISTS FLESH be to be eaten and his blood to be drunke SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. Math. 26. ver 26. Take ye and eate This is my bodie ver 28. Christs bodie and blood to be eaten and drunck Drinke ye all of this For this is my blood c. Ihon 6. v. 53. Vnlesse you eate the flesh of the Sonne of man Truely and drinke his blood you shall not haue life in you Et 56. My flesh is truely meate and my blood is truely drinke CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME D. Stapleton in Math. 26. v. 28. For to perfect the new testament and couenant of which Christ speaketh betwixt vs and him no spirituall eating or drinking of the bodie and blood of Christ sufficeth but there is plainely required an externall reall and corporall receauing of them both PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Zuinglius l. de Relig. c. de Euchar. to 2. Christs flesh eaten Christ flesh eaten profiteth not profiteth nothing at all Which he often repeateth in Exegesi fol. 333. 334. 336. 346. and in Ioan. 6. to 4. in so much as Hospin part 2. Histor fol. 181. writeth that Zuinglius euerie where inculcateth that Christs flesh eaten profiteth nothing And c. cit de Euchar. Nether do we thinke that they are to be Not be eaten spiritually heard who determin thus we eate the true and corporall flesh of Christ but spiritually for they do not see that it can not stand together to be a bodie and to be spiritually eaten Againe What is giuen to be eaten is Christs bodie but symbolicall In Exegesi fol. 329. Christ did not command his bodie to be eaten but symbolicall bread Respons ad Luther fol 435. We eate and drinke We eate and drinke nothing but bread and wine nothing but bread and wine In Apol. f. 370. We teach that the onely signe of Christs bodie is eaten in this Eucharisticall Supper Respons ad Billican fol. 264. We are taught that Christs corporall flesh can be no way eaten And as Hospin lib. cit fol. 181. saieth Zuinglius euerie where inculcateth that the true and reall flesh of Christ cannot be eaten so much as spiritually and that to eate Christs flesh is nothing els but to beleiue Oecolampadius in Hospin l. cit f. 75. Flesh eaten profiteth nothing but the spirit And in Schusselburg lib. 1. Theol. Caluin Mistica artic 22. I do not read in the Euangelists that they bidde receaue and eate Christs bodie Carolstadius in Scusselburg l. cit art 28. This I know that Christ neuer gaue his bodie that we should receaue it For he saieth My flesh profiteth you not Tigurins in Schusselburg lib. cit artic 23. His flesh on earth profited for to accomplish our saluation now it profiteth no more Peter Martyr cont Gardiner col 146. It is farre from the Christs bodie not to be truely eaten He gaue not his bodie but bread He exhibited not his bodie in substance bodie of the Lord to be truely eaten Confessio Czengerina c. de Caena p. 193. Yea after the pronouncing of Christs words Christ gaue bread to the Apostles and not his bodie Caluin defens 2. cont Westphal pag. 774. I saied that Christs bodie was exhibited effectually in the Supper not naturally according to vertue not according to substance Beza Resp ad Acta Torgens vol. 3. p. 68. What is eaten with the mouth auaileth nothing to eternall and spirituall life Perkins in Cathol reform Cont. 10. c. 3. Though the bodie may be bettered with spirituall food of the soule yet cannot the soule be fedde with bodily food Polanus in Grauer in Absurdis Caluin cap. 3. Those words of Christ Take eate are not spoaken of Christs bodie for nether The words not ment of his bodie tooke he that into his hands nether brake nor gaue it to his disciples And albeit sometimes they say in words that they eate the bodie of Christ yet they adde that to eate is nothing but to beleiue as we haue already repeated out of Zuinglius and haue cited more places of their like sayings in my Latin booke c. 10. art 2. or by word Body or Flesh they vnderstand not Christs true body or flesh but some other thing as the same Zuinglius doth Respons ad Luther tom 2. fol. 390. In Exegesi fol. 350. and 333. and in Explicat art 18. tom 1. fol. 37. In like sorte how beit sometimes in words they say they eate the substance of Christs bodie yet Beza confesseth Apolog. 1. cont Sainctem pag. 294. that vnwillingly they vse the name Substance and as he addeth Respons 3. ad Selneccer pag. 271. Manie of them refuse it and not without cause and that is euident by the words now cited out of Caluin
and more by Bullinger in Hospin part 2. fol. 344. Where he saieth Who knoweth not that we are of their number who do not admit this word Substance nor euer would admit it THE CONFERENCE Scripture expressely saieth that Christ gaue to his Apostles his bodie to be eaten and his blood to be drunke that vnlesse we eate his flesh we shall not haue life that his flesh is truely meate The same say Catholiks Protestants expressely say that Christs flesh eaten profiteth nothing nothing at all that Christs true flesh cannot be eaten spiritually can be no way eaten that it is farre from Christs bodie to be truely eaten that Christs bodie is not exhibited in the Supper according to the substance thereof that those words Take eate are not spoaken of Christs bodie that Christs neuer gaue his bodie to be receaued the Euangelists neuer commanded vs to receaue and eate it that what is giuen to be eaten is Christs symbolicall bodie is but symbolicall bread is nothing but bread and wine onely a signe of Christs bodie that Christ gaue bread to the Apostles and not his bodie Which are so coÌ„trarie to the holie Scripture as themselues sometimes confesse it See l. 2. c. 30. ART III. WHETHER CHRIST GAVE the blood of the new testament to be drunke SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. Mathew 26. v. 28. Drinke ye all of this For this is my blood The blood of the new testament to be drunâ—k of the new testament CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME D. Stapleton in Mathew 26. vers 28. Christ professeth that what we drinke in the chalice is the blood of the new testament PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Zuinglius in Subsidio to 2. fol. 245. Christ did not giue the Not the blood of the new testament blood of the testament to drinke Which he repeateth againe And of the same opinion all the rest are who ether denie that Christ gaue his true blood to drinke as we haue seene in the former chapter for Christs true blood is the blood of the new testament or denie that the Eucharist is the testament as we shall heare art seq THE CONFERENCE Scripture expressely saieth that Christ gaue the blood of the new testament to be drunke The same say Catholiks Protestants expressely denie it ART IV. WHETHER THE EVCHARISticall Chalice be the testament of Christ SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. The Chalice was the new testament Luc. 22. v. 20. Christ saieth This is the chalice the new testament in my blood 1. Corinth 11. vers 25. This chalice is the new testament in my blood CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME Card. Bellarm. l. 1. de Euchar. c. 11. As for the figure which they put in the word Testament I say there is none there and he auoucheth that the Eucharist is properly the testament of Christ PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Iuel art 10. sect 1. Nether was that cuppe in deed and really the It was not ths new testament new testament So also art 12. sect 16. Willet Cont. 13. q. 1. p. 595. The wine in the cuppe was not the new testament 596. The blood is not the testament Peter Martyr in Hospin part 2. Histor fol. 257. Nether the cuppe it selfe nor the liquor contained in it is indeed the testament Zuinglius in Subsidio to 2. fol. 245. This cuppe was not the blood of the testament nor the testament itselfe De Caena fol. 291. The blood of Christ is not the new testament and much lesse can we say that this drinke is the new testament howbeit it be called by this name And the reason why against the expresse word of God he denieth the chalice to be the testament of Christ he giueth l. de Relig. c. de Eucharist in these words If the cuppe be the testament it followeth that it is the true and sensible blood of Christ Oecolampadius apud Zuinglium to 2. fol. 499. It must needs be that this chalice or cuppe be the signe of the couenant or new testament not the new testament itselfe indeed Beza in Lucae 22. v. 20. edit An. 1565. Wine is called the couenant it selfe whereas it is onely a symbol or badge of the couenant or rather of that wherewith the couenant is made to wit of the blood of the Lord. In Colloq Montisbel pag. 38. I maruail that you call the Supper of the Lord a testament which seemes very strange to me The Supper of the Lord is not the testament itselfe but onely a parte of the testament that is the seale thereof The Cuppe cannot be the testament THE CONFERENCE Scripture expressely saieth that the chalice of the Eucharist is the new testament Catholiks say the same Protestants expressely say that nether the chalice nor the liquor therein contained is the new testament that nether the wine nor the blood of Christ is the new testament that the Cuppe cannot be the new testament but is onely a symbol or badge thereof or rather of the blood wherewith the testament was made That the Lords Supper is not the testament and that it were strange to call it so Which contradictioÌ„ of Scripture is so euident as diuers Protestants confesse it See l. 2. c. 30. ART V. WHETHER AT THE VERIE time of Christs celebration of the Eucharist his bodie was giuen and deliuered and his blood shedde for vs SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. Luc. 22. v. 19. And taking bread he gaue thanks and brake Christs bodie was giueÌ„ and his blood shed at Supper and gaue to them saying This is my bodie which is giuen for you And S. Paul 1. Corinth 11. vers 24. in Greek hath which is broken as also S. Mathew 26. vers 28. S. Mark 14. v. 24. S. Luke c. 22. v. 20. speake of the blood or of the Chalice in the present tense Which is shedde CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME D. Stapleton in Math. 26. v. 28. Those words Which shal be shedde for you are to be redde in the present tense according to all the Euangelists in the Greek text and the sense is which is now distributed for you and is by reall participatioÌ„ sprinkled and inwardely powred into euerie one of you PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Iuel art 17. sect 4. Christ gaue his bodie to be broken and his blood to be shedde not at his last supper but onely vpon his crosse and not where else Spalatensis l. 5. cap. 6. sect 229. saieth that the forecited words can be no way true of the present time Peter Martyr cont Gardiner col 354. But I pray you tell vs once what that is which remaineth and is broken If you say Not giuen or shedde at the Supper Accidents you wil be laughed at by children If you say The bodie of Christ you wil be blasphemous Col. 812. But who will say that Christ himselfe or his bodie is broken in the Supper Moulins in his Bucler part 2. pag. 91. Christ did not say that his blood was shedde in the Eucharist Pag. 87. He speaketh of a shedding which was not yet made but to
Church there is Sacrifice and offering of a cleane oblation and Sacrifice in iustice The same say Catholiks Protestants expressely say that there is no more Sacrifice in the Church And yet Whitaker Controu 3. quaest 6. pag. 2. 615. writeth thus Without Preisthood there is no Church And Vallada Apologia cont Episcop Luzon c. 26. No man denieth but the celebration of the Eucharist is a true Sacrifice ART XII WHETHER THERE BE AN altar in the Church SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. Hebrewâ— 13. v. 10. We haue an altar whereof they haue no Christians haue an altar power to eate which serue the tabernacle Isaie 19. ver 10. In that day there shal be an altar of our Lord in the middest of the land of Egypte and a title of our Lord to the border thereof CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME Councel of Trent Sess 24. c. 1. The Apostle Paul writing to the Corinthians when he saieth that they who are polluted with participation of the table of Diuels cannot be made partakers of the Table of our Lord by a table in both places vnderstandeth an altar PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Caluin in 1. Corinth 9. vers 19. There are no altars to They haue noÌ„â—â—tar sacrifice Beza in Colloq Montisbel p. 350. Paul maketh mention Paul speaketh not of an altar of a table of the Lord and not of an altar Ad Repetit Sanctis c. 4. I confesse there is no altar in the Christian Church And l. Quaest Resp vol. 3. In the Apostolicall writings there is no mention of an altar but onely of a table of the Lord. Peter Martyr in Rom. 11. Altars haue no place in the time of the Ghospel Herein also the Protestants doctrine is well knowne THE CONFERENCE Scripture plainely saieth that we haue an altar The same say Catholiks Protestants plainely say that we haue no altar that Paul maketh no mention of an altar that there is no mention of an altar in the writings of the Apostles ART XIII WHETHER THE PASCHAL lambe was sacrificed SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. Marc. 14. v. 12. And the first day of the Azimes when they Pascal lambe sacrificed sacrificed the Pasche Exod. 12. ver 6. And the whole multitude of the children of Israel shall sacrifice him Pascal lambe at euen CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME Councel of Trent Sess 24. c. 1. The multitude of the children of Israel did sacrifice the ould Pasche in remembrance of their going out of Egypt PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Perkins in Cathol reform Controu 11. c. 5. The Paschal No sacrifice lambe was a sacrament but no sacrifice The same hath Plessie l. 2. de Missa c. 2. Reineccius to 4. Armaturae c. 19. The holie Bible no where Not sacrificed teacheth that the Paschal lambe was immolated and sacrificed Tilenus in Syntagmate c. 64. We do not graunt that the Paschal lambe was a sacrifice properly called yea Moises expressely denieth that it was a sacrifice Pareus in Colloq Theol. 9. disput 27. The Minor is false That the Paschal lambe was a sacrifice properly called Beza in Marci 14. v. 12. I vsed the word of Killing rather then of Sacrificing that the domesticall bankets of the Pasche might be distinguished from those Sacrifices which in the temple were done of the Preists THE CONFERENCE Scripture expressely saieth that the Paschal lambe was sacrificed Catholiks say the same Protestants expressely say that it was not sacrificed that it was no proper sacrifice that it was a domesticall banket that Moises expressely denieth it to be a Sacrifice Which is so repugnant to Scripture as same Protestants confesse it See lib. 2. c. 30. THE SVMME OF THIS CHAPTER OF the Eucharist Out of all which hath beene rehearsed in this chapter it is cleare how different an Eucharist Protestants haue from that which the holie Scripture proposeth For the Scripture and Catholiks with it teacheth that the holie Eucharist is the true bodie and blood of Christ that it is his testament that Christs flesh is to be eaten that whilest the Eucharist was instituted Christs bodie was giuen and his blood shedde for vs that the chalice was shedde in remission of sinnes that bread is a necessarie matter of the Eucharist that vnleauened bread is a couenient matter and that we must prepare our selues to receaue the Eucharist Moreouer the Scripture teacheth that there is a Sacrifice and altar in the Church and that the Paschal lambe which was a figure of the Eucharist was sacrificed all which Protestants do denie It is cleare also that Protestants do steale from the What Protest steale from the Eucharist Eucharist the trueth of the bodie and blood of Christ the nature of his testament the necessitie of bread the conueniencie of vnleauened bread to make it of and necessitie of our preparation to receaue it They steale also eating and drinking from the flesh and blood of Christ oblation and shedding of them when the Eucharist was instituted And from the Church they steale both Sacrifice and altar and sacrificing froÌ„ the Paschal lambe And thus much of the Eucharist Now of the other Sacraments CHAPTER XI OF THE OTHER SACRAMENTS ART I. WHETHER PREISTS CAN forgiue sinnes SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. MATHEW 16. v. 19. And I will giue to the the keyes Preists can forgiue sinnes of the kingdome of heauen And whatsoeuer thou shalt loose on earth it shal be loosed in heauen Math. 16. v. 19. Amen I say vnto you whatsoeuer you shall binde vpoÌ„ earth shal be bound also in heauen and whatsoeuer you shall loose vpon earth shal be loosed also in heauen Ihon. 20. v. 24. And he saied to them receaue ye the Holie Ghost Whose sinnes you shall forgiue they are forgiuen them and whose you shall retaine they are retained CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME Councel of Trent Sess 14. Can. 9. If anie shall say that the Sacramentall absolution of the Preist is not a iudiciall act but a bare ministerie of pronouncing or declaring that sinnes are forgiuen be he accursed PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Perkins Galath 4. tom 2. The Pope challengeth to They cannot himselfe proper and iudiciall power of forgiuing and reteining sinnes Zuinglius in Art 51. to 1. Who attributeth remissioÌ„ of sinnes to a creature robbeth God of his glorie and is an idolater In resp ad Luther to 2. f. 430. These words whose sinnes you shall forgiue c. haue not that sense as if Christ in speaking theÌ„ would giue his disciples power to forgiue sinnes In Exposit fidei They cannot certifie a man of forgiuenes of his sinnes ib. f. 557. Wherefore all these things seeme friuolous I absoluethee I certifie thee that thy sinnes are forgiuen This is deceit and mere trifles Et in Hebr. 6. to 4. he saieth that Christ spooke the words cited out of Math. 18. by hyperoche or ouerlashing Bullinger in Marci 2. Men do not forgiue sinnes but teach that they are or haue beene forgiuen in Christ by faith Caluin in Ioan. 20. v.
in manie places refuteth In like sorte Grauer in Absurdis Caluin c. 14. ser 10. Touching the Eucharist they denie that it is the bodie Of the Eucharist and blood of Christ l. 1. c. 11. art 1. Which is against Scripture For thus Muscul in loc tit de Caena I may not say the bread of the Supper is not the bodie of the Lord. For in so saying I should contradict the Lord saying This is my bodie Againe Otherwise bread should not be the bodie of the Lord against his expresse word Beza in Hosp part 2. f. 300. being asked whether he disliked that one should say The bread of the Supper is the bodie of Christ answered No for they are the words of Christ Et Hosp ib. f. 136. We denie not that bread and wine are the bodie and blood of Christ For Christ himselfe saied This is my bodie They say that those words This is my bodie must be thus expounded This signifieth my bodie Of which exposition Musculus in Schlusselb l. 1. Theol. Caluin art 22. giueth this iudgement We must beware of that exposition wherewith Christs words are thought to be the same as if he had saied This signifieth my bodie For this is not Christs meaning to shew that this bread signifieth his bodie They denie that Christ gaue vs his bodie to eate or his blood to drinke l. 1. c. 11. art 2. Which doctrine thus censureth Caluin l. de Neces ref Christ saied in plaine termes that he gaue them his bodie Beza epist 5. But I answere that is all one as to make Christ a lyer as who in cleare and plaine words saieth he gaue them that bodie which was deliuered for vs. Et Apol. 1. contr Saintem p. 292. To denie all eating of flesh were plainely to denie the very words of Christ They denie that the Cuppe is the new testament l. 1. c. 11. art 4. And yet Simlerus in Hosp part 2. f. 348. saieth The proper sense of these words is The Cuppe is the new testament or the blood of the new testament Iames Andreae in Colloq Montisbel p. 38. To me it seemeth altogether new and vnheard of that the Supper is denied to be the testameÌ„t of Christ against the plaine words alledged out of Luke Et Musculus in locis titul de Caena In Luke and Paul it is saied of this Cuppe that it is the new testament They denie that the Cuppe of the Eucharist was shed for vs. l. 1. c. 11. art 6. And yet Illyricus in Luc. 22. v. 20. writeth Which is powred out for you in the Greek text must needs be referred to the Cuppe Touching Matrimonie they denie that it is a SacrameÌ„t Of Matrimonie c. 12. art 5. And yet thus professeth the Confession of Wittemberg c. de Coniugio We confesse that Mariage is a kind of life instituted and approued by God and a mysterie as commonly it is expounded a great Sacrament in Christ and the Church as Paul saieth Touching faith they denie that it can be without good Of Faith works l. 1. cap. 13. art 8. which doctrine thus condemneth Schlusselburg l. 1. Theol. art 15. Aretius saieth that faith and good works are conioyned as the species and her proprietie as a man and reason But we out of the word of God teach and learne that this doctrine is false They denie that faith it selfe is imputed to vs for iustice l. 1. c. 13. art 19. And yet thus iudgeth Vrbanus Regius in loc fol. 46. Sincere faith on the mercie of God and Iesus Christ is our verie iustice Faith is imputed for iustice to the beleiuer Abraham beleiued and it was imputed to him for iustice They denie that the faith of the Hemorroïssa was pure libr. 1. capit 13. articul 25. And yet thus Bullinger in Marci 5. The power of true faith is singularly expressed Touching good works they denie that they are necessarie Of good workes to saluation l. 1. c. 14. art 13. And yet Piscator saieth in Thes loc 10. The Scripture teacheth that good works are necessarie to saluation The same say the Electorals in Colloq Aldeburgico They denie also that good works are cause of saluation lib. 1. cap. 14. art 15. And yet thus writeth Illyricus in Claue tractat 6. titul de Var. bonum operum praed We heare that to manie effects and praises and euen saluation it selfe is attributed in Scripture to good works It is plaine that oftentimes somewhat to much praise is ascribed to good works which doth not agree to them nor is to be ascribed to them if we will speake exactly truely and properly They denie that they are meritorious lib. 1. cap. 14. art 8. And yet thus professeth Apollog Confession in Melancthon tom 3. Seing works are some fulfilling of the law they are truely saied to be meritorious reward is rightly saied to be due to them Agayne The text of Scripture saieth that life euerlasting is rendered to them Which Protestants denie lib. 1. cap. 14. articul 7. They denie also that they are to be done for God lib. 1. cap. 14. art 20. Of which point thus iudgeth Kemnice in locis tit de bonis oper The testimonies of Scripture most clearely teach that good works are to be done for Gods sake Touching virginitie they denie that it is counsailed in Scripture l 1. c. 15. art 4. And neuerthelesse Vrbanus Regius in locis fol. 372. saieth Virginitie is counsailed in the Ghâ—spell not commanded And in Interp. loc 49. Virginitie is onely a counsaile not a precept Concerning sinne they teach that it can remayne with Of sinne iustice l. 1. c. 16. art 17. Yet thus pronuonceth Luther in Gal. 3. These are directly opposit That a Christian is iust and loued of God and yet with all is a sinner Againe How are these twoe coÌ„tradictories true at once I hâ—ue sinnes am most worthie of the wrath of God and the Father loueth me They denie that sinne putteth a man out of grace l. 1 c. 16. art 6. And yet thus writeth Hemingius in Enchir class 2. If a penitent sinne against his conscience as Dauid did with murder and adulterie he casteth of the holie Ghost and becometh guiltie of Gods wrath and vnlesse he doe pennance falleth into eternall punishment It is a horrible madnesse to say that such retaine the holie Ghost wheÌ„ as Paul saieth plainely Gal. 5. The works of the flesh are manifest and they that doe such shall not possesse the kingdome of God They denie that the widdows whereof S. Paul speaketh 1. Timoth. did sinne in marrying l. 1. c. 16. art 15. And yet thus Bullinger in Tim. 5. Surely to marrie of it selfe is no sinne But because they haue once giuen their promise to Christ the spouse and to the Church and of their owne accord haue left marriage hereupon their marriage turneth to the disgrace of Christ which is that which Paul termeth to become wanton against Christ Bucer lib. 2. de Regno
be made at his death Bucanus in Institution loco 48. Which is giuen is not saied but by change of time present for that which is streight to come for Which shal be giuen to wit on the crosse not in the Eucharist Reineccius to 4. Armaturae c. 19. Christ vsed the time present for the future The same saieth Caluin Admonit vlt. p. 836. Beza in Math. 26. v. 28. Tilenus in Syntagm c. 61. Micronius in Hospin part 2. f. 236. THE CONFERENCE Scripture expressely saieth that at the verie present time of the celebration of the Eucharist Christs bodie is giuen Chrysostom Theophilact Oecum in 1. Cor. 10. is deliuered is broken and his blood is shedde for vs. And the holie Fathers declare how it is most true The Catholiks say the same Protestants expressely say that it is blasphemie to say that Christs bodie is broken in the Eucharist that his bodie is not brokeÌ„ in the Supper that his blood is not shedde in the Eucharist that Christ saied which is giuen for which shal be giuen and tooke the present time for the future Which are so coÌ„trarie to the Scripture as diuers ProtestaÌ„ts confesse it See l. 2. c. 30. ART VI. WHETHER THE CHALICE of the Eucharist was shedde for vs SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. Luc. 22. vers 20. This is the Chalice the new testament in my blood which Chalice as is euident in the Greek text shal be The Chalice shedde for vs. shedde for you CATHOLIKS EXPRâ—SSELY AFFIRME D. Stapleton in Math. 26. v. 28 Keeping the grammaticall and right sense of the words of S. Luke as they are in Greek where the Chalice it selfe is saied to be shedde in remission of sinnes by the name of the Chalice we must needs vnderstand not wine but blood in the chalice PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Whitaker ad Ration 1. Campiani The Chalice was not Not shedde for vs. shedde for vs And yet he confesseth that if we stick to the words of the Euangelist we must ether say that the Chalice was shedde for vs or we must make false Greek Beza in Lucae 22. v. 20. These words cannot be vnderstood of the wine much lesse of the Cuppe Musculus in locis titul de Caena But if in Luke we reade Which is shedde for you that is not referred to the Cuppe but to the blood Againe I thinke that the word of Shedding in Saint Luke is not to be referred to thâ— Cuppe of the Sacrament but to the blood THE CONFERENCE Scripture plainely saieth that the Chalice was shedde for vs as is manifest by the Greek text which alone Protestants account authenticall in so much as not onely Lutheran Protestants confesse it but also D. Willet though a a Caluinist For thus he writeth Controu 13. quaest 1. pag. 595. The Paticiple shedde agreeth with the Cuppe not with my blood as the Euangelist saieth The Cuppe was shedde The same say Catholiks Protestants expressely say that the chalice was not shedde for vs that these words cannot be vnderstood of the Cuppe that the word Shedde in S. Luke is not referred to the Cuppe Which contradiction of Scripture is so plaine as manie Protestants confesse it nor can it he auoided by any better colour then by changing the Greek text or by saying that Saint Luke wrote false Greek who yet was an excellent Grecian as is euident by all his writings ART VII WHETHER BREAD BE NEcessarie to make the Eucharist SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. Math. 26. v. 26. And whiles they were at supper Iesus tooke bread and blessed and brake and he gaue to his disciples and saied Bread necessarie to the Eucharist Take ye ad eate This is my bodie Ioan. 6. vers 51. If anie man eate of this bread he shall liue for euer and the bread which I will giue is my fâ—â—h for the life of the world 1. Cor. 10. v. 16. The bread which we breake is it not the participation of the bodie of our Lord CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME S. Thomas 3. part q. 74. art 4. There must needs be bread of wheate without which the Sacrament is not made PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Beza Epist 2. vol. 3. Where there is no vse of bread or wine or no plentie at sometime may no Supper of the Lord be celebrated yes it may be well celebrated if that which is in steed of Bread not necessarie bread and wine ether by common vse or by occasion of the time be taken in place of bread and wine Which very words are repeated by Hospin part 1 Histor c. 2. Tilenus in Syntagmate c. 61. In these countries in which there is no plentie no vse of wheaten bread or wine pressed out of of grapes we doubt not but the Sacrament may be well celebrated if that be vsed for this Symbol which there is in steed of bread and wine Bucanus in Institut Theol. loco 48. What if bread such as we haue and wine wante in any countrie with what signes is the Supper to be celebrated With those earthlie elements and corporall meats which all men in that countrie vse for bread and wine meate and drinke So also teacheth Homius Disput 47. nether is it disliked of Peter Martyr in 1. Cor. 10. Caluin also apud Bezam epist 25. alloweth other drinke in steed of wine in places where wine wanteth THE CONFERENCE Scripture plainely saieth that the Eucharist is to be made of bread Catholiks say the same Protestants plainely say that bread is not necessarie That where bread wanteth there it may be made of other meats ART VIII WHETHER THE EVCHARIST may be made of azime or vnleauened bread SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. Math. 2. ver 17. is saied that Christ celebrated the Eucharist the first day of the Azimes Et Marc. 14. v. 12. The first Christ vsed azime bread day of the Azimes when they sacrificed the Pasche Luc. 22. v 7. the day of the Azimes wherein it was necessarie that the Pasche should be killed Now in the dayes of the Azimes it was forbidden Exod. 12. and 13. that there should be anie leauen bread amongst the Iewes and commanded that he should die who in that time had eaten leauen bread CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME S. Thomas 3. part q. 74. art 4. The custome of celebrating in azime bread is more agreable to reason PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Beza l. quaest respons vol. 3. I say freely that there is a To vse azime is a blemish sauoureth Iudaisme duble blemish in those Churches which rather vse azime then leauen bread For that sauoureth Iudaisme and is lesse agreable to our daily meat Lobechius Disput 12. thus writeth The Zuinglian Caluinists LeaueÌ„ bread necessarie despising azime bread with a Pharisaicall pride yea cursing it do thrust leauen bread vpon the Church vnder opinion of necessitie Pareus Colleg. Theol. 9. disput 26. It must be houshould bread for analogies sake THE CONFERENCE Scripture plainely saieth that Christ instituted the Eucharist the first day
iust or righteous to Seing and hearing as the text doth Because those words 1. Corinth 14. vers 17. Thou indeed They omit words giuest thanks well do plainely approue praier in an vnknowne tongue Zuinglius Caluin and Beza in their CoÌ„mentaries slippe ouer these words Yea Caluin 3. Instit c. 20. § 33. citing this sentence omitteth the word well In like sorte Caluin and Beza Luc. 22. v. 32. slippe ouer those words of Christ I haue praied for thee by which S. Peters Primacie is confirmed Wherefore thus I make my third argumeÌ„t Who beside the foresaied opposition to the expresse words of Scripture are forced many times to vse violence to the very sacred text by adding or taking away words by changing by calling in doubt by ill translating by omitting by changing the order of the words they are to be iudged to contradict the true sense of the holie Scripture But Protestants do so Therefore c. CHAPTER IV. THAT PROTESTANTS OVERTHROW all force of the words of holie Scripture yea contemne and deride them OVR fourth argument shal be that Protestants when they nether dare denie nor change the words of Scripture yet ouerthrow all the force of them yea sometimes contemne and scoffe at them The first way by which they delude the expresse word of God is that in what kind of matter soeuer to wit whether it be of precept or doctrine whether it can be knowne onely by Gods word or no and in what places soeuer to wit whether in them the matter be handled purposely or no in what kind of matter soeuer I say and in what kind of place soeuer the holie Scripture speaketh expressely against theÌ„ they crie that we must not stick to the letter nor vrge it Zuinglius in Math. 19. to 4. The words Protest will not haue the word of God vrged against them of Christ what God hath ioyned let not man seperate are so drie that it may seeme that married persons can be seperated for no cause Here because the letter clearely maketh against him he addeth But we will not after the Iewish manner sticke so superstitiously to the letter And in Mark 1. We must not stick fast to the bare letter but the letter is to be expounded and directed according to the rule of the Protestants Spirit Et Institut de caena tom 2. fol. 288. Is it fit in Scripture to vrge earnestly onely the letter or rather hauing consulted other places we ought to consider what the authoritie of it may admit Because in the matter of the Eucharist the words of Scripture are clare agaâ—â—st them Caluin 4. Instit cap. 17. § 20. saieth Christs words are not vnder the common rule nor are to be examined gramatically § 23. These good Maisters that they may appeare men of letters do forbidde to Caluin scoffeth at those who vrge the word of God goe any whit from the letter What monstruous absurdities caÌ„not phrentik men gather if they may obiect euerie tittle for confirmation of their opinions And he termeth it foolish stubbernesse to contend earnestly about Christs words And calleth vs Catchers of syllables froward and stubbern exactours of the letter foolish and ridiculous maisters of letters because in the matter of the Eucharist we stick close to the expresse words of Scripture and vrge them against him as if with scoffes and taunts he would beat vs from the expresse word and letter of almightie God Moreouer in Math. 3. v. 16. he saieth Some do foolishly and preposterously vrge the letter that they may include the thing in the signe And in Math 26. v. 28. The Papists and such like are foolishly superstitious whiles they lay fast hould vpon Christs words And Admonit vlt. ad Westphal pag. 8â—7 We must not earnestly insist vpon the words Beza cont Westphal p. 214. By what right is it not lawfull for vs to appeall as I may say so from the word to the sense P. Martyr l. de Euchar. p. 124. Yee must not alwaies obiect the clearnesse of the sense pag. 126. Yee must not take first sense which offereth it selfe p. 126. Yee should not so much vrge the plainenes of the sense and pag. 149. They obiect againe vs the simple sense and hould that firmely Zanchius l. 1. Epist p. 34. They haue cried to importunely and till they were hoarse The word the words Kerberman l 1. System Theol. pag. 169. They importunely vrge the letter or words of Scripture Willet in Synopsi Contr. 19. pag. 885. We must not take the letter but follow the sense where we find mention made of the vniuersalitie of Christs death pag. 886. It cannot literally be vnderstood that God would absolutely haue all meÌ„ to be saued Thus speake these men when the letter or plaine sense of Scripture maketh expressely against them In the meane tyme whensoeuer the letter of Scripture seemeth to fauour theÌ„ they most veliemently pressâ—â— As for example because S. Paul sometimes calleth the Eucharist bread they will needs haue it to be materiall bread Caluin in Math. 26. vers 28. The Papists denie that bread is shewed but Paul refuteth their Difference betwene the words which Protest and which Cath. vrge dotage affirming that the bread which we break is the communication of the bodie of Christ The like he hath 4. Instit c. 17. § 15. and others after him And neuerthelesse the Scripture neuer saieth directly of the Eucharist This is bread as four times it saieth most directly of it This is Christs bodie Nether doth it in anie place restraine the word Bread when thereby it signifieth the Eucharist to the proper signification of materiall bread as it doth manie waies restraine the word Bodie to signifie the true bodie of Christ by adding that it is the bodie giuen deliuered or broken for vs. Moreouer the Scripture it selfe Ioan. 6. clearely expoundeth that when by the word Bread it signifieth the Eucharist it meaneth the very flesh of Christ So that in the selfe same matter that word which is saied of the Eucharist in an identicall speach saying This is this and which ofteÌ„times and most clearely is tied to it proper signification nor is euer expounded in Scripture to be otherwise taken must not be vrged against Protestants because it maketh against them and an other word which nether is euer so saied of the Eucharist nor is any way restrained to it proper signification yea which the Scripture it selfe expoundeth figuratiuely must be vrged because it seemeth to fauour Protestants and consequeÌ„tly the letter or word of Scripture is to be vrged or not vrged according as it fauoureth or disfauoureth ProtestaÌ„ts Which is indeed to shape the Scripture to their opinions not to frame their opinions to the Scripture But if they cannot obtaine that the letter of the holie They call it begging of the question to vrge the letter Scripture be not vrged against them they take an other course to delude the authoritie or force thereof For they
Protest tormented with the words of Scripture 21. The Protestant interpreters do torment themselues in that Daniel seemeth to attribute redemption or remission of sinnes to mans iustice and works of mercie For they well admonish that it is repugnant to the chiefe point of our religion Daneus in c. 67. Enchir. Aug. saieth that saying of S. Iames We are not iustified by faith onelie doth this day tormeÌ„t manie so that some haue reiected the epistle others haue called it strawish Kemnice in loc to 2. tit de Argum. That saying of Daniel c. 4. seemeth very hard against free iustification The third way by which they tacitelie confesse that Protest forced to denie their doctrine their doctrine is contrarie to Scripture is because when it maketh for their purpose they denie that they teach manie of those points which in the former booke we haue clearelie shewed that they plainelie teach And because they do this so frequentlie as I need not bring manie examples thereof I will here cite onelie some few Touching God Pareus thus writeth Colleg. Theol. 9. disp 32. It is a slaunder that we simply say that God would and decreed that our first parents should fall See l. 1. cap. 2. art 5. Of Scripture thus Whitaker Cont. 1. q. 4. cap. 1. Our aduersaries attribute vnto vs this doctrine as if we saied that the Catholik Church could faile which is most false See lib. 1. cap. 8. art The same man q 3. cit c. 2. Our aduersaries slander vs when they say that we make such a Church which sometime is no where and can be seene of none See l. 1. c. 8. art 5. Touching the Eucharist Eliensis Resp ad Apol. Bellar. c. 1. We agree with you of the matter all the contention is about the manner A presence I say we beleiue nor lesse reall then you Perkins in Cath. refor Contr. 10. cap. 1. We beleiue and teach a reall presence of the bodie and blood of Christ in the Sacrament of the Supper and that not feigned but true and reall Argentinenses in Hospin part 2. Histor Be they accursed who will haue nothing to be exhibited here but a signe and figure And Hospinian himselfe Our men neuer denied that the bodie of Christ was truely in their Supper Beza l. qq saieth that it is a slander that they exclude Christ from their Supper Gratianus Antiiesuita p. 140. There is no controuersie whether the true bodie and blood of the Lord be contained in the Sacrament of the Eucharist Et Riuet tract 3. sec 12. The question betwene vs is not simply whether the bodie and blood of Christ be truely and really in this Sacrament Et Spalatensis libr. contr Suar. cap. 1. num 39. Who denieth that the Eucharist is the onely flesh and onely blood of our Lord Iesus Christ See the contrarie of all these lib. 1. c. 11. art 1. Touching faith thus writeth Peter Martyr in loc Class 3. § 24. We make faith hope and charitie three different things nether doe we confound them as our aduersaries accuse vs. See the contrarie lib. 1. c. 13. art 6. Of good works thus Tilenus in Syntag. cap. 46. It is a cruell slander of our aduersaries where they feigne that we teach that all the works of the iust be properly and simply sinnes Et Riuet tract 3. sect 31. None of ours saieth absolutely that all works are sinne nether say we that they are mingled with sinne absolutely See the contrarie lib. 1. c. 14. art 2. Touching good works in particular thus Riuet tract 1. sect 73. We reiect this position That it is one of the conditions necessarie to a Bishop that he be married See the contrarie lib. 1. cap. 15. art 4. Of reward thus the some Riuet 3. sect 39. We denie not the reward of good works See the contrarie lib. 1. c. 14. art 7. c. 18. arr 1. Of free will thus Serranus l. 3. cont Hayum Doth anie of ours denie or euer denied that those that are not regenerate doe fall to sinne of their prone and free will See the contrarie lib. 1. c. 16. art 14. But finally they doe plainely and expressely graunt that Protest confesse much of their doctrine to be against Scripture Of God manie points of Protestants doctrine are coÌ„trarie to Scripture For touching God thus writeth Confessio Saxon. c. God nether willeth sinne nor approueth nor helpeth it as it is written when the Diuel speaketh a lie he speaketh of his owne and 1. Ioan. 3. Who committeth sinne is of the Diuel Gerlachius tom 2. disput 15. It is impossible that God should will sinne of whome it is saied psalm 5. Thou art not a God that willeth ini-inquitie Et Polanus in Disput priuat p. 235. God nether willeth nor can will the ill of offence or sinne properly taken psal 5. vers 5. Melancthon in disput to 4. p. 623. The conference of the continuall doctrine in the writings of the Prophets and Apostles doth shew that God nether willeâ—â— nor worketh sinne as it is expressely saied Thou art not a Gad that willeth iniquitie And out of this same place Pareus in Colleg. Theol. 1. disp 2. proueth that Gods will is no efficient cause of sinne And yet Protestants teach both that God willeth sinne and worketh sinne See lib. 1. c. 2. art 1. 4. They teach also that God hath ordained and predestinated men to sinne l. 1. c. 2. art 5. of which doctrine Melancthon in disp to 4. p. 572. giueth this censure There are certaine frantike fellows much worse then the Stoicks who teach that God of himselfe doth ordaine and predestinate haynous sinnes and that he willeth them and not onely suffereth them And in locis tit de Causa Peccat Sinne is nether done of God nor ordained of him They teach that God commandeth vrgeth and tempteth to sinne lib. 1. cap. 2. art 7. Which is contrarie to Scripture by iudgment of Riuet tract 3. sect 33. The Scripture expressely saieth that God will not iniquitie that he commandeth none to doe ill that he cannot tempt to ill Moulins in his Bucler p. 97. God doth not stirre vp meÌ„ to doe ill as it is saied ps 45. Thou hast loued iustice and hated iniquitie Et Calu. in Math. 4. v. 1. Wherevpon we gather that tentations which incite vs to ill come not froÌ„ God They teach that God is not angrie with the faithfull when they worke iniquitie lib. 1. c. 2. art 11. Which to be contrarie to Scripture Protestants in Zanchius in Supplicat confesse in these words God doth threaten his anger to all the transgressors of his law and they cite thereto that Ps 5. Thou hast hated all that worke iniquitie They teach that God hath no will that all should be saued li. c. 2. art 19. Which is against Scripture as coÌ„fesseth Hemingius in these words in Enchir. clas 3. They accuse God of a lye whosoeuer thinke that he will not the saluation of some as farre as perteineth to
do not pacifie his wrath but prouoke it See more art 16. Scripture This is the will of God your Sanctification that you abstaine from fornication c. Protestants God testifieth that he will not that his commaÌ„dments be kept will he haue the promises of the law performed of vs Nothing lesse He commandeth some thing which he will not haue done Properly speaking God will not haue his commandments kept of vs. See art 17. Scripture God hath concluded all into incredulitie that he God hath mercie on all may haue mercie on all Protestants God hath concluded all the reprobats vnder He hath not mercie on all sin that he might iustly destroy them God nether would nor will haue mercie on all See art 18. Scripture Thou louest all thinges that are and hatest nothing God loueth all of that which thou hast made Protestants God cannot be saied to loue all Albeit he created He loueth not all all in Adam yet be loueth not all God loueth only the elect in Christ all the rest he iustly hated from all eternitie and will for euer hate See more art 18. Scripture God will all men to be saued Not willing that anie God will all to be saued perish Protestants God will not haue all saued not euerie one He will not all to be saued saued It is not true that God would haue all saued by Christ God will not haue those that are reprobates to be saued See more art 19. Scripture Liue I saieth our lord God I will not the death of God will not the death of a sinner He will the death of a sinner the impious but that he be conuerted and liue Protestants God willeth the death of a sinner with his vnsearchable will God createth some to death to perish to destruction God predestinated to death whome he would and because he would See art 22. Scripture God made not death God made not death He made death Protestants God is the Author of death Gods will is the first and vnauoidable cause of the perdition of them that perish The hidden will of God worketh death in all See more art 22. cit Scripture Impious men are not necessarie for him God needeth not the impious He needeth them God daÌ„neth men for sin He damneth not them for sin God can de all things He cannot doe all things Protestants It is false that God hath not need of a sinner See art 22. cit Scripture Get ye away from me you accursed into fire euerlasting for I was an hungred and you gaue me not to eate Protestants God for his mere will damneth men He damneth them that deserue not There is no other cause of mans damnation then Gods mere pleasure See art 23. Scripture VVith God all thinges are possible Protestants That saying All things are possible to God hath some exception God hath no absolute power See more art 24. CHAPTER III. OF CHRIST SCripture Who Christ was predestinate the Sonne of God Christ predestinate the SoÌ„ne of God Not predestinate Christ made lawes He made none in power Protestants That Christ was predestinate the Sonne of God is Arianisme See art 2. Scripture Teach them to obserue all things whatsoeuer I haue commanded you Protestants Christ is no lawmaker no lawgiuer who gaue anie new law to the world See art 7. Scripture Beare ye one an others burdens and so ye shall fulfill Christs Ghospell a law the law of Christ Protestants The Ghospell must not be called a new law Art No law 7. cit Scripture And he hath giuen him power to doe iudgment Christ a iudge because he is the Sonne of man Protestants Christ is not iudge He shall not exercise the last No iudge iudgment as man See art 8. Scripture For these are the twoe testaments Twoe testaments Protestants There are not twoe testaments See art 9. Not twoe Christ learnt nothing Scripture How doth this man know letters whereas he hath not learned Protestants Christ was so ignorant as he learnt and was He laernt taught as men are See art 10. Scripture It was seemly that we should haue such a high preist Christ no sinner holie innocent impolluted separated from sinners VVho did not sin Protestants Christ was a sinner and that truly we must not He was a sinner imagin Christ to be innocent He confesseth his delicatenes ouerwhelmed with desperation he gaue ouer calling vpon God He needed baptisme See art 11. Scripture This is my beloued sonne in whome I am well pleased Christ beloued of God Protestants God made Christ by imputation a sinner or Hatefull of God vniust guiltie hatefull to God See art 11. cit Scripture This commandment of giuing my life I receaued Christ commanded to die Not commaÌ„ded He sufficiently redeemed Not sufficieÌ„tly of my Father Protestants They say A law was made that Christ should die But this is against Scripture See art 14. Scripture The Sonne of man is come to giue his life a redemtion in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for manie Protestants They erre saying that Christs death was a sufficieÌ„t redemption 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the sinnes of all Christ died not sufficiently for all See art 16. Scripture He hath reconciled in the bodie of his flesh by He redeemed vs by death death Pacifiing by the blood of his crosse Protestants Nothing had beene done if Christ had suffered Not by death only corporall death Reason it selfe teacheth that only corporall death of Christ was not sufficient to redeeme them who had deserued death both of bodie and soule Se more art 17. Scripture Christ did die for the impious They denie him Christ died for the impious and damned Not for them that bought them the lord bringing vpon them selues speedie perdition Protestants Christ did not giue him self for the impious and reprobates He shed not his blood for the sinnes of the impious damned See more art 18. Scripture who is the Sauiour of all men especially of the Sauiour of all faithfull VVho gaue him selfe a redemption for all Protestants It is not Christ the Redeemer of all No. Christ Not Sauiour of all is the Redeemer only of the elect and of none els See more art 18. and 19. Scripture He is the propitiation of our sinnes and not of our Propitiation for the sins of the world Not for the sins of the world His soule went to hel Not to hel Entred the dores being sâ—ut Not being shut sinnes onely but also for the whole worlde Protestants They speake amisse who say that by Christs death the sinnes of the whole world were redeemed See art 19. cit Scripture Thou shalt not leaue my soule in hel Protestants Christs soule neuer went to the places of hel Christs soule did not descend to hel See art 21. Scripture Iesus cometh the dores being shut and stood in the midst Protestants Christ by his diuine
our hart See more art 4. Scripture Thy will be done in earth as it is in heauen Protestants We do not pray that we may fulfill the law See more art 5. Scripture If thou wilt enter into life keepe the commandments Protestants Woe be to their Cathecumens if so hard a condition of keeping the law be imposed vpon them See more art 6. Scripture Do we then destroye the law by faith God forbid but we establish the law Protestants All the ceremoniall law or the Decalogue is abrogated It is abrogated from a Christian because he is dead to it And to be dead to the law is not to be bound with the law but free from it and not to know it See more art 7. CHAPTER XX. OF MANS LAVV. SCripture Who thinkest thou is a faithfull and wise seruant Superioritie amōgst Christians whome his lord hath appointed ouer his familie Protestants Among Christians there can be no superioritie Christ is my immediate Lord I know no other See more art 1. Scripture To the rest I say not our Lord If anie brother None amōgst them haue a wife an infidell and she consent to dwell with him let him not put her away Protestants They draw to themselues all the maiestie of God Man can command that which God doth not He cannot Conscience subiect to mās lawes Not subiect who chaleng authoritie to make lawes See more art 2. Scripture Be subiect of necessitie not only for wrathe but also for conscience sake Protestants The lawes of Princes bind not the conscience haue no power ouer the conscience See more art 3. CHAPTER XXI OF FREE WILL. SCripture It shal be in the arbitrement of her husband whether There is free will she shall do it or not do it Protestants Free vill is a title without the thing See more There is none art 1. Scripture Without thy counsell I would do nothing that thy Freedome to good good might not be as it were of necessitie but voluntarie Protestants Man after his fall hath no libertie to good There No freedome to good is no free will to good See more art 2. Scripture We are Gods coadiutours Gods coadiutors Protestants Papists make God the first and cheefest cause of all goodnes and vs coadiutours Which is craftily to withdraw Not his coadiutors themselues from God See more art 3. CHAPTER XXII OF MANS SOVLE SCripture Feare ye not them who kill the bodie and are not Mans soule immortall able to kill the soule Protestants I giue leaue to the Pope to make articles of faith Not immortall for his followers Such as are that breade and wine are transsubstantiated in the Sacrament That he is Emperour of the world and an earthlie God That the soule is immortall and all those infinit monsters in the Romish dunghill of decrees What Propositions I pray you shal euer be thought cōtradictions if these be not seing there can scarce be deuised more formall or more direct opposition then is betwixt the most of these But because perhaps the vulgar Protestante will say that he beleiueth not all or most of the Protestants propositions here set downe albeit this excuse will not suffice him as I haue shewed in the end of my Preface yet for his fuller satisfaction I haue gathered twelue principall articles which commonly all Protestants beleiue quite contrarie to the expresse word of God THE COMMON PROTESTANTS CREED CONSIsting of twelue Articles quite contrarie to the expresse word of God in the Scripture 1 PROTESTANTS beleiue that a man is Lib. 1. c. 16. art 2. iustified by only faith quite contrarie to the expresse word of God Ioannes 2. v. 4. Do you see that a man is iustified by workes and not by faith only 2 Protestants beleiue that we can not keep Goods commandments quite contrarie to his expresse word Ezechiel 36. v. 27. I will make Lib. 1. c. 18. art 1. that you walke in my commandments and keepe my iudgments and doe them 3 Protestants beleiue that the keeping of Gods commandments is not necessarie to come to life euerlasting quite contrarie to Gods expresse words Mathew 19. v. 17. Lib. 1. c. 18. art 6. If thou wilt enter into life keepe the commandments 4 Protestants beleiue that no men can forgiue sinnes quite contrarie to the expresse word of God Ihon 20. v. Lib. 1. c. 11. art 1. 22. Receaue ye the holie Ghost whose sinnes ye shall forgiue they are forgiuen them 5 Protestants beleiue that we are not bound to confesse our sinnes to men quite contrarie to the expresse word of Lib. 1. c. 11. art 2. God Ioannes 5. v. 16. Confesse your sinnes one to an other 6 Protestants beleiue that men when they die are not to be anoiled quite contrarie to the expresse word of God Lib. 1. c. 11. art 7. Iames 5. v. 14 Is anie man sicke among you Let him bring in the preists of the Church and let them pray ouer him auoiling him with oile in the name of our lord 7 Protestants beleiue that the blessed Sacrament is not the true bodie and blood of Christ quite contrarie to the Lib. 1. c. 10. art 1. expresse word of God Luke 22. v. 19. This is my bodie which is giuen for you and Mathew 26. v. 28. This is my blood which shal be shed for remisson of sinnes 8 Protestants beleiue that the Church of God is not infallible in faith quite contrarie to Gods expresse word 1. Lib. 1. c. 8. art 6. Timothie 3. v. 15. Which is the Church of the liuing God the pillar and ground of trueth 9 Protestants beleiue that we must not beleiue Traditions quite contrarie to the expresse word of God 2. Thessalon Lib. 1. c. 5. art 9. 2. v. 15. Hould the Traditions which you haue learned whether it be by word or by epistle 10 Protestants beleiue it is ill done to pray in the Church in an vnknowne language quite contrarie to the expresse Lib. 1. c. 14. art 12. word of God 1. Cor. 14. v. 17. where it is saied of such a one Thou indeed giuests thankes well 11 Protestants Beleiue that there is no sacrifice in the Church quite contrarie to the expresse word of God Malachie Lib. 1. c. 11. art 11. 1. v. 11. In euerie place there is sacrificing and there is offered to my name a cleane oblation 12 Protestants beleiue that there is no altar in the Church quite contrarie to the expresse word of God Hebrewes Lib. 1. c. 11. art 12. 13. v. 10. We haue an altar whereof they haue no power to eate who serue the tabernacle THE FIRST BOOKE OF THE CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIKE AND PROtestant doctrine with the expresse words of the holie Scripture FIRST CHAPTER OF GOD. Article 1. Whether God willeth iniquitie or sinne SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY DENIETH. PSALME 5. verse 5. Thou art God will not iniquitie not a God that wilt iniquitie Abacuc
Christ merited to him selfe exaltation THE CONFERENCE Scripture expressely saieth that Christ was exalted and had a name giuen him aboue all names because he humbled him selfe that he was crowned with glorie because of his passion The same say Catholiks Protestants expressely say that Christ did not merit his exaltation did not merit any thing to him selfe could not merit to be iudge of the world and head of Angels ART XVI WHETHER CHRIST REDEEmed vs with a sufficient price or truely merited our redemption SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. 1. Cor. 6. v. 20. You are bought with a great price Christ bought vs with a great price 1. Timoth. 2. v. 6. For there is one God one also mediatour of God and men man Christ Iesus who gaue him selfe a redemption in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for all 1. Peter 2. ver 18. Knowing that not with corruptible things gould or siluer you are redeemed from your vaine conuersation With his pretious blood of your fathers tradition but with the pretious blood as it were of an immaculate and vnspotted lambe Christ 1. Ihon 3. v. 16. In this we haue knowne the charitie of God because he hath yeelded his life for vs. c. 4. v. 10. He hath loued vs and sent his sonne a propitiation for our sinnes Mathew 20. ver 28. The Sonne of man is come to giue his life a redemption in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for manie Rom. 3. v. 24. Iustified gratis by his grace by the redemption in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is in Christ Iesus Psalm 129. v. 7. Because with our Lord is mercie and with him plenteous redemption CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME S. Thomas 3. part artic 2. Christ suffering of charitie and obedience did giue God some thing more then the recompence of the offence of all mankinde did exact The passion of Christ was not onely a sufficient obut also a superaboundant satisfaction for the sinnes of mankinde PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Tindal in Fox his Acts printed An. 1610. pag. 1136. Christ Christ merited not heaueÌ„ with all his works did not merite heauen Daneus Controu 2. lib. 5. p. 210. Three necessarie conditioÌ„s of merite do faile in the workes of a creature and of Christ man towards God For by the vnion hypostaticall Christ doth not He did not merit merite Page 200. Christ as man properly merited nothing with God P. 202. Yea not in this forme of a seruant could Christ merite any thing to himselfe because in this forme he was a credture But a creature can merite nothing of his Creator Caluin 2. Instit c. 17 § 1. Truely I confesse that if any would simply and by himselfe oppose Christ vnto the iudgment of God there were no place for merite because there will not be found in man any worth which may merite before God § vlt. With what merits could man obtaine to be iudge of the world and head of Angels 3. Instit c. 11. § 12. It is fondly obiected of him that the power of iustifying farre supasseth both men and Angels seing this dependeth not vpon the worth of any creature but of Gods ordination If the Angels would satisfie God they would auaile nothing because they were not destinated to this end but this was proper to Christ man who was subiect to the law for to redceme vs from the curse of the law And Respons ad quaest Sozin Christ could merit nothing but through the pleasure of God Et in Ioan. 4. v. 10. When Christ is sated to haue appeased the Father towards vs this is referred to our sense For as we are guiltie to our selues we cannot conceaue God but as angrie and offended till Christ absolue vs from the guilt Wherefore touching the feeling of our faith God beginneth to loue vs in Christ Spindlerus apud Scusselburg l. 4. Theol. Caluin c. 5. The His death no sufficient redemption for all sinnes Lutherans erre in saying that Christs death was a sufficient redemption 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the sinnes of all and euerie man Piscator apud Vorstium in Parasceue c. 6. Christ died not sufficiently much lesse effectually for all Welsingius apud Homium in Specim Controuer Belgic His blood satisfied not Gods iustice art 21. That Christs blood satisfied Gods iustice for our sinnes is no where extant and it is plainly contrarie to the free and iust remission of sinnes which God hath offered to vs by Christ And the same say other Protestants as Caluin reporteth 2. Instit c. 17. § 1. and Beza in Absters calumn Heshusij p. 324. Slatius apud Homium loc cit There is question whether Christ properly satisfied not Christ properly satisfied for vs. We denie it And the same hath Vorstius ib. Who also addeth That Christ satisfied by a certaine acceptation not by exact identitie Pareus l. 5 de Iustific c. 3. To merit is the parte of seruants To merite is serutle and sordid serutle and sordid THE CONFERENCE Scripture expressely saieth that Christ bought vs with a great price that he gaue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is a ransom or price of redemption for vs that he redeemed vs with his pretious blood that God gaue his life for vs sent his sonne a propitiation for our sinnes that with God there is plentuous redemption Catholiks say the same Protestants expressely say the contrarie that Christ could not merite heauen had no place for merit if we respect the iudgment of God did not merite three conditions necessatie to merite wanted in his works that power of meriting in him depended of Gods pleasure and ordination That properly he did not satisfie for vs that his blood did not satisfie Gods iustice that his death was not a sufficient 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or ransom for all that to merite is seruile and sordid ART XVII WHETHER CHRIST REDEEmed vs by his blood or corporall death SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. Coloss 1. ver 22. And you whereas some time alienated and Christ redeemed vs by his death By his blood By he oblacion of his bodie enemies in sense in euill works yet now he hath reconciled in the bodie of his flesh by death vers 20. Pacifying by the blood of his crosse whether the things in earth or the things that are in heauen Hebrews 10. v. 10. In the which will we are sanctified by the oblation of the bodie of Iesus Christ once c. 9. vers 12. By his owne blood entred once into the Holies eternall redemption being found Ephes 1. v. 6. In whome we haue redemption by his blood the remissâ—on of sinnes 1. Peter v. 19. You are redeemed with the pretious blood as it were of an immaculate and vnsported lambe Christ Acts 20. v. 28. The holie Ghost hath placed you Bishops to rule the Church of God which he hath purchased with his owne blood Apocalips 5. v. 9. Thou hast redeemed vs to God in thy blood CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME S. Thomas 3. part q. 48. art 5.
The price of our redemption is the blood of Christ or his corporall life which consisteth in blood Stapleton in Prompt Quadrages fer 4. Hebdom Sanct. Caluin putteth not onely an other price beside the corporall death of Christ but also an other greater and more excellent Can Christian ears suffer this PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Whitaker lib. 8. cont Dur. sect 18. Caluin wrote most truely Christs death had done nothing That nothing had beene done if Christ had suffered onely corporall death Perkins de Serm. Dom. to 2. col 576. Reason it selfe teacheth Was not sufficient that onely corporall death of Christ was not sufficient to redeeme them who had deserued death of bodie and soule Willet Cont. 20. q. 3. p. 1088. The bodilie death of Christ was Was not the full price not in respect of Gods iustice the whole and full price of our redemption Caluin 2. Instit c. 16. § 10. Nothing had beene done if Christ There needed a greater price had suffered onely bodilie death There was an other greater more excellent price that he suffered in his soule the horrible torments of a damned and lost man Bezalib quaest vol. 1. Theol. Christ was in the midst of the torments of hell for to deliuer vs fully from both deathes c. Scarpe de Iustif Cont. 16. Writeth that diuers ProtestaÌ„ts say that those places of Scripture in which is saied that Christ dyed for vs are to be vnderstood onely of his feeling of the wrath of God and not of his bodilie death and that his bodilie death auailed nothing to our redemption nor was a parte of the satisfaction for sinnes THE CONFERENCE Scripture expressely teacheth that Christ hath reconciled vs in the bodie of his flesh by death hath pacified all things by the blood of his crosse hath sanctifieth vs by the oblation of his bodie hath found an eternall redemption by his blood hath redeemed vs by his blood with his blood in his blood hath purchased the Church with his blood The same say Catholiks Protestants expressely say that nothing had beene done if Christ had suffered onely corporall or bodilie death that his corporall death was not sufficient to redeeme vs that there was need of a greater and excellenter price that his corporall death auailed nothing to our redemption nor was any parte of the satisfaction for sinnes Which are so manifestly opposite to Scripture as some Protestants confesse it See lib. 2. c. 30. ART XVIII WHETHER CHRIST DIED for the impious and reprobats SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. Christ died for the impious For him that perisheth For the vniust Rom. 5. ver 6. For why did Christ when we as yet were weake according to the time die for the impious 1. Cor. 18. ver 11. And through thy knowledge shall thy weak brother perish for whome Christ hath died 1. Peter 3. v. 18. Because Christ also died once for our sinnes the iust for vniust 2. Peter 2. v. 1. seq But there were also false Prophets in the people as also in you there shal be lying maisters which shall bring in sects of perdition and denie him that hath bought them the For those that goe to perdition Lord bringing vpon themselues speedie perdition vnto whome the iudgment now long since ceaseth not and their perdâ—tion slâ—mbereth not CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME C. Bellarmin l. 4. de Amiss Gratiae c. 7. Our Lord suffered and died for the vniust PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Whitaker Controu 2. q. 1. c. 9. p. 437. Christ did not giue Christ died not for the impious The wicked not redremed by Christ himselfe for the impious and reprobates Which he repeateth cap. 13. Rainolds thesi 4. q. 22. The wicked albeit they be termed faithfull for their profession of faith or for temporall faith yet are they not redeemed or founded in Christ. In Apologia thesium p. 246. Christ offered himselfe for the elect onely 247. Redeemed only the elect The elect onely were redeemed of Christ Perkins de Praedestinat tom 1. col 135. Whome at anie time he acknowledged not he neuer bought or redeemed with the price of his blood col 137. Of these Christ is onely a half-redeemer and therefore no redeemer And de Desertion col 1023. Christ is the redeemer onely of the elect and of none else So also D. Willet Contr. 9. q. 2. p. 893. Caluin l. cont Heshus p. 849. I would know how the impious Not crucified for the impious eate Christs flesh for which it was not crucified and how they drinke his blood which was not shed to redeeme their sinnes Beza in Colloq Montisbel p. 447. Christ died not for the sinnes of them that are damned He shed not his blood for the remission of the sinnes of the impious and damned Epist 28. It is false that Christ is the mediatour of the infidels also Zanchius in Summa Praelection to 7. col 272. Christ according to the purpose of his Father was borne praied suffered and died onely for the elect In Depulsion Calum col 253. The Reprobats not redeemed reprobats were not redeemed by Christ Piscator apud Gerlachium Disput 9. Christ no waye died for the reprobats other sufficiently or effectually THE CONFERENCE Scripture expressely teacheth that Christ died for the impious for the vniust for those that perish that he bought lying monsters who bring in sects of perdition and bring vpon themselues speedie perdition and whose perdition slumbereth not Catholiks say the same Protestants expressely teach the contrarie that Christ gaue not himselfe for the impious or reprobats that the wicked were not redeemed in Christ that Christs flesh was not crucified for the impious nor his blood shed for their sinnes that Christ offered himselfe onely for the elect that they onely were redeemed by Christ that Christ is redeemer of the elect and of none els no mediatour of Infidels was borne suffered and dyed for the elect onely that nether sufficiently nor effectually he died for the reprobats Which are so contrarie to Scripture as manie Protestants acknowledge it See l. 2. c. 30. ART XIX WHETHER CHRIST DIED for all SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. 2. Corint 5. v. 14. For the charitie of Christ vrgeth vs iudging Christ died for all this That if one died for all then all were dead and Christ died for all 1. Timoth. 2. v 6. Christ Iesus who gaue himselfe a redemption for all Chap. 4. v. 10. Who is the Sauiour of all men especially of the faithfull Hebrews 2. v. 9. We see Iesus because of the passion of death crowned wiâ—h glorie and honour that through the grace of God he might taste death for all 1. Ioan. 2. v. 2. We haue an aduocate with the Father Iesus Christ the iust and he is the propitiation of our sinnes and not of ours onely but also for the whole worlds Ca. ver 14. The Father hath sent his Sonne the Sauiour of the world CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME Councel of Trent Sess
6. c. 9. Howbeit Christ died for all yet notwithstanding all receaue not the benefit of his death PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Perkins de Praedest to 1. col 144. It is maruailous absurd Redeemed not all that Christ on his parte should haue redeemed and reconciled to God all and euerie one and yet that in the ende manie of these should be damned De Serm. Dom. to 2. col 341. The opinion of vniuersall redemption is an inuention of mans braine Caluin in 1. Ioan. 2. v. 2. cit Vnder all he doth not comprehend the reprobats In 1. Tim. 2. v. 5. The vniuersall particle must be referred to all kind of men not to all persons Sadeel ad Art abiur 7. They speake amisse who say that by Redeemed not the sinnes of the whole world Christs death the sinnes of the whole world were redeemed Piscator l. 2. Thes p. 371. Christ died not vniuersally for all men but for the elect onely We denie that Christ died sufficiently for all but not effectually P. 177. Christ died nor for all but for some Bucanus Instit Theol. loco 36. Is not Christ the redeemer of all No. More of their like sayings may be seene in my Latin booke c. 1. art 19. THE CONFERENCE Scripture expressely teacheth that Christ died for all that are dead that he gaue himselfe a redemption for all that he tasted death for all that he is the Sauiour of all men the Sauiour of the world the propitiation not onely of our sinnes but of all the whole world Catholiks teach the same Protestants expressely teach the contrarie that Christ on his parte redeemed not all and euerie one that vniuersall redemption is an inuention of mans braine that Christ died not vniuersally for all redeemed not the sinnes of the whole world nether sufficiently nor effectually died for all died but for some is not redeemer of all Which diuers Protestants confesse to be contrarie to Scripture See l. 2. c. 30. ART XX. WHETHER THE BLOOD wherewith Christ redeemed vs was putrefied and corrupted SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY DENIETH. Acts 2. v. 27. Because thou wilt not leaue my soule in hell nor Gods holie did not see corruption giue thy Holie to see corruption 1. Peter 1. v. 19. Knowing that not with corruptible things gould or siluer you are redeemed from your vaine conuersation of your fathers traditions but with the pretious blood as it were of an immaculate and vnspotted lambe Christ. CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY DENIE S. Thomas 3. par q. 34. art â— All the blood that flowed out of the bodie of Christ did rise in Christs bodie sith it belonged to the truth of his humane nature PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME Perkins in Apoc. 1. to 2. col 41. The substance of that blood The substaÌ„ce of Christ blood perished of Christ which was shed did perish whatsoeuer the Papists do prate In Cathol reform CoÌ„tr. 10. c. 3. That blood which ranne out the feet and hands and siâ—e of Christ vpon the crosse was not gathered vp againe and put into the vâ—iâ—â—es Nâ—â— the collection was needls and none knowes what is become of this blood The same insinuateth Whitaker Contr. 2 q. 1 c. 9. p. 437. Beza in 2. part Resp ad Acta Colloq Montisbel p. 108. It were curious and profane to enquire what became of that selfe same blood which ranne out of the wounds of Christ and whether it were taken againe of him when he arose Musculus in locis Tit. de Caena We need not dispute of the blood of Christ what became of it after it was spilt on the grouÌ„d whether it were taken againe into his glorified bodie or no. Schusselbur lib. 1. Theol. Caluin art 20. reporteth Curaeus saying Christs blood shed for vs on the crosse was long Long since consumed Putrified since consumed And Erastus his companians teaching That Christs blood which he shed for our siâ—nes is putrified and no more in being Germanus Bauarus in Feuaâ—dent l. 4. Theomach Caluin c. 16. The substantiall blood of Christ is not giuen in the Supper because it was corrupted on the ground Corrupted THE CONFERENCE Scripture expressely saieth that we were not redeemed with corruptible things but with the pretious blood of Christ that God suffered not his Holie to see corruption The same say Catholiks Protestants expressely say that it is profane to enquire what is become of Christs blood that long since it is consumed corrupted not gathered againe perished and is no more in being ART XXI WHETHER CHRISTS SOVLE descended to Hell SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. Actes 2. v. 27. Thou wilt not leaue my soule in Hell Et v. Was in Hell 31. Foreseing he spake of the resurrection of Christ for nether was he left in Hell nether did his flesh see corruption CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME D. Stapleton in Actor 2. v. 27. This place doth plainly proue the descent of Christ into Hell in soule according to the article of Christian beleefe PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Whitaker l. 8. cont Dur. sect 23. Caluin defendeth that Neuer went to Hell Descended not to Hell Christs soule neuer went to the places of Hell And l. 9. sect 27. I beleiue that Christs soule seperated from the bodie not onely did not descend to Hell but streight mounted to Heauen Rogers vpon the 3. Article of Protestants Confession saieth that Carlile against D. Smithe pa. 28. 77. calleth this article of Christ descent into hell an error and a fable A fable Perkins in Explicat Symboli to 1. col 678. If we say that Christ in soule descended into Hell we plainly take away that manifest opposition betweene the first and the second Adam Beza in Actor 2. v. 27. Who by Hell vnderstand the place which is commoÌ„ly called Hell as if the soule of Christ had indeed descended thither surely are much deceaued Serranus cont Hayum part 3. pag. 722. Beza desirous to Descent to Hell a fable stoppe the way to that Popish fable of the descent of Christs soule into hell c. Hemingius in Enchir. Theolog. class 3. pag. 263. It skilleth not greatly to know how Christ descended into Hell so that with true faith we hould that he deliuered vs from the power of Hell Aretius in locis part 1. fol. 72. Other Protestants denie To be taken out of the Creed all descent of Christ into Hell Some of them eagerly impugne this descent for they say that this sentence is to be taken out of the Creede Ministers of Anhalt apud Hospin in Concordia discordi fol. 87. The Diuines of Berge haue done well that through ours and other mens admonitions they haue put out the article of the descent into Hell THE CONFERENCE Scripture expressely affirmeth that Christs soule was in Hell and our Creed saieth that he descended into Hell The same say Catholiks Protestants expressely denie that Christs soule descended to Hell went to the places of Hell and say that the descent of Christ into Hell is a Popish
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
Church Of the same opinion are other Protestants who say that the true Church of God is inuisible to men for such a Church cannot be ruled of mē or denie that anie reprobates though they be Pastors are members of the true Church For if they were Pastors of the true Church certainly they should be also members of the same and those principall And if no reprobates be Pastors of the true Church nether be any elect because those Pastors which are elect rule no other Church then that which those which are reprobate do As Saint Peter ruled no other kinde of Church then Iudas did THE CONFERENCE Scripture expressely teacheth that Bishops rule that Church which Christ purchased with his blood that they edifie the bodie of Christ and that there are watch men vpon the walls of Hierusalem But Hierusalem the bodie of Christ the Church purchased with Christs blood is the true Church The same say Catholiks Protestants expressely teach that the rule of the Catholik or true Church is inuisible that she cannot be seene that noughtie prelats are not of the Catholik Church that Bishops are not pastors of the Catholik Church ART VII WHETHER PASTOVRS OF the Church be to be called Preists SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. Isaie 61. ver 6. speaking of the time of Ghospell saieth Pastours of the Church are to be called Preists And you shal be called the Preists of the Lord. To you it shal be saied The Ministers of our God And c. 66. v. 20. 21. And they shall shew forth my glorie to the Gentils And I will take of thē to be preists and leuits saieth our Lord. CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME C. Bellarm. l. 1. de Missa c. 17. S. Austin saieth that Bishops and Presbyters are properly called Preists PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Luther de Instit Ministr to 2. fol. 371. Who administer the Not to be called Preists word and Sacraments amongest people nether may nor ought to be called preists Caluin 4. Institut cap. 18. § 14. With what trust dare these sacrilegious follows call themselues preists of the liuing God Rainalds in his Conference c. 8. diuis 4. They who charge vs with falshood and corruption in that we call the Ministers of the Ghospell Elders are guiltie themselues of heresie and blasphemie in that they call them Preists Whitaker l. 9. cont Dur. sect 47. The names of Preists or Sacrificers do no way agree to the Ministers of the new testamēt but abusiuely and metonymically P. Martyr l. cont Gardiner col 1075. We call not our Ministers Preists Confessio Heluet. c. 18. We giue none of our Ministers the name of Preists THE CONFERENCE Scripture expressely saieth that the Pastors of the Church shal be called Preists and that some of the Gentils shal of God be taken to be Preists The same say Catholiks Protestants expressely say that Pastors of the Church may not be called Preists that they call none of them Preists that it is sacrilege heresie and blasphemie to call them preists ART VIII WHETHER ANY CAN BE a Pastour and preach without mission or calling SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY DENIETH. Roman 10. vers 15. But how shall they preach vnlesse they None can preach without mission be sent Hebr. 5. ver 5. So Christ also did not glorifie himselfe that he might be made a highe preist Ihon 3. v. 28. A man cannot receaue any thing vnlesse it be giuen him from heauen CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY DENIE D. Stapleton in Rom. 10. v. 15. The roote of lawfull preaching is mission nether is there any lawfull power of preaching Gods worde where lawfull mission went not before PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME Art Smalcaldici pag. 353. In case of necessitie a lay man absolueth In necessitie a lay man absolueth Some may preach with out mission and becometh Pastor and Minister to an other Luther tom 2. German fol. 256. A Christian man hath so much power that not called he ought to come forth and teach in middest of Christians when he seeth the teacher there to erre Id. l. de Instit ministr f. 372. We haue shewed euidently that euerie one hath authoritie to minister the worde yea commandment if he see that there is none to teach or that they teach not aright who are The like ib. l. de Iudic. Eccles 376. de Captiuit f. 80. And Postilla in die S. Stephani f. 84. Stephen by his example giueth authoritie to euerie Christian to preach Christ in what place soeuer where they are desirous to heare Herbrand in Disp 11. Euen they who are not lawfully called may preach the word fruitfully Melancthon in disput to 4. p. 507. A lay man can absolue not onely in case of necessitie but otherwhere Iacobus Andreae in Colloq Montisbel p. 410. In case of necessitie when Ministers or other men are absent it is lawfull for a woman to comfort a sick man by preaching and absolue him of his sinnes Kemnitius also 2. port Exam. tit de Ministris p. 49. saieth that it is lawfull in case of necessitie to preach without lawfull vocation Peter Martyr in locis clas 4. c. 1. § 15. When a Church is not yet built and men are ignorant of Christian religion whosoeuer shal be there by chance who know Christ they are bound to preach him nether is ordination to be expected seing it cannot be had Beza de Notis Eccles vol. 3. Then wilt thou say shall it be lawfull for euerie one in the Church to teach No truely But where a generall disorder rageth vnder colour of order nether remedie can be expected from the authours of this euill then surely as when the cittie is on fire it is the parte of euerie good citizen out of order to bring water and cast vpon the fire so in this fire of the Church it is the duetie of euerie pious man according to his power to oppose himselfe to this euill Plessie de Eccles c. 11. We know that it is saied How shall they preach vnlesse they be sent But because when all things are done confusely and out of order we must not looke that all things may be done rightly and according to set order and forme For ether that the Church be admonished that there need reformation or that anie particular man take care of his saluation euerie Christian ought to know that he is called to that function by a generall vocation so that he burne with zeale of the glorie of God and charitie to his neighbour THE CONFERENCE Scripture expressely saieth that none can preach vnlesse he be sent none can take any honour vnlesse it be giuen to him that Christ made not himselfe Preist or Pastour The same say Catholiks Protestants expressely say that one that is not called may fruitfully preach that any man may preach in case of necessitie or when there wanteth a Pastour or he erreth or when there is a generall disorder or men are desirous to heare that a lay man may absolue in case of necessitie and otherwise also
none euer anie haue contradicted the true sense of the Scripture the Protestants haue done it First because they haue as often and in as manie and as weightie matters contradicted the expresse words of Scripture as euer anie haue Secondly because they haue contradicted as expresse and cleare words and those as purposely spoaken to declare the Scriptures meaning as euer anie words were which anie haue cōtradicted Thirdly because they haue contradicted them in as plaine cleare and vsuall sense and which is confirmed by as manie circunstances and by light of reason and experience as euer anie words of Scripture were contradicted in Fourthly because they contradict these kind of words in this kind of sense with as euident want of the like words which may seeme plainly and directly of themselues without all inference or exposition of man to beare the contrarie sense as euer anie did Thou seest also what a maine difference there is betwene The differēce betwene the grounds of the Cath. and Protest faith the foundations of the Catholik and Protestant beleefe touching these articles For whereas the foundation of the Protestant beleife concerning the Eucharist is no expresse word of God which is purposely spoaken to declare this matter and which of it selfe without all helpe of man doth plainely and directly pronounce that it is such as they beleiue but ether mans word onely or mans discourse framed at least out of one humane principle the foundation of the Catholik faith is Gods expresse and cleare word spoaken of him purposely for to declare what the Eucharist is which of it selfe without anie helpe of vs clearely and directly auoucheth that the Eucharist is such as Catholiks beleiue it to be and against which words no other expresse words of God directly contrarie to these can be opposed but onely humane arguments and discourses These as S. Austin speaketh are the proofes of our course these the foundations these the strength Whatsoeuer Lib. de vnit c. 19. In Psal 21. they gayne say men say but this God saieth Yet let vs heare what it is which men say against God They except saieth Caluin that they haue the word by 4. Instit c. 17. §. 25. which the will of God is made manifest A most iust exception doubtles especially in matters of faith and such as cannot be knowne but by Gods word and against them who so much brag of Gods word For if we haue Gods word we haue also Gods meaning vnlesse they can demonstrate the contrarie Whereupon well saied Tertullian Ether denie that these are written or who art thou that Contr. Praxeam c. 23. thou thinkest that they are not to be vnderstood as they are written Forsooth saieth Caluin if we giue them leaue to banish out Loco cit §. 20 of the Church the guift of interpretation which may bring light to the word Againe We vsing daily studie do embrace that sense which the Holie Gost doth suggest And once more The reuerence of Christs words is not a pretext iust enough why they should so reiect all the reasons which we obiect Behould Reader once more the difference betwene the Catholik and Caluins faith The Catholik faith by the aduersaries confession What Caluin opposeth against the expresse word of God is grounded vpon the expresse and plaine words of God Caluins faith relieth vpon his guift of interpretation his studie the suggestions of his spirit his reasons which he dare oppose yea prefer before the expresse word of God But we demand that seing we haue for vs the expresse word of God wherewith Gods will touching the Eucharist is made manifest he produce the like word of God whereby it may be made manifest that the Caluinists haue the guift of interpretation rather then the Catholiks or the Lutherans or anie sorte of Christians or that that guift of interpreting which interpreteth Gods expresse words spoaken by him of supernaturall matters of purpose to declare what they are contrarie to their vsuall sense is the guift of God But if he cannot produce anie such word of God it were starke madnesse to forsake Gods expresse word and the plaine meaning thereof which besides Sacramentaries all Christians els do embrace and to follow a guift of interpretation ether vncertaine or feigned Besides Protestants do banish the guift of infallible interpretation out of the Church in saying that she may erre in matters of faith and interpretatation of Scripture why then do they in this matter pretend such a guift and oppose it against Gods expresse words Moreouer to expound words which by their owne confession are most cleare is no other thing then as S. Austin saieth to cast darknesse vpon cleare light Nether Serm. 14. de verbis Apost banish we the guift of interpretation out of the Church which neuer interpreted these words but in their natiue and vsuall sense but we denie that Heretiks haue the guift of interpreting the Scripture and affirme that their new expositiō directly contrarie to Gods words both expresse and of purpose spoaken to declare this matter and condemned by Gods Church is no interpretation but a deprauation and corruption Furthermore we reiect no interpretation which may bring light to the word but we denie that Caluins interpretation is such but rather quite extinguisheth the cleare light of the word For what greater darknesse can be cast vpon light then in expresse words spoaken of purpose to declare a matter and by which a new doctrine is deliuered a new Sacrament instituted a last will is made and which were spoaken of the Maister of trueth vnto his disciples when he was to forsake them to expound Is by Is not and Body giuen for you by A bare figure or Signe thereof And thus we haue heard what Caluin opposeth against Gods expresse word now let vs see how he would diminish the force and authoritie of the same I confesse saieth he that they haue the word A confession surely much to be esteemed especially proceeding In Act. 9. v. 21. from such an aduersarie as is accustomed to crie That Papists find no weapons for them in the Scripture But he should also haue confessed as the trueth is that Protestants haue not such a word to wit which plainely and directly denieth the Eucharist to be the bodie and blood of Christ For thereby it would haue appeared more clearelie whether Catholiks or Protestants find the better weapons in the Scripture But he addeth Yet such a word as the Anthropomorphites had when they made God to haue a bodie Yea such a word as thou or anie Christian hath when he maketh God to haue beene incarnated to haue suffered to haue risen againe and to haue ascended to heauen and as I dare say a clearer word also if the words themselues and the foresaied circunstances be considered So that Differences betwene the Cath. and the Anthropomorphites more iustly may anie Heretik who denieth the foresaied mysteries obiect to thee the example
of the Anthropomorphites then thou canst obiect it to vs in this mysterie For the Anthropomorphites in no place of Scripture had an expresse word which directly saied God hath a bodie We haue a most expresse word wherewith Christ saied most directly of that which he gaue to his Apostles This is my bodie The Anthropomorphites had no expresse word which was of purpose spoakē to tell vs what God was we haue an expresse word spoaken purposely to this end and onely to this end to tell vs what the Eucharist is The Anthropomorphites had no expresse word which anie circunstances of moment did conuince to be vnderstood in their proper sense we haue an expresse word which all circustances do confirme ought to be vnderstood in their natiue and vsuall signification The Anthropomorphites had a word but as a thing which the very light of reason did shew to be otherwise then the word did signifie we haue the word of a new thing neuer heard of before and which can no way be knowne by the light of reason but onely by the word of God Finally to omit al other differences taken from the Church Fathers and Councels the Anthropomorphites had the word of a matter which the Scripture other where most manifestly denieth we haue the word of a matter which Deuter. 4. Actor 7. Ioan. 4. the Scripture no where directly ether clearely or obsculy denieth nether the deniall thereof can any way be wroūg out of the Scripture but by adding a false humane principle and by making a deceitfull humane argument Thus manie and thus great differences are there betwene the word wherewith we make the Eucharist the bodie of Christ and the word wherewith the Anthropomorphites made God to haue a bodie as I thinke are not betwene the word which the Anthropomorphites alledged and the word wherewith anie other article of Christian faith is proued And thus much touching the first argument taken from the opposition betwixt the words of the holie Scripture and of Protestants in 260. articles and such words of the Scripture as were spoaken of purpose for to tell vs what we were to beleiue and in their open and plaine sense which they manifestly shew and in which such words vse to be spoaken and vnderstood of men which argument as a foundation of all the rest that follow shal be included in euerie one of them CHAPTER II. THAT PROTESTANTS CONFESSE that they contradict the sense of those words which the Catholik Church manie ages agoe and manie of themselues beleiue to be the words of God THE second argument wherewith we will proue that Protestants contradict the true sense of the holie Scripture we will take from their confession wherein they confesse that they contradict the sense of those words of which some of them to let passe all other proofes are acknowledged by diuers Protestants and all of them were manie ages agoe iudged by the Catholik Lutherans confesse that their doctrine is against S. Iames Epistle Church to be a parte of the holie Scripture For Luther and the Lutheran Protestants do confesse that the cheifest point of Protestancie to wit of Iustification by onelie faith doth verilie contradict the Epistle of S. Iames where he saieth Yee see that a man is iustified by workes and not by faith onely For thus writeth Luther in his Preface vpon that Epistle I iudge it to be the writing of no Apostle for this cause First because directly against S. Paul and all other Scripture it attributeth iustification to workes And in Luther saieth S. Iames doated c. 22. Gen. tom 6. fol. 282. Iames concludeth ill It followeth not as Iames doateth Therefore the fruites do iustifie let our aduersaries therefore be packing with their Iames. Melancthon de Sacris Concion to 2. fol. 23. But if they cannot be mittigated by anie exposition as those words of Iames Yee see c. these absolutely are not to be admitted Magdelburgenses Cētur 1. l. 2. c. 4. col 54. The Epistle of Iames swarueth not a litle from the analogie of Apostolik doctrine whiles it ascribeth iustification not to faith onely but to workes And Centur. 2. c. 4. col 71. The Epistle of Iames attributeth iustice to workes contrarie to Paul and all other Scriptures Schlusselburg lib. 1. Theol. Caluin art 15. fol. 50. Iames contrarie to Paul attributeth iustice to workes And tom 8. Catal. Haeret. pag. 500. he saieth of S. Iames. He fighteth directly with Paul and all the rest of the Scripture by giuing iustice before God to mans workes The same confesse Pomeranus and Vitus Theodorus cited by Coccius to 1. lib. 6. art 23. and Pappus cited by Gretser l. 1. de verbo Dei c. 18. and the same is insinuated by Hunnius de Iustific pag. 219. Wherevpon Daneus in Enchirid. Augustini c. 67. saieth It troubleth manie now a dayes so that some haue cast out the Epistle of Iames others haue called it straweish And Pareus l. 4. de Iustif c. 18. Luther could not accord Iames with Paul but by casting away the whole Epistle Beza also in Iac. 2. v. 14. Manie haue cast away this Epistle for this cause as if it were contrarie to true doctrine Nether do onelie Lutherans iudge thus of S. Iames his Epistle but also some Sacramentaries For Musculus de locis tit de Some Sacramentaries reiect Sainct Iames. Iustificat saieth That impertinentlie he alledgeth the examples of Abraham That he confoundeth the word of faith and setteth downe a sentence different from Apostolicall doctrine And ib. tit de Scriptur pa. 172. plainelie professeth that he houldeth it not for authenticall Scripture And the Confession Heluet. c. 15. saieth The same saied he Iames not contradicting S. Paul otherwise he were to be reiected And neuerthelesse commonly all Sacramentaries account S. Iames Epistle to be a parte of holie Scripture in so much as the English French and Flemish Protestants haue put it in their Confessions as a point of their faith Wherefore thus I argue in forme what contradicteth the Epistle of S. Iames contradicteth the holie Scripture The cheifest point of Protestancie touching Iustification by onely faith cōtradicteth the Epistle of S. Iames Therefore it contradicteth the holie Scripture The Maior or first Proporsition is not onely beleiued and tought of all Catholiks but also commonelie of Sacramentaries And the Minor or second Proposition is graunted by the Lutherans In like sorte all Protestants acknowledge their doctrine Protestants confesse that they teach contrarie to Machab. Tobie c. of not praying for the dead to be contrarie to those words of 2. Machab. c. 12. It is a holie and holesome cogitation to pray for the dead that they may be loose from their sinnes Wherevpon Caluin in Antidoto Concil Trident. sess 4. p. 265. saieth Out of the 2. of Machabes both Purgatorie will be proued and the Intercession of Saints out of Tobie Satisfactions Exorcismes and what not They will borrow no few matters of Ecclesiasticus
call the open and plaine sense of it into controuersie and then crie that it is the begging of the question to argue against them out of a sense which is controuerted Thus do the Protestants when we vrge against them the words of the Eucharist as yee may see in Zuinglius in Exegesi to 2. fol. 338. Ad Epistol Amici fol. 322. Caluin Admonit vlt. ad Westphal p. 805. Beza cont Westphal pag. 232. P. Martyr 1. Corint 11. fol. 158. Iuel art 5. sect 5. and others Yea sometimes they goe so farre as to say that it is a manifest abuse follie vanitie and dotage to argue against them out of the words of the Supper or Eucharist Author orthodoxi Consensus in Schlusselburg lib. 4. Theol. Caluin art 20. pag. 125. It is a manifest abuse of the words of the Supper to proue that by the words which is question or controuersie Humfre ad Rat. 2. Campiani p. 118. He will play the foole who disputeth out of this place which is in controuersie Caluin Admonit vlt. cit p. 821. Let them leaue to pretend a vaine preiudice of words of whose sense and meaning the contention is betweene vs. And in Gratulat ad Precentor p. 379. We except that it is foolishly pressed as most certaine whereof doubt is But what argument taken out of the Scriptures words can be good and strong if that which is taken out of Christs expresse words which are both cleare and of purpose spoaken to declare what the Eucharist is which what it is cannot be knowne but by his plaine words and which alone were spoaken of him to this end be a begging of the question a vaine foolish and friuolous argument onely because it hath pleased some few new Heretiks to call the cleare sense of these words into question Thirdly if they dare not say that the words which They deuise manie senses make against them haue an other sense then that which they clearely afford yet they will deuise manie senses and say that it is vncertaine in which of those senses the words are to be vnderstood and consequently that nothing can be certainely gathered of them Thus dealeth Kemnice in Exam. tit de Baptismo pag. 69. Where hauing brought manie expositions of the word Baptisme Actor 19. Whence we proue that the baptisme of Christ was different from that of S. Ihon thus at last he concludeth Nothing cā be proued out of places that are obscure ambiguous and in controuersie Indeed if those places must be counted such of which it hath pleased new Hheretiks to deuise diuers senses Let them giue the like libertie to other Heretiks and they shall see how much they will preuaile against them by any words of Scripture whatsoeuer Their fourth shift is that when the words of Scripture They will haue Gods meaning rather out of by places then out of proper which are spoaken purposely of anie matter make against them they will not haue the question to be denied by them but ether by words which are not spoaken at all of that matter or but incidently and by the way and will haue these to be the rule of expounding to others and so gather the sense of Scripture rather out of a strange place then out of the proper place Thus the Sacramentaries will haue the question of the Eucharist to be tried rather out of the 6. of S. Ihon though commonly they teach that there Christ spoake not of Eucharist or out of words which speak of Christs ascension into heauen or out of words which speake of the end of the Eucharist then out of those which purposely and which onely speake of the substance of the Eucharist Zuinglius Epist ad Matheum Rutling tom 2. fol. 153. saieth that Christ speaketh not of the Eucharist in the 6. of S. Ihon and yet frō thence taketh as he speaketh fol. 155. his Buckler and l. de relig fol. 206. his brasen wall and sheeld and fol. 215. his hard adamant Note And saieth fol. 155. cit that we must onely stick to these words Flesh profiteth nothing or as he speaketh in Exegesi fol. 336. To them before all others And as for the words of the Supper which were spoaken purposely of this matter he saieth plainely l. de relig c. de Euchar. We relie not vpon them but onely vpon this word Flesh profiteth nothing And addeth What thinke yee of this subtill deuise which forsooth relieth vpon Christes words onely And Resp ad Billican fol. 264. This dispute doth not relie vpon those words This is my bodie For we would not seeme to ground our opinion vpō these letters For that were vnlawfull See more of the like stuffe in his Apologie tom 2. fol. 371. Bullinger cited by Schluslelburg loc cit We desire our Christs words of the Euchar. are no Protest ground of that matter aduersaries that they do not as heretofore they haue done make the words of the Lords supper which are in controuersie as the foundation of their doctrine Melancthon Epist ad Frideric Elector apud Martyrem in Dial. col 112. In this controuersie of the Eucharist the best is to bould the words of Paul The bread which we breake is the communication of the bodie Peter Martyr cont Gardiner col 440. It is fond which he addeth that in the mysterie of the Eucharist we must recurre to the words of our Lord instituting it Caluin Admonit vlt. ad Westphal pag. 818. In vaine they shall crie we must goe to the fountaine And de Rat. concordiae pag. 866. There is no reason to insist vpon the essentiall verbe Is. Yee see that in the very question what the Eucharist is they say that it is fond and contrarie to reason to recurre to the words of the Institution thereof to insist in them and make them our foundation and neuerthelesse the words of the Institution are spoake purposely and that onely to tell vs what the Eucharist is but will haue vs to runne to other places where it is not spoaken at all of the Eucharist or at least not of the substance thereof This plainely sheweth that in very deed they make not the Scripture the foundation of their faith nor gather their beleife from thence Which themselues sometimes do plainely confesse For thus P. Martyr Protest gather not their faith out of the Scripture praefat lib. de Eucharist pag. 26. This is the basis strength and foundation of the opinion of the Eucharist which I haue set downe That it is proper to God to be euery where and that the condition of humane nature is to be contained in some certaine Reason groūd of Protest in the Euchar. place nor can be diffused to manie places at once Caluin 4. Instit c. 17. § 20. The reuerence of Christs words is no sufficient pretext why they should so reiect all the reasons which we obiect Author Orthodoxi Consensus in Schlusserburg lib. 1. Theol. Caluin art 23. We must not simply behould the
Caluin Actor 17. vers 11. Where he saieth that the Thessalonians did not dispute whether Gods trueth were to be receaued onely they examined Pauls doctrine according to the rule of Scripture Plainely putting a difference betwene Gods trueth and Pauls doctrine Finally Zuinglius professeth Zuinglius will not beleiue what he cannot comprehend to beleiue nothing which he cannot comprehend For thus he speaketh in Hospin Part. 2. Histor fol. 72. God doth not propose to vs things that are incomprehensible Or as Melancthon reporteth ib. fol. 82. God doth not propose to vs such things to be beleiued as can no way be comprehended And in Schlusselburg l. 4. Theol. Caluin art 9. thus professeth his more then Diuelish infidelitie Albeit God with He will not beleiue God though he sware all his blessed Angels should come from heauen and sweare that in the Supper of the Lord the bodie and blood of Christ were giuē to all that receaue it yet nether could nor would I beleiue it vnlesse I should plainely see with my eyes and feel Christ with my hands The very same he insinuateth Respons and Bellicā tom 2. fol. What I pray you differ these men from the Protest imitate the libertins Libertins of whome thus writeth Caluin in Instructione cap. 9. We already saied that these men in the beginning were wont plainely to laugh if any alledged the Scriptures nor dissembled to hould them for fables yet they forbore not to vse thē if there were anie place which they could wrest to their purpose But when they perceaued that all good men did detest such sacrilege they put on this coate vnder which now they lurk to wit they professe not to reiect the holie Scriptures but feigning to admit them wrest and change them into allegories And do not the Protestants deride the Scripture when they call the words thereof a fiue-word speach beggerly letters impotent and magicall words and when they see that all good men detest such blasphemie do they not turne thē into figures or allegories Wherefore I make this my fourth argument Who not onely in so manie and so great matters contradict the expresse words of Scripture but also in manie and great points are compelled to forsake the letter thereof to call the manifeste sense into questiō to say that it is a begging of the question to argue out of it to deuise manie new senses for to reiect a place as ambiguous and to say that the sēse of Scripture is to be gathered rather out of a strāge then out of the proper place where it is purposely handled who finally deride the very kind of arguing out of the expresse words of Scripture and openly blaspheme them they are to be thought not onely to gainsay the true sense of Scripture but also to contemne the Scripture and God himselfe But so do Protestants Therefore c. CHAPTER V. THAT PROTESTANTS SAY THAT words of Scripture which make against them were not spoaken of certaine knowledge OVR fift argument to proue that Protestants repugne to the true sense of Scripture shal be because sometimes they denie that the words which were spoaken of God of Christ of the Apostles were spoaken by them of their certaine knowledge but onely by ghesse or coniecture For if out of that saying of God Ezechielis 3. vers 6. seq For not to a people of profound speach and of an vnknowne tongue art thou sent to the house of Israel nether to manie peoples of profound speach and of an vnknowne tongue whose words thou canst not heare and if thou were sent to them they would heare the We will proue that some can be conuerted which yet will not be conuerted Contra-remonstrantes in Collat. Hagae answere This is saied not in respect God did not certainely foresee what he saied of that which God did certainely forsee in these or those but in respect of that which according to all outward shew a man might iudge Forsooth God did not certainely foresee that other people would haue heard the Prophet if he had beene sent to them as he plainely affirmeth but like a man spoake by ghesse out of the externall appearance If we proue the same out of those words of Christ Math. 11. ver 21. If in Tire and Sidon had beene wrought the miracles that haue beene wrought in you they had done pennance Nor Christ in hairecloth and ashes Caluin vpon this place telleth vs that Christ disputeth not what God did foresee to become of these or those but what some of them would haue done for so much as could be gathered by the thing And ib. in v. 33. We admonished before that Christ speaketh after a humane manner and doth not tell out of the heauenlie oracle what he had foreseene was to be if he had sent to the Sodomits And lib. 6. de lib. arbitr pag 197. It is euident that Christ would by that kind of speach no other thing thē if one now should say There is no Turk so obstinate or rebellious to God or so impious who would not haue beene conuerted if he had read seene and heard those things with which Pighius will not amended The like haue Contra-remonstrantes loc cit So that Christ did not certainely foresee that the Tyrians and Sodomites would haue repented if they had seene the like miracles and yet he plainely affirmeth it If we proue that a man may fall from grace because S. Peter 1. cap. 1. vers 9. saieth For he that hath not these Scripture speaketh not of knowledge but of charitie tbings readie is blind and groping with his hand hauing foregotten the purgation of his ould sinnes Zanchius in Summa Praelect tom 7. col 276. answereth This place is to be vnderstood according to the iudgment of charitie The same he hath in Thesibus tom 8. col 700. and Piscator in Thesibus l. 2. p. 195. Forsooth S. Peter iudged charitably but not truely that such a man as he speaketh of had beene purged from his sinnes If we proue that God would haue all men to be saued because S. Paul 1. Timoth. 2. vers 4. Who will all men to be saued Perkins lib. de Praedest tom 1. col 139. saieth Paul Likewise S. Paul speaketh in this place according to the iudgment of charitie of Christians not according to the iudgment of secret and infallible certaintie In like sorte answereth Piscator loc cit and also to Hebr. 6. vers 5. cap. 10. vers 29. Where is it saied that some reprobates were sanctified with the blood of Christ If we proue that the wicked and reprobates may be in the bodie of Christ and put him vpon them because S. Paul saieth 1. Cor. 12. ver 13. We were all baptized into one bodie Gal. 3. v. 27. As manie of you as are baptized in Christ haue put on Christ Vorstius in Antibel p. 124. answereth The Apostle speakheth there out of the iudgment of charitie which accounteth all
Which 1. As farreforth saieth that which in the words of Consecration signifieth As farreforth As saieth he the Pronoune which in those words The bread which I shall giue is my flesh which I shall giue for the life of the world Moulins in his Bucler part 2. pag. 51. saieth that those words Iacob 5. If he be in sinne they shal be forgiuen him signifie as much as health shal be restored to him all sinnes being forgiuen for which God had afflicted him And he addeth in the next page Christ doth teach vs Math. 9. Forgiuen 1. Arise that to say to the sicke Thy sinnes are forgiuen thee and to say Arise and walke are equiualent things Let then he and his fellow Mynisters say Arise and walke when they preach of remission of sinnes They expound also by disparate or quite differeÌ„t things For thus Zuinglius in Schlusselburg lib. 1. Theol. Caluin art 2. Bodie in the words of the Supper may be taken also for the Bodie 1. Churche Church Et in Ioan. 6. to 4. he saieth By which also the words of Christ wax cleare This is my bodie where Bodie is put for Bodie 1. Death Death In lib. de Relig. cap. de Euchar. to 2. Now followeth a rite whereby it appeareth that this is the sense and that Bodie here Is it not a participation of the bodie of our Lord. 1. Cor. 10. is otherwise taken then for the Symboll of his bodie to wit for the Church In lib. de Caena fol. 294. he saith that by Communication of the bodie of Christ by Communion Communion 1. Sermon Chalice 1. Our selues you may vnderstand a sermon or the Church Et 1. Cor. 10. that the sense of these words The Chalice of blessing which we blesse c. is The Cuppe of thankesgiuing with which we giue thanks what other thing I pray you is it but our selues Agayne Blood 1. Christians He calleth the blood of Christ those who trust in his blood Et in Exegesi f. 359. Flesh in this place Ioan. 6. is put for the Diuine Flesh. 1. Diuinitie Bodie and blood 1. Faith Nature In Explic. art 18. to 1. f. 37. Thou seest here Ioan. 6. that the bodie and blood of Christ is nothing els but the word of faith to wit that his bodie dead for vs his blood shed for vs redeemed vs. And in other places oftentimes saieth that the word Bodie in the words of Consecration signifieth a Figure or Symboll of Christ his bodie The same Zuinglius in Exegesi tom 2. fol. 350. thus writeth Eate 1. â—eleiue Vnlesse yee eate the flesh of the Sonne of man c. is as much as who beleiueth not to wit the Ghospell being preached shal be condemned In Ioan. 6. tom 4. To eate bread and flesh is Eate 1. Trust nothing els but to beleiue Againe To eate is to trust In Elenc fol. 30. When faith is saied to saue faith is taken for the election of God In lib. de baptis fol. 61. In the 6. of the Acts the Beleiue 1. Heare word of Beleiuing is taken for to heare the doctrine or to adioyne himselfe to the number of the beleiuers The same man Epist ad Lindouer to 1. fol. 204. Thou seest here 1. Pet. 3. Baptisme Baptisme 1. Faith hath made vs safe fiâ—st that baptisme is taken for faith In lib. de Relig. c. de Baptis to 2. fol. 201. It was cleare to him that they had beene baptized by Apollo that is taught In lib. de Baptis f. 61. We saied that baptisme was taken for the inward Baptisme Faith Baptisme 1. Doctrine faith 1. Pet. 3. Et f. 63. We must note that the words of Baptizing in these words of Paul Act. 16. is taken for doctrine Et f. 81. In what then were yee baptized must not be vnderstood of the externall baptisme of water but of doctrine and instruction In Subsidio ib. f. 254. Baptisme 1. Pet. 3. is taken for Christ when Baptisme 1. Christ he saieth that we are saued by baptisme Et in Resp ad Huber fol. 107. he addeth that Baptisme 1. Pet. 3. is taken for Christ or for the very Ghospell Moreouer l. de Baptis to 2. fol. 73. Baptisme 1. Ghospell he thus writeth They haue oftentimes learned of vs that by water in this place Ioan. 3. ought to be vnderstood the knowledge Water 1. Knowledge Keyes 1. Words of Keyes 1. Faith Keyes 1. Preaching Loose and binde 1. Preach Binde 1. Leaue in error Binde 1. Not beleiue Forgiue 1. Assure of Christ and the comfort of faith Et in Explic. art 50. to 2. f. 92. The keyes are nothing els but the pure word of God and the sincere preaching of the Ghospell In Exegesi ib. f. 258. The keyes are not other thing but faith of the Ghospell Resp ad Luther ib f. 378. It is cleare that the keyes are nothing but the preaching of the Ghospell Agayne in Explic. art 50. to 1. f. 93. We learne that in Luke to loose and binde is nothing els but to preach the Ghospell lib. de Relig. c. de Clauibus to 2. f. 191. It appeareth here that to Binde is nothing els but to leaue in error And in Schlusselb l. 1. Theol. Caluin art 9. The words of Binding and loosing signifie nothing els but to beleiue and not beleiue Perkins in Cathol ref Contr. 3. c. 3. writeth thus I answere that we doe not aske remission of sinnes because we are not certaine of it but rather because that certaintie is weake and infirme that continually indued with new grace of Christ we may dayly increase and be comforted Daneus Contr. 7. pag. 1317. Saints are saied to gouerne the Saintes 1. Christ world Apoc. 2. and 3. We graunt saieth he that the godlie both now and after death doe gouerne the wicked world in so much as Christ gouerneth it of whose kingdome they are partakers as being his members Et to 2. Contr. de Baptis c. 4. he saieth that in those wordes Vnlesse a man be borne of water and the And. 1. Oâ— holie Ghost the particle And is to be taken for the disiunctiue particle Or. Et Contr. de Euchar. c. 10. 11. he will haue the verbe Is in the words of Consecration to stand for Is. 1. Signifieth Signifieth Representeth Sealeth Rainolds in Apol. Thes p. 333. saieth that the Apostle 2. Thessalon 2. in those words Hould traditions c. by the Speach 1. Scripture word Speach comprehendeth other Scriptures or as Iuel in Defens Apol. part 2. cap. 9. sec 1. Will haue it The very substance of the Ghospell Others in Whitaker Contr. 1. q. 6. c. 10. will haue whether put for Also as Beza putteth in the very Whether 1. Also text of that place Whitaker Contr. 11. q. 5. c. 4. by Preists in those words of Preists 1. Chiefe men the psal 99. Moyses and Aaron in his preists will haue to be meant
Iustification writeth thus Sanctification by the blood of the couenaÌ„t Heb. 10. v. 29. is not the inward cleansing of the heart from sinne To receaue the holie Ghost Act. 19. v. 2. With them is not to receaue grace but some speciall guifts Caluin ibid. Here is not spoaken of the spirit of regeneration but of speciall guifts In like sorte by The holie Ghost ib. Nether haue we heard that there is a holie Ghost is not meant the holie Ghost For thus Caluin ib. How could it be that Iews had not heard of the holie Ghost Et Beza ibid. It were most absurd to thinke that they knew not that there was anie holie Ghost To be sanctified Hebr. 10. v. 29. is not to be truely sanctified For thus Contraremonstrantes in Collat. Hagae p. 391. Nether yet can it be concluded thereof that they were truely faithfull and indeed sanctified To fall from grace Gal. 5. ver 5. With them is not to fall from grace but to fall from the hope of obtaining it Contrare monstrantes loc cit p. 388. These are saied to fall from the grace of iustification not that euer they were partakers thereof but because they are excluded from al hope of obtaining it so long as they wil be iustified by the law Touching baptisme To be baptized Act. 19. v. 3. In whome Touching Baptisme then were you baptized with them is not to haue receaued baptisme but other guifts Beza ib. We must needs graunt that here is not treated of baptisme but of guifts wherewith God was wonte specially to adorne those whome he made rulers of Churches Gualâ—erus ib. hom 125. These words must not be expouÌ„ded of the baptisme of water but of the baptisme of fire Likewise Baptisme 1. Pet. 3. with them signifieth not baptisme but Christ Zuinglius resp ad Huber tom 2. It is certainely euident that Peter in that place by Baptisme vnderstandeth no other thing but Christ. Water also Ioan. 3. v. 5. Vnlesse one be borne agayne of water signifieth not water but the holie Ghost Caluin ibid. I can no way be persuaded to beleiue that Christ speaketh of baptisme And in Refutat Serueti This pertaineth nothing to baptisme but the name of water is metaphorically attributed to the holie Ghost Zuinglius vpon this place By water here he meaneth not that element but the word of God grace of God heauenlie water that is the illustration of the noâ—â—e Ghost And in the same manner other Protestants commonlie Touching the Eucharist Is in the words of consecratioÌ„ Touching the Eucharist with them is not Is but Signifieth nor Bodie giuen for vs Blood shed for vs is the true bodie and blood of Christ but onely figures of them as appeareth by what hath beene saied lib. 1. cap. 11. art 1. To eate the flesh and drinke the blood of Christ so often repeated Ioan. 6. is not to eate or drinke but onely to beleiue P. Martyr cont Gardiner part 1. col col 866. We still say that to eate to wit the flesh of Christ is nothing els then to apprehend it by faith as giuen for vs as price of our redemption Which also he hath col 863. And Luther Postil in Dom. post Natiuit To eate and drinke his flesh and To eate 1. not to eate but to beleiue blood is no other thing then to beleiue that Christ truely tooke these for our sake and repaied them agayne at death The like hath Zuinglius in Ioan. 6. and in Histor passionis and l. de Relig. c. de Euchar. Bullinger Dec. 5. serm 9. Vrsinus in Catechism q. 76. Flesh in those words of Christ Ioan. 6. My Flesh. 1. not flesh but diuinitie flesh is truely meate with them is not flesh but the Godhead Zuinglius in Exegesi to 2. fol. 333. He saieth his flesh is truely meate meaning surely not his flesh but his better nature which had taken flesh The Bodie of our Lord in those words 1. Cor. 10. The bread which we breake is it not the participation of the bodie of our Lord with these men is not the bodie of Christ 1. Christians Christ but Christians Zuinglius lib. cit Thou mights haue seene at the first how that Communion and Bodie are not taken Bodie of Christ 1. men for distribution of Christs bodie but for men themselues Finally Luther was so bould as to set downe a Canon Luthers CanoÌ„ of expounding Words by coÌ„traries of expounding the words of holie Scripture by coÌ„traries For thus he writeth in Ps 5. to 3. fol. 171. Let this be a Canon for thee Where the Scripture commandeth a good worke to be done do thou so vnderstand it that it forbiddeth thee doe good workes seing thou canst not but that thou maiest sanctifie the Lord be dead and buried and suffer God to worke in thee Which Canon Protestants do well follow as appeareth by what hath beene related in this chapter and before in the sixt and seuenth chapter where we shewed that in the weightieste matters they expounded the words of holie Scripture ironically and according to others meÌ„s mynde These and innumerable the like doe Protestants of which we might easily gather not onely a chapter but a booke full But out of these which we haue rehearsed it clearely appeareth First how great hereticall libertie as Tertullian speaketh is which turneth the words of holie Scripture this way and that way in to this forme and that and tosseth them vp and downe like tenis balls Secondly how easie it may be for euerie idiote with this libertie for to defend what heresie soeuer though neuer so contrarie to Scripture For who cannot expound the words of Scripture by diuerse by disparate and contrarie things Thirdly how impossible it is if this libertie be admitted to refute by Scripture any heresie at all or to proue anie thing by anie words whatsoeuer ether of God or man Fourthly how that Protestants by this kinde of dealing do more dishonor God and the holie Scripture then if they should quite reiect it For if they should reiect the Scripture they should onely reiect Gods word and trueth But by this manner of dealing they doe not onely reiect Gods trueth and meaning but also in steede thereof foist in the contrarie vntrueth and so as S. Hierome speaketh In Galat. â— of the word of God they make the word of the Diuel Fiftly it appeareth that these expositions of Protestants are like to that which Luther merly deuised for to shew the Sacramentaries how they expounded the words of consecration in Defens verb. cenae to 7. fol. 384. where he A fit exaÌ„ple of Protest expositions writeth thus Surely they doe a great and weightie matter But no otherwise then if I should denie that God made heauen and earth wheÌ„ one should obiect that of Moises In the beginning God created heauen and earth I should expound Moises words in this sorte God that is a Cuccou Made that is deuoured Heauen and earth
Fratres Finally Luther in Postilla domest Dom. 1. Aduentus saieth Oh sorrow The world dayly becometh worse by The world worse by Luthers doctrine this doctrine and Castalio in Caluin de Prouident These are the things Caluin which thy aduersaries reporte of thy doctrine and warne men to iudge of this doctrine by the fruits thereof For they say that thou and thy disciples carrie manie fruits of thy God that most of you are contentious reuengefull myndfull of wrong and endowed with such vices as thy God doth suggest Where thus I argue in the 27. place Whose doctrine is not onely so opposite to the expresse words of Scripture as was seene in the first booke but also taketh away encouragements to vertue yea all vertue out of the world and remoueth impediments of sinne and giueth allurements theertoe that is opposite to the true sense of holie Scripture But such is the doctrine of Protestants Therefore c. CHAPTER XXVIII THAT PROTESTANTS HAVE NO infallible interpretation of Scripture THE 28. Argument to proue that Protestants must needs contradict the true sense of holie Scripture is because they haue no sure and infallible means to attaine to the true meaning thereof But before we proue that they haue no infallible mean to come to the right sense of Scripture we must proue that Scripture at lest in some points of faith needeth some means to interpret or expound it to wit ether because no where it deliuereth some points of faith so clearely that the onely words thereof sufffice to captiuate the vnderstanding or because though some where it deliuer clearly enough some points of faith yet other where it seemeth so to teach the contrarie as without some infallible interpreter it would seeme vncertaine whether of the twoe it did teach That therefore Scripture doth not of it selfe teach That Scripture needeth an Interpreter clearely all points of faith so as it need no interpreter for that purpose I proue first out of the Scripture it selfe For the holie Eunuch did read the Scripture speaking of the passion of Christ Actor 8. and yet being asked of Philip whether he vnderstood what he read answered And how can I if none shall shew me You see that the Scripture did not clearely foretell the passion of Christ as that a pious man by the onely words thereof without an interpreter could vnderstand the meaning thereof And Luk. vlt. v. 27. And beginning from Moyses and all the Prophets he did interprete vnto them in all the Scriptures the things that were concerning him Et v. 45. Then he opened their vnderstanding that they might vnderstand the Scriptures But if Christs disciples did not vnderstand the Scriptures which spoake of him and the Apostles had need that Christ should open their vnderstanding for to vnderstād the Scriptures it is euident that the Scriptures by themselues doe not so plainely teach all matters of faith as they need no interpretation for to be rightly vnderstood of the faithfull Besides 2. Pet. vlt. it is saied that in S. Pauls epistles there are some things hard to be vnderstood And that these hard things do containe points of faith is cleare both because without cause they should be limited to other things as also because it is added that the learned and vnstable doe depraue these hard things to their owne destruction but such things are especially matters of faith Moreouer if the Scripture did so clearely teach all points of faith that for them it needed no interpreter it would follow that the guift of interpretation had beene superfluously giuen to the Church for to expound Scripture in matters belonging to faith Secondly I proue this out of the Fathers but for breuities sake I will content my selfe with one testimonie of S. Austin He lib. de Vtil cred c 7. to one that saied When I read the Scriptures by my selfe I vnderstood them thus answereth Is it so Without some skill in poetrie thou darest not read Terentian Maurus Asper Cornutus Donatus and manie more are necessarie for to vnderstand anie Poet and thou fallest vpon those bookes without a guide and darest giue thy opinion of them without a teacher Loe how plainely he saieth that we can not vnderstand the Scriptures by our selues and by how familiar an example he proueth it Thirdly I proue it by the verie cōfession of Protestāts For Protest confesse that Scripture alone sufficeth not thus writeth Whitaker Cōt 1. q. 4. c. 1. When Bellarmin maketh this to be the state of the questiō Whether the the Scripture by it selfe be so cleare as without anie interpretatiō it sufficeth of it selfe to determine and decide all controuersies of faith he fighteth without an aduersarie for surely in this point we are not against him Agayne They say that we thinke but falsely that all things in Scripture are plaine and that they without anie interpretation are sufficient to determine all controuersies without Behould how plainely he denieth that Protestants think that Scripture of it selfe without anie interpretatiō is sufficiēt to end all controuersies of faith And the like hath Iunius l. 3. de verb. Dei c. 3. When he graunteth that Scripture needeth an interpreter Kemnice 1. part Exa p. 104. It hath need of the guift and helpe of interpretatiō And the Magdeburgiās Cēt. 1. l. 2. c. 4. The Apostles thought that the Scripture cānot be vnderstood without the holie Ghost and an interpreter and the same meā all other Protestāts who admit that the Scripture is obscure or that the guift of interpretatiō is needfull for the expositiō thereof For doubtles they meane that as well of such places of Scripture wherein points of faith are deliuered as of others this Caluin 4. Inst c 17. § 25. clearely enough insinuateth where whē Catholiks obiected that they had the word of God wherein he affirmeth that the Eucharist is his bodie he answereth Indeed if they may banish the guift of Interpretatiō out of the Church Wherefore he thinketh that there is in the Church the guift of Interpretation euen for to expound Scriptures touching points of faith such as the Eucharist is Furthermore Plessie l. 3. de Eccl. c. 3. writeth that the cōtrouersie of Schisme cānot be properly decided by the Scripture because it is rather a question of fact then doctrine If therefore Scripture by it selfe can determine nether the questiō of Schisme nor yet all controuersies of faith it is manifest that the interpretation of some is necessarie and that also infallible because fallible interpretatiō is not sufficiēt to put vs out of doubt And surely Protestants must needs teach that Scripture by it selfe alone is not sufficient to decide all controuersies of faith both because els it had decided all controuersies amongst themselues or betwene anie that are not obstinate as also because scarce in anie controuersies that are betwixt vs and them Scripture doth so much as in shew directly and immediatly giue sentence for them but they haue need to