For from whence might they better draw their dreggs So plainelie he confesseth that his doctrine in the foresaied points contradicted the bookes of Machabes Tobie and Ecclesiasticus And notwithstanding S. Austin whome †Caluin 4. Instit c. 14. §. 26. Protestants account the best witnesse of antiquitie clearelie testifieth that manie ages agoe the holie Church held the bookes of Machabes for Canonicall Scripture For thus he writeth of them lib. 18. de Ciuitat c. 36. Which not Iewes but the Church holdeth for Canonicall And the like he saieth lib. 1. cont Gaudent cap. 23. Lib. de doctrin Christ c. 8. l. 2. Retract c. 4. and otherwhere Besides manie Protestantt as Caluin in Antidot cit p. 266. Whitaker Contr. 3. q. 6. c. 3. Perkins de Symbol p. 787. and also Hyperius Zanchius Lubbertus Hospinian Rainolds Feild and others alledged in the Protestants Apologie Tract 1. Sect. 3. confesse that the Councel of Carthage where S. Austin was present and subscribed thereto did reckon the bookes of Machabes in the nūber of Canonicall Scripture And to omit all other arguments drawne out of the Scripture and Fathers for the infallibilitie of the Church the Protestants themselues eftsoones confesse that the Church can discerne true Scriptures from false and that we are bound to yeeld to her iudgment For thus saieth Luther l. de Captiuit to 2. fol. 84. This indeed hath the Church that she can discerne The Church can discerne the word of God Hath authoritie to iudge the word of God from the word of men as Austin confesseth that he beleiued the Ghospell being moued by the authoritie of the Church The Confession of Wittenberg cap. de Eccles The Church hath authoritie to iudge of all doctrines And cap. de Concilijs She hath an assured promisse of the perpetuall presence of Christ and she is gouerned of the holie Ghost Melancthon Respons ad Acta Ratisbon tom 3. pag. 732. We acknowledge this authoritie of testifying the Apostolicall Scriptures or discerning the writings of the Apostles from counterfait doth agree to the true Church Caluin de vera ref p. 232. I denie not but that it is the proper office of Church to discerne true The proper office of the Church Scriptures from counterfeit Peter Martyr Praefat. 1. Epist ad Corinth We will easily graunt that the ancient Church was indued so much with the holie Ghost that by his leading and directiō they easily discerned betwene those which were proposed to them which were the true and sincere words of God and by this spirituall power they distinguished the Canon of Scriptures from apocryphall bookes And in locis Class 1. c. 6. § 6. We acknowledge the office of the Church to be that being indued with Gods Spirit she may distinguish the true and sincere bookes of holie writ from counterfeit and apocryphall Iuel in Defens of the Apologie pag. 204. The Church of God had the spirit of wisdome She hath the spirit of wisdome Can discerne true Scriptures whereby she might discerne true Scriptures from false Fulke in his Answere to a false Cathol p. 5. The Church of Christ indeed can discerne true Scriptures from false Perkins de Serm. Dom. tom 2. col 252. The Church hath the guift of iudging of greatest matters She can iudge of the booke of Scripture Hath the guift of iudging which are Canonicall which are not of the spirits of men and of their doctrines and therefore surely can iudge which companie of men is the true Church which is not Whitaker Cont. 1. q. 3. c. 1. pag. 315. We denie not that it belongeth to the Church to approue to acknowledge to receaue to promulgate to commend the Scriptures to all her children and we say that this testimonie is true and ought to be admitted of all Cap. 2. pag. 316. It is the office of the Church to iudge and discerne true sincere and right Scriptures from false counterfait and bastard And for to discharge Hath the spirit of Christ to distinguish this office she hath the Spirit of Christ by which she may distinguish trueth from lyes she knoweth the voice of her Spouse she is most iuditious and can discerne spirits Cap. 5. p. Her tradition conuinceth 322. I denie not that the Tradition of the Church is an argumēt by which it may be cōuinced which kookes are Canonicall which not Canonicall cap. 6. pag. 323. The Church hath the Spirit of God by which being taught she heareth the voice of he Spouse and acknowledgeth his doctrine cap. 7. pag. 324. Indeed we may Her authoritie cōpelleth be compelled by the authoritie of the Church to acknowledge the Canonicall Scripture I say as I often saied before that we are compelled by the authoritie of the Church to beleiue these bookes to be Canonicall And cap. 9. pag. 326. We graunt with Ireney A sound demonstration that the authoritie of the Church is a sound and breife demūstration a posteriori of Canonicall doctrine And l. 1. de Scriptura c. 1. sect 9. he affirmeth that the testimonie of the Church ought to be receaued and who receaueth it not is guiltie of sacriledge And lib. 2. cap. 4. sect 4. p. 227. I say the testimonie of the Church is sufficient to refute and conuince those who thinke amisse of the Scriptures The like he hath ib. p. 218. 228. and and other where often Out of which confessions of Protestants of the authorite and power of the Church to discerne and distinguish true Scripture from false we may thus argue It belongeth to the Church yea it is her function and proper office to discerne true Scriptures from false she hath that she can distinguish the word of God from the word of man she is taught of the holie Ghost indued with Gods Spirit hath the guift of iudging the spirit of wisdome for to discerne by her tradition it may be conuinced which bookes are Canonicall which not by her authoritie we may be compelled to acknowledge the Canonicall Scripture her authoritie is a sound demonstration of Canonicall doctrine her testimonie ought to be receaued of all and who receaueth it not is guiltie of sacriledge But this holie Church manie ages agoe hath iudged the bookes of Machabes to be Canonicall Therefore they are such The Maior or first Proposition is the confession of Protestants now rehearsed and the Minor is confirmed by the foresaied testimonie of S. Austin and the confessions of the forenamed Protestants And howsoeuer Protestants The Cath. aduantage ouer Protest will delude this argument they must needs confesse that Catholiks haue the aduantage of them in that Protestāts produce no testimonie which forceth Catholiks to reiect anie booke which anie Father testifieth to haue beene anciently held of the Church for Canonicall as Catholiks produce the testimonie of S. Iames which maketh the Lutherans to reiect his epistle which other Protestants confesse to be Canonicall and an other testimonie out of the bookes
of Machabes which forceth all Protestants to reiect those bookes which S. Austin and other do witnesse to haue beene anciently held of the Church for Canonicall Wherefore let this be one argument Who not onely in manie and weightie articles do contradict the expresse words of holie Scripture and those spoakē of purpose that we might know the true meaning thereof touching those articles but also are forced to reiect manie bookes of Scripture whereof some euen manie of themselues and all of them the holie Church manie ages since hath iudged to be partes of the holie Scripture those contradict the very true sense of Scripture But Protestants doe so Therefore they contradict the true sense of Scripture CHAPTER III. THAT PROTESTANTS ARE FORCED to vse violence to the text of that parte of Scripture which they receaue IN the former chapter we saw how Protestants were forced to reiect a good parte of the holie Scripture now we shall see how they deale with that parte which they seeme to admit by adding to it by detracting from it by changing some words by calling others in doubt by false translating some by changing the order of others and such like dealings And let the Reader note What falsifications of Scripture are here touched that whereas Protestants corrupt the words or sense of holie Scripture for twoe ends whereof the one is that it may seeme to make for them the other is that it may not seeme to make against them I will in this and the next chapters relate onely their fashions of corrupting the Scripture that it may not seeme to make against them because these make more to my purpose which is to shew that Protestants contradict the true sense of the holie Scripture And by that which shal be saied of this their manner of corrupting it will easily be gathered what their other manner of corrupting Scripture is Let him also note that I intend not to bring all the examples of Protestants corrupting Scripture in anie kind whatsoeuer but onely so manie as may suffice to proue that they vse to corrupte Scripture in such sorte For as Tertullian obserued l. Praescript c. 38. Who meane to teach new doctrine are forced by necessitie to alter the instruments of doctrine Et c. 17. Heresie if it admit anie Scripture doth change it by addition and detraction for to serue her turne Wherefore because these words of the Apostle Rom. They adde to the text 11. v. 32. For God hath concluded all things into incredulitie that he may haue mercie on all do proue that God hath a will to haue mercie an all Beza twise addeth to the text the Pronoune Them in this manner For God hath concluded all them in obstinacie that he might haue mercie on all them Lest the Apostle should seeme to speake simply of all and not of the elect onely as Beza would Because those words Rom. 2. v. 27. And that which of nature They adde is prepuce fulfilling the law shall iudge thee who by the letter and circumcision art a preuaricatour of the law Proue that some do fulfill the law Beza addeth twise the particle If in this sorte If it fulfill the law And so of an absolute proposition maketh a conditionall The same doth Caluin the Kings and Queen Elizabeths Bible and the French Geneua Bible of the yeares 1562. 1568. 1605. and 1610. Because those words of the Apostle ad Philemon v. 14. They adde But without thy counsaill I would do nothing that thy good might be not as it were of necessitie but voluntarie proue good workes to be voluntarie and not done necessarily the French Bibles An. 1605. and 1610. adde this particle As and make the Apostle to say But as voluntarie The Kings Bible for voluntarie hath willingly Because those words Tit. 5. v. 3. According to his mercie he hath saued vs by the lauer of regeneration and renouation of the holie Ghost proue that Baptisme concurreth to worke our saluation the French Bibles An. 1562. 1568. 1605. and 1610. take away those words He hath saued vs and put them in the former verse where they make not so much against them The Kings Bible putteth a comma betwixt He hath saued vs and By the lauer c. Lest the Apostle should seeme to say that God worketh our saluation by baptisme and as Catholiks teach and not onely signifie it thereby as Protestants would Because those words 2. Pet. 1. v. 10. Wherefore brethren labour They take from the text that by good workes you may make sure your vocation and election proue good workes to be necessarie to saluation and to breed assurance thereof Luther in his Dutch Bible and in his Commentarie vpon that place tom 5. blotteth out those words By good workes And so doth the Kings Bible Beza Tremellius and other Schioppius also in Ecclesiastico c. 12. writeth that Luther in his Bible left out those words Mark 11. v. 26. If so be that you will not forgiue nether will your Father that is in heauen forgiue you your sinnes Which teach that our good workes are necessarie to remission of sinnes Because the verbe Is in the words of the institution of They change the words of the text the holie Eucharist do proue that it is the bodie and blood of Christ the Protestants of Zurich in their Dutch Bibles haue changed is into this verbe Signifieth as Schlusselburg l. 2. Theol. Caluin c. 6. witnesseth that he hath seene and read Yea Zuinglius l. de ver relig c. de Euchar. to 2. was so audacious as to write thus Thus hath Luke which Euangelist onely we will alledge This signifieth my bodie which is giuen for you For as he saieth l. de Caena tom 2. fol 274. If Is be put substantiuely we must needs confesse that the true substance of the true fllesh as Christ is present in the supper And Respons ad Billican tom 2. fol. 261. If you take Is substantiuely then the Papists haue wone A goodly excuse surely for to corrupt the holie text For if it must be corrupte it must be done for to vp hould heresie But this corruption of Scripture is so great and so manifest as Schlusselburg l. cit saied iustly This onely corruption of the words of the Sōne of God ought to driue all men from the companie and impietie of Caluinists Because the words Benediction and we do blesse in that They change speach of S. Paul 1. Corinth 10. The Cuppe of benediction which we do blesse c. do insinuate that the wine in the Cuppe ought to be blessed Zuinglius l. de Caena tom 2. fol. 294. saieth The words of Benediction and blessing ought not to be vsed in this place For commonely they vse to be taken for the word of Consecration And 1. Corinth 5. to 4. thus he writeth Thus are the words The Cuppe of thanks giuing wherewith we giue thanks is it not c. And in like sorte he hath l.
A CONFERENCE OF THE CATHOLIKE AND PROTESTANTE DOCTRINE WITH THE EXPRESSE WORDS OF HOLIE SCRIPTVRE WHICH IS THE SECOND PARTE OF THE Prudentiall Balance of Religion VVHEREIN IS CLEARELY SHEWED THAT IN MORE then 260. points of controuersie Catholiks agree with the holie Scripture both in words and sense and Protestants disagree in both and depraue both the sayings words and sense of Scripture WRITTEN FIRST IN LATIN BVT NOW AVGmented and translated into English ACTS IV. VERSE XVII IF IT BE IVST IN THE SIGHT OF GOD TO heare you rather then God iudge yee S. Athanasius Apol. de Fuga WHAT MVST WE STICK TO TO GODS words or these mens Fables AT DOWAY By the widdowe of MARKE WYON at the signe of the Phenix M.DC.XXXI The argument of the first booke VVHo in more then 260. points of controuersie speake with the holie Scripture in the very selfe same or equiualeÌ„t words when it speaketh of those matters expressely and of purpose and in that sense also which the words of Scripture of themselues without anie exposition of man do afforde and in which sense such words vse to be spoken and vnderstood of men they touching those points agree both in words and meaning with the holie Scripture And who speake of those points both in such words and sense as are contrarie to the foresaied words and sense they in those points disagree both in words and sense from the holie Scripture But Catholiks doe that and Protestants this Therefore c. The Maior semeth to be manifest by it selfe and is largely proued in the second booke Cap. 1. The Minor is shewed to the eye in all the first booke The argument of the second Booke VVHo not onely in more then 260. points of controuersie disagree from the foresaied words and sense of Scripture but also are forced openly to reiect some of the words thereof to blot out some to call others in question to change the order of others to change almost all kinds of the Scriptures speaches to expound her words by quite different and plaine contraries to reiect the vnanimous exposition of holie Fathers to confesse that some of their opinions were long since condemned for heresies that some are blasphemous and playne contrarie to Scripture such contradict not onely the words but also the true sense of Scripture But Protestants doe thus Therefore c. The Maior is manifest by it selfe and the Minor shewed to the eye in the second Booke APPROBATIO HOc opus cui titulus Collatio doctrinae Catholicorum ac Protestantium cum expressis sacrae scripturae verbis duobus libris comprehensa Latino serm one olim editum à duobus S. Theol. Doctoribus Parisiensibus approbatum nunc verò auctum in Anglicum sermonem fideliter conuersum nihil habet fidei Catholicae aduersum aut bonis moribus sed plurimum valet ad confutationem doctrinae haereticorum praesentis temporis proinde rectè praeli beneficio in lucem edetur Datum Duaci die 2. Ianuarij 1631. GEORGIVS COLVENERIVS S. Theol. Doctor eiusdem Regius ordinarius ac primarius Professor insignis Ecclâ—siae Collegiatae S. Petri Praepositus Canonicus Duacen sis Academiae Cancellarius librorum Censor THE PREFACE TO THE READER WHEREIN THE SCOPE MANNER OF PROCEDING AND PROFIT OF THIS BOOKE IS DECLARED REQVISITE TO BE READ BEFORE THE BOOKE THERE are now diuers years Gentle Reader since I published the first parte of the Prudential Balance of Religion in which by the weights of Prudence and Right Reason I weighed together the Catholik and Protestant religion according to their first Founders in our English nation to wit S. Austin and Martin Luther which booke hath neuer since bene answered by anie Protestant albeit diuers ministers and superintendents haue carped at it both in Pulpits and printed books shewing thereby that they wanted no will to answere it if they could haue performed it In the preface thereof I promised a second parte in which I would after the same manner weigh the forsaied religions according to their claimes to the holie Scripture and the expresse words thereof which here now I offer vnto thee The causes why I haue so long differred the publishing of this second parte are well enough knowne to them who know me and not needfull to be known of them who know me not And therfore I will not trouble thee with the rehearshall of them but here propose vnto thee the scope manner of Proceding and Profits of this second parte 2. As a man consisteth essentially of a Soule and Bodie and can neither be nor be imagined without them both So the true Church of Christ essentially consisteth Two things wholy necessarieto Christs Church of his true Doctrine which is the forme and as it were the soule of his Church and of lawfull Pastors and People who teach and embrace his Doctrine which Pastors and People make as it were the bodie of Christes Church And without both these partes to wit Christs true Doctrine and true Pastors teaching and People embracing it Christs true Church can no more be or imagined to be then a true man can either be or imagined to be without both the true bodie and true soule of a man And albeit the manifest need of both these partes to the true Church of Christ doth enforce Protestants to make some clame to them both and to pretend that they haue alvaies had both true Pastors who taught and People who beleiued their Doctrine yet their pretense to this parte of the Church is so weake and slender as but seldome and vpon mere necessitie they insist thereon But their greatest pretense and claime is to the true Doctrine of Christ and think thereby to proue that they haue alwaies had true Pastors and People who taught and beleiued their Doctrin as I haue shewed in a Booke of the Author of the Protestant Church and Religion wherein also I haue conuinced by ten Demonstrations all taken out of the open Confessions of the best learned Protestants both of England and other Countries that they neuer had anie one Pastor who taught or man who beleived the very fundamentall and most substantiall points of their religion before Luther arose but that he was first Author Inuentor and Father therof as some of them in plaine termes do call him 3. And although this Booke haue bene now these manie years published both in Latin and English and doth by the open confessions of the best learned Protestants ouerthrow the very foundation of their Church or rather shew that it hath no foundation at all besides their owne imagination yet hitherto no Protestant hath made anie shew of a solid answere vnto it I saie no shew of a why D. Prideaux lecture is no answer to the Author of Protest religion solid answere because that florish which Doctor Prideaux the Kinges diuinitie Reader in Oxford hath made in a lecture deserueth not the name of shew or shadow of an answer First because
at all For what need she help of others to declare her meaning who clearly declareth it her self And vndoubtedly if in any place she clearly declareth her meaning she doth it in those places in which she speaketh both clearly and of set purpose for to expresse her meaning But if by her self she doe not clearly declare her meaning in matters in controuersie without some help of man especially without the help of one of the opposite parties who contend about her meaning certainly she is A iudge must be able by himself to declare his mynd not fitt to be the onely iudge of controuersies as Protestants would haue her For who will saye that she alone is fitt to be iudge who alone and by her self is not able to vtter clearly her mynd Besids if the pure word of God may not iudge according to the pure sense which of it self it clearly yeeldeth but according to a different nay quite opposite sense which being conferred expounded wrested by man it is forced to yeeld who shall assure vs that Gods sense and not the sense of man whose and not Gods that conference inference and wresting is is made Serm. 14. de verb. Apost Tractat. 2. de Cant. c. 17. L. 6. cont Iulian c. 5. L. 2. de Baptismo c. 6. iudge of controuersies Let mens ghesses saieth S. Austin giue place for a time let vs take in hand diuine weapons Againe This is humane inference not dinine authoritie The arguments which you bring are humane these are diuine munitions And otherwhere let vs not bring false scales with which we may weigh what we will and how we will and saye as we please This is heauie This is leight But let vs bring the diuine scale of the holie Scripture and in that let vs weigh which is heauiest or rather let not vs wheigh it but let vs aknowledg it weighed of God Let vs set aside a while mens ghesses or imaginations of the conference or exposition of this or that place of Scripture let vs not bring deceitfull scales of mans conference inference or exposition of Scripture with which we may weigh what we will and how we will saying according as we please This is the meaning That is not the meaning This followeth That followeth not This is true that is false againe all which we may oppose those words of S. Austin This is mans inference mans conference mans exposition mans ghesse not diuine authoritie and let vs bring the diuine and sure scale of the pure meaning of Gods pure word and in that let vs weigh the doctrin of both partes or rather let vs acknowledge that which is weighed and allowed by God him self in this his scale Moreouer if mans help be necessarie to Scripture for the conference and expositiō of the places therof or inference of that which is to be inferred out of them so that without mans help it can not sufficiently decide questions of faith I aske of Protestants what men these must be whether we or they or some third who nether are Catholiks nor Protestants Sure I am they will nether admit ours nor other mens expositions of Scripture for their iudge and I think they wil be ashamed to exact of vs that we should admit their interpretatiō especially sith they refuse the conference inference and exposition of the holy Councells and Fathers Wherfore vnles they will stand to Protestants must be tried by the natiue and vsual sense of he words or thy no sense that sense of Scripture which is no way partial to wit which the Scripture it self by it self without any conference or exposition of man giueth they can name no sense of Scripture which both parties may admit for their iudge and to refuse all sense of Scripture whervpon both parties may reasonably agree is plainly to refuse all reasonable triall by scripture For seing the soule and kernel of the Scripture is the sense therof and that the letter or words is but the shell or bark of it as is euident and both holie Fathers and Protestants agree manifest it is that whosoeuer will not reasonably agree vpon any sense of the Church Councells or Fathers where it is spoken of set purpose to declare Gods meaning of it self without any mans exposition and according to the vsual vnderstanding of men it doth afford rather then the quite contrarie sense which by the wresting of Protestants it is compelled to carrie Let but this right reason and true prudence lift vp this Balance wherein I weigh the Doctrin of Catholiks and Protestants according to holie Scripture in more then 260. points and I nothing doubt but it will clearly see and iudge the Catholik doctrin agreable to Scripture and the Protestant quite opposite and contrarie And this is my purpose Scope and butte in this 1. The Scope of the first booke And of the second booke to which I adde a second wherin I manifestly shewe that Protestants Doctrin is not onely quite opposite in more then 260. points both in words and meaning to the holie Scripture but also that they are forced to reiect many and great partes of the Scripture to alter that parte which they admit to weaken all force of Scripture to say that much of the Scripture was not spoken of certaine knowledge or not according to the meaning of the speaker to teach that most weightie sentences of the Scripture were spoken ironically mimetically and hyperbolically to change the most vniuersall propositions of the Scripture into particulers to limitate speeches not limited by the Scripture to alter absolute speeches into conditionall to make causall propositions not causall to expound words in some sorte which were spake simply The contents of the second booke which were spaken of one time to interprete them of an other to make one saying of many to vnderstand words that signifie the doing of a thing of an endeauour to doe it which signifie working a thing of the way or meane therto which signifie that a thing is to expound that it ought to be words which signifie a true thing to expound them of a shew or apparent thing to expound the words of Scripture of different yea wholy diuerse contrarie matters to deuise improprietes and all figures of speeches to feigne friuolous and neuer before heard of distinctions to reiect the exposition of the Fathers Councells and Church to confesse that they teach Doctrin damned in ould time for heresie to frustate the ends of the incarnation and passion of Christ to take out of the world all vertue and giue free scope to all vice and finally to confesse that much of the Protestant doctrin is contrarie to holie Scripture All which clearly shewe that Protestant leaders doe not onely teach doctrin contrarie to the Scripture but also do in very deed mock and contemne it 8. The manner of my proceeding is this First I deuide Manner of proceeding in this booke the matters which are in controuersie
faith is grounded onely vpon mens authoritie and all their doctrin forsouth vpon the expresse Scripture and word of God and In c. 1. Galat. In Assert art 2. thereby draw the simple people to follow them The Pope faieth Luther hauing no Scripture wherewith to defēd himself vseth this onely and perpetuall argument against vs. The Church the Church Agayne Our opinion is deliuered by these words of God the contrarie by the words of men And otherwhere All the Scripture standeth an our sides through all letters and tittles Caluin Papists find no weapons in Scripture yea they In Actor 9. v. 22. In Antid sess 6. c. 8. see it wholy against them Agayne I haue the whole Scripture on my side And Sadeel Our doctrin doth relie vpon the expresse worde of God And in an other place we professed in the fift article of our French Confession that our faith is onely and wholie and expressly grounded vpon the word of God as it is contained De vocat Ministr Ad art 1. abiurat in the Scripture Fulk in Ioan. 5. note 2. Papists can not find a iote of Poperie allowed ether by expresse wordes of the Scripture or by necessarie cōclusiō out of the same And the like most vaine pretence this most impudent boast is most Apol. Anglic p. 20. Pareus praefat lib. de Grat. Caluin epist 193. Whitak praefat ad Demonst manifestly refuted in this booke wherein is clearly shewed that the Catholik doctrin in more then 260. points denied by Protestants is in expresse termes and most directly taught and deliuered by the Scripture and in the same points the Protestants doctrin condemned and that these in very deed do relie vpon their owne inferences out of Scripture their owne conferences of places of Scripture and oppose their owne expositions glosses tropes and figures against the expresse words and thunders of almightie God 14. The sixt commoditie is that though some obstinatly will not confesse that in all these 260. points or in most of them the Scripture or word of God doth expresly approue the Catholik doctrin and condemne the Protestant yet this he can not denie but in all these points the holie Scripture both for word and for sense fauoureth more the Catholik doctrin then the Protestant which if ignorant Protestants would mark they would not be so easily misled For as for words in all these 260. points we Catholiks aduantage ouer Protestants For words of Scripture vse the very same or equiualent words with the Scripture what she calleth faith we call faith what she calleth the bodie of Christ we call the bodie of Christ And so in others whereas Protestants do the quite contrarie as hath beene touched before and shall appeare in the whole booke And as for the forme of speach where the Scripture For phrase of Scripture affirmeth we affirme where the Scripture denieth we deny And contrarie wise the Protestants affirme where the Scripture denieth and deny where the Scripture affirmeth as shal be most euident to him that will read this booke Besids no parte or parcell of the Scripture forceth For partes of Scripture Catholiks to denie it but they hould all that Protestants account for Scripture and some what more whereas Protestāts are compelled to reiect manie bookes of those which Catholiks and the holie Church heretofore hath beleeued to be Gods word and fouly also to mangle and corrupt these bookes which they admit Moreouer Catholiks refuse no authenticall edition or translation of the For translations of Scripture Scripture but Protestants will sland to no translation And thus much touching the words of Scripture As for For the sense of Scripture the sense thereof Catholiks in all these 260. points do admit that sense which the expresse words of Scripture and they spoaken of purpose to declare Gods mynd doe of them selues proporse which sense Protestants reiect and force the quite contrarie Agayne scarce in any of these 260. articles Catholiks are driuen to any answere which hath any shew of a shift or euasion because in them as I saied they embrace the natiue and proper sense of the words of Scripture but Protestants in euerie one of them are driuen to sundrie and foule shifts because they refuse the naturall and plaine sense of Gods word Besids Catholiks in all these 260. points dare stand to the iudgment of the expresse worde of God according to that sentence which of them selues with out all helpe force or pressing of Catholiks they doe pronounce Protestants dare not in these articles stand to the iudgment of Gods expresse worde vnles they may wrest wring and interprete it as they thinke best Finally Catholiks in none of all these questions reiect that sense of Scripture which is deliuered by vnanimous consent of the holie Fathers Councells or Church Protestants refuse it in manie Seing therefore Catholiks haue the aduantage ouer Protestants not onely for Fathers Councells Church miracles the like but also that they haue such and so great aduantages ouer them in more then 260. points of controuersie both for the expresse worde and plaine sense of the Scripture it is plaine willfulnes and carelesnes of saluation to leaue Catholiks for to follow Protestants I would to God that Protestants would as they pretend follow the expresse word of God and embrace that Religion Note which the expresse word of God most fauoureth reiect that which it most disliketh and enquire diligently whether the Catholik or Protestant religion can in more points of controuersie proue her doctrin by the pure and expresse written word of God without the mixture of any word of man and by the pure sense therof which of it self it affordeth without any help or exposition of man when it is spoaken of purpose to declare Gods meaning vnto vs. Let that religion florish and be embraced which in this conflict ouercomet let that perish and be reiected which is ouercomen And what more reasonable then to preferre Gods pure word before that which is not pure mixt partely of Gods words partely of mans What more reafonable then to preferre Gods direct speech before mans inference or collection out of his speech What more reasonable then to follow rather Gods expresse words then mans glosses tropes and figures And finally what more reasonable then to follow that religion which in more then 260. points of controuersie is grounded vpon the pure word the direct word the expresse word of God and hath against it nothing but mans mixt word mans inference mans glosses rather then that which in all those points is condemned by the pure direct and expresse word of God and supported onely by mans mixt word mans inference and mans glosses For example That the Eucharist is the bodie of Christ we haue for vs in foure places of Scripture the pure direct and expresse word of God saying This is my bodie and against vs there is not so much as once any pure word of God
words wherewith here or there it signifieth this or that thing As for example it is a farre greater matter to deny the Eucharist to be the bodie of Christ which the Scripture often times plainly affirmeth then not to call it bread as some times the Scripture doth but neuer directly saieth that it is bread Wherevpon Spalatensis l. 5. de repub c. 6. writeth thus It is one thing for a seeming thing to be called by the name of the true thing which the appearence doth shew An other to be said This is that The first may and is borne withall in all equiuocall termes but not the latter Wherefore let him omit these kinds of matters Fiftly let him shew that Catholiks haue done thus not by the way treating of other matters but of set purpose as Protestants haue done who most often then contradict the Scripture in plaine termes euen then when they answere it or comment vpon it Lastly let him shew that Catholiks haue beene forced for the maintenance of their doctrin to denie so many bookes to corrupt so many places of holie Scripture to deuise so many and so incredible shifts as we haue shewed the Protestants haue done or let him be ashamed to say that Catholiks are as faultie in this kind as Protestants be Moreouer though they could proue that some Catholiks haue bene as faultie herein as they are which they can neuer proue yet that would nothing preiudice the Chatholik Church because her faith is not the doctrin of one or of many Catholiks but the common of them all But the Protestant faith is in many points the doctrin of some or of manie of them euerie one of them making that a point of faith which him self gathereth out of Scripture whether his fellows beleeue it or no. Besids the Catholik Church if she find anie thing in the writinges of her children contrarie to holie Scripture she nether alloweth nor dissembleth it but commandeth it to be blotted out as is euident by the Expurgatorie Indices but the Protestant ether approueth or dissembleth the errors of her writers and so maketh them her owne VVhy all CoÌ„tradictioÌ„s here related may be abiected to the Prot. Church 19. The fourth scruple may be that all the CoÌ„tradictions against holie Scripture which are here rehearsed out of Protestant writers were not made nor allowed of all Protestants or of their Church and therefore all of them are not to be imputed to all ProtestaÌ„ts or to their Church I answere First that very many of the Contradictions against holie Scripture here set downe are found in their Confessions of faith and in other writings set forth in their common name which Contradictions are most iustly attributed to their Church and these alone suffice to shew that the very faith and common doctrin of Protestants is directly opposite both to the word and sense of holie Scripture Secondly almost all these Contradictions are taken out of the writings of the first the chiefest and famousest teachers guides and leaders of Protestants and therefore ether Protestants must acknowledge these Contradictions or reiect the doctrin of their first and chefest Maisters as directly contrarie to Gods word Thirdly all the Contradictions or Antitheses here produced are taken out of famous writers and mainteiners of the Protestant faith whose doctrin the Protestant Church hath not publikly condemned nor compelled the Authors thereof to recall it nor commanded it to be taken out of their writings and therefore if not by publike consent yet by silence and dissembling approueth it and so as I saied before maketh it her owne Fourthly Protestants obiect to the Catholik Church whatsoeuer any Cotholik writer though neuer so obscure hath written why then may not we better obiect vnto their Church what many and the most famous of their writers haue published Finally my intention in this workes not to shew the Contradictions of this or that Protestant man or Church against the holie Scripture but of the Protestants in generall especially of the cheefest and most famous But whether the Contradictions of Scripture made by And though they could not yet that would suffice many and famous Protestant writers and not condemned but dissembled by their Church be to be obiected to their Church or no these points ensuing will suffice to my purpose First that the commun fairh of Protestants is in many and weightie articles directly contrarie to the expresse word and cleare meaning of holie Scripture as is euident by that which in diuers articles I recite out of their Confessions of faith and other their common writings The second is that touching many other matters that self same doctrin which I cite out of other Protestants is conteined in their Confessions of faith though it be not deliuered there in termes so expresly opposite to the words of holie Scripture as it is by other Protestants The third is that much of that Protestant Doctrin which here if cite as opposite to holie Scripture is in very deed the common beleef of Protestants albeit it be not inserted in their Confessions The fourth point is that those Protestants whose words I alledge knew the common Apol. Anglic Cont. 2. q. 5. c. 8. L. 3. de Eccles c. 42. doctrin of Protestants as well as anie who now will denie or reiect that doctrin The fift is that Iuel Whitaker Feild and diuers other Protestants auouch that there is no materiall difference in doctrin amongst the cheefe ProtestaÌ„ts which ether they must confesse to befalse or maintaine the doctrin which here I cite out of their cheefest writers The sixt point is that housoeuer the doctrin which I cite is not in all points the Doctrin of this Protestant man or Church yet it is as I saied Protestant doctrin taught and maintained by famous Protestants such as our English Protestants hould communion withall and account them their brethreÌ„ in Christ And therefore ether let theÌ„ defend their doctrin or refuse their coÌ„munion The seuenth point is that whether all or most of the Protestant doctrin which here I cite as opposite to holie Scripture be the coÌ„mon doctrin or beleefe of ProtestaÌ„ts or no this alone would suffice to my purpose that the doctrin of the first chefest and famousest Protestant preachers and leaders is in more then Note 260. points of controuersie quite opposite to the expresse words of holie Scripture For thereby euerie one may see that the first cheefest ProtestaÌ„t preachers did not teach the word of God but the word of the Diuel quite contrarie thereâ—o were not ministers of the word of God but ministers of the Diuel not Reformers but Deformers not sent of God but thrust on by the Diuel not lightned from heaune but blinded from hel not Apostles but Apostatas not Pastores but wolues who vnder a most false pretence of the word of God did most directly impugne it drew Cristians from Gods truth to the Diuels lies from the lap of the Catholik
pastors as is shewed in the saied booke c. 2. cit and Caluin in Ezechiel c. 3. v. 9. saieth that Papists chalenge the name of the Church because they pretend a continuall succession And indeed saieth he we are forced to confesse that they haue the ordinarie ministerie And who can denie but the true Pastors of Gods Church are true owners of Gods worde which they haue authoritie to preach Thereby they confesse that Catholiks are true possessors of the holie Scripture For thus writeth Luther to 2. Germ. fol. 279. cited by Scarpius in Eccles c. 6. VVe confesse that vnder Poperie are manie Christian goods yea all Christian good and that it came from thence to vs. Namely we confesse that in Poperie is true holie Scripture true baptisme true office of preaching true Sacrament of the altar true keyes to forgiue sinnes true Catechisme Nay I say that in Poperie is true The kernell of Christianitie in Poperie Christianitie yea the very kernell of Christianitie and manie great Saintes And Hall Chalmeley and Batterfeild graunt that Luther wrote thus and seeme to allow it Luther also to 6. in c. 28. Genes saieth we confesse that Papists haue the Church because they haue baptisme absolution the text of the Ghospel and there are manie godlie men amongest them The eight proofe shal be from the Confession of such 8. title Confession of strangers as nether are Catholiks nor Protestants For as Vorstius writeth in Antibell p. 181. Iewes Turkes and Pagans do think that the Christian religion consisteth cheefly in Poperie And Whitaker Cont. 2. q. c. 2. No other famous Church can be named in these latter times which was thought to be the Church and was called the Church but the Roman Church Nether let anie think that such as want faith can not be sufficient iudges in this matter For albeit they be not sufficient iudges in the question of the trueth of doctrin yet are they sufficient in question of facte as this is And in this Ioseph lib. Antiq. Euseb l. 7. c. 24. sorte the Heathens in the time of the ould law iudged betwene the Iewes and the Samaritans and in the time of the Ghospel betwene the Catholiks and the Samosatenians And as Christians can iudge what kind of Mahometans are the true owners of the Alcoran though they think not the Alcoran to conteyne true doctrin So may Infidels iudge what kinde of Christians be true owners of the Ghospel though they beleeue not the Ghospel to be the worde of God The ninth proof may be taken from the agreement of 9. title Agreement with Scripture the Cath. doctrin both in words and sense with the holie Scripture as shall appeare in this booke Which proofe though taken alone doe not conuince that Catholiks are true owners of the Scripture yet in conuinceth that they are true owners rather then Protestants who so farre disagree from the Scripture both in words and sense The tenth proofe shal be that Protestants against these 10. title weaknes of Protest Proofes so manie and so forcible proofes for the Catholiks can bring no other proofe for their right to Scripture then that they haue the true doctrin of Scripture Which argument taken alone is as I shewed at large in my saied booke De Authore c. lib. 2. c. 15. a fond Sophisme or Foularie First because Schismatiks haue the true doctrin of Scripture as I there proued by reason by the testimonie of holie Fathers and the confession of Protestants and yet are no true owners of the Scripture because they are no true mēbers of the Church as I there also proued Secondly for Protestants to proue that they be true owners of the Scripture because they haue the true doctrin thereof is to proue one vnknowne and false thing by an other as vnkowne and false Which is not to proue at all because all proofe must be from a thing more knowne Thirdly they nether proue that they haue the doctrin of the Scripture by expresse words of Scripture for these are quite against them as shal be shewed in this booke nor by plaine inference out of the words of Scripture as appeareth by the Catholiks answers vnto all their proofes nor finally they haue proued any thing before a lawfull iudge but all their proofes are such as euerie Heretike maketh Besides if truth of doctrin doe proue true right to Scripture it farre more maketh for Catholiks and no more for Protestants then for anie other Heretiks Out of all which hath beene saied in this Chapter it is most euident that if the light of reason may be iudge in this matter Catholiks must needs be counted the true owners of the holie Scripture because they haue all the foresaied Titles then the which both fewer and weaker would make a claime to worldlie matters out of all question of all which Protestants can pretend none but the last Secondly it is euident that if Catholiks be the true If Cath. be true owners of the Scripture all controuersies are ended owners of the Scripture the sacred testament of Christ they are also true owners of the holie Sacraments of the keyes of heauen to binde and loose sinnes of the means of saluation and of all the goods which Christ hath by his will and testament bequeathed to his Church For vndoubtedly all these things pertaine to them to whome Christs testament doth belong Thirdly it is euident that if Catholiks be true owners of the Scriptures Protestants be vniust vsurpers of them as Iewes Turkes and Infidels are and haue no more right to keep or vse them against Catholiks then theeues haue to vse true mens goods or weapons against them For cleare it is that Catholiks and Protestants are opposite Churches as I haue shewed in the foresaied booke De Authore lib. 1. c. 2. and lib. 2. c. 6. and that one of them is a false Church whereas the Scriptures were giuen and belong to one onely Church Wherefore we may well say to Protestants as Tertullian de Prescript c. 37. saied to Heretiks of his time VVho are you when and whence came you what doe you in mine being not mine By what right Marcion Luther doest thou fell my woods By what licence Valentin Caluin doest thou turne away my water By what authoritie Apelles Zuingle doest thou charge my bounds It is my possession what doe you strangers here sow and feed at your pleasure And the same say we to Protestants Let them first shew what right they haue to Scriptures before they argue out of them let them render vs our weapons or shew what iust title they haue to them before they fight with them against vs. For as the same Tertull. saieth c. 15. Here we first stop them that they are not to be admitted to anie dispute of Scriptures VVe must see whether they may haue them or no to whom belongeth the Scripture that he be not admitted to it to whom it appertaineth not And c. 19. The
order of the matter did require that to be first proposed which alone is now to be disputed Fourthly whose is the faith whose is the Scripture Fourthly it is euident that if anie Protestant will notwithstanding all that hath beene saied iudge that Protestants are the true owners of Scripture rather then Catholiks he will giue that iudgment in a matter of such great moment which he would be ashamed to giue in a question of the least trifle in the world For who seing that one hath nine titles to a peece of ground of all which titles his aduersarie hath no pretence and that he hath as good if not farre better shew also of the tenth title as his aduersarie hath would not be ashamed to adiudge the land to his aduersarie and cast him out of possession who was actuall possessor when the matter came first in question was peacable possessor for manie ages was the ancienter possessor and of whose possession no Note this beginning can be found but from the true lord and from whom his aduersarie hath whatsoeuer he hath whose lawfull possession thereof all kinde of aduersaries do some time confesse and put his aduersarie in possession who can pretend no title but that which alone sufficeth not and which also for better agreeth to the ancient possessor If anie say that in wordly matters reason would giue iudgment for the ancient possessor but not in heauenlie or deuine matters as the Scripture is I demand what Scripture what worde of God teacheth vs to checke the light of reason concerning the true possession of the Scripture If none why then doe we not follow reason in this matter of fact concerning the true possession of Scripture as well as in others Besides this were to grante that the light of reason is in this matter with Catholiks against Protestants and consequently that to be a Protetestant one must first cast away reason euen in a matter which is vnder the reach of reason as is who are the true owners of the Scriptures Moreouer the very end of this Balance is no other then to shew that if we will follow the light of reason and true prudence we ought to imbrace the Catholik religion and reiect the Protestant and that to doe otherwise is to cast away reason and prudence and to become vnreasonable and imprudent men and to say that Christ hath giuen vs a Religion which is not onely aboue reason but euen contrarie to reason and that also in matters subiect to reason and that we can not become faithfull men but we must first become vnreasonable men not receaue his light of faith before we put out his light of reason wherewith he hath made vs like to him selfe and superiours to beasts Thus we see how farre in all reason and prudence Catholiks are aboue Protestants for the right claime or iust possession of holie Scripture Now let vs see in the rest of this booke how farre also they are aboue them for the letter or wordes of Scripture and in the second booke how farre they are aboue them for the true sense thereof A SVMME OF THE MORE MANIFEST CONtradictions betwene the expresse wordes of the holie Scripture and of Protestants with the Chapter and Article where they may be read more at large which will much serue to vnderstand and remember better those which follow CHAPTER II. OF GOD. SCRIPTVRE Thou are not a God that willeth iniquitie God willeth not iniquitie He willeth iniquitie Protestants God will haue iniquitie to be committed God willeth iniquitie with a hidden will He willeth sin He willeth sin to be done He would haue Adam to sin to fall to reuoult See more c. 2. article 1. Scripture Our iust lord in the middes thereof will not doe God doth not iniquitie iniquitie Protestants God worketh euill in vs The euils of sin are He doth iniquitie done by the effectuall working of God Dauids adulterie is properly Gods worke Iudas his treacherie is his proper worke as the vocation of S. Paul Pharao his crueltie is attributed to Gods counsell in no other sense then the Egiptians fauoure towards his people God procureth sin it selfe Se more c. 2. art 4. Scripture He God hath commanded no man to doe impiously God commaÌ„deth not to sin He commandeth to sin Protestants God biddeth Sathan goe to be a lying spirit By Gods commandment Sathan is a lying spirit God giueth him a plaine commandment to deceaue Sathan was sent to deceaue by the expresse commandment of God See art 6. Scripture God is not a tempter of euils and he tempteth no God tempeteth not to sin man Protestants God is the author of temptation God moueth He tempâ—eth to sin the offenders to sin pushed the Iewes to kill his Sonne stirreth vp the theefs will to kill driueth to sin by tempting inclineth the wills of wicked men into greeuous sins See more art 7. Scripture Thou hatest all that worke iniquitie Protestants God is angrie with the elect when they sinne but God hateth all that worke iniquitie He hateth not all such God iustifieth not the impious He iustifieth the impious neuer hateth them He hateth all iniquitie but not all in whome iniquitie is See art 9. Scripture He that iustifieth the impious is abhominable before God Protestants Seing God forbiddeth to iustifie the impious Prou. 17. can he be saied to do that rightly which him self forbiddeth Rightly Albeit we be wicked yet are we accounted of the lord for iust A wicked man may be pronounced iust according to the Ghospell Christ can iustifie such as are impious and want all good workes See more art 10. Scripture Against Aaron God being exceeding angrie God is angrie with the faithfull wheÌ„ they sin He is not angrie with theÌ„ God is pleased with good workes He is not pleased with them God is serued with good workes He is not serued with them he would haue destroied him Protestants God alwaies withouldeth his anger from the faithfull God is not angrie with sinners See art 11. Scripture VVe doe these thinges which are pleasing before him with such hostes God is pleased Protestants God careth not for workes we foolishly feigne that God is much delighted with our workes There is no such God which is delighted with our good workes To wash dishes and to preach is all one as for pleasing God See more art 13. Scripture By fastings and praiers seruing God day and night Protestants The true God is not serued with workes There is one only worship pleasing to God to wit true faith God is serued by faith only Faith is the onely true worship of God See art 14. Scripture Phinees stoode pacified and the slaughter ceased God is pacified by good workes He is not pacified by theÌ„ God will haue his commaÌ„dments kept He will not haue theÌ„ kept Protestants There is no such God that can be pacified with our good workes The workes which I do according to Gods law
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
1. verse 13. Thine eyes are cleane from seing euill and thou canst not looke towarde iniquitie CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY DENIE Saint Thomas parte 1. Summae quaest 19. art 9. God will no waye the euill of sinne D. Stapleton lib. 11. de Iustificat c. 8 It is wholy repugnant to Gods nature to will sinne PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME Caluin in c. 3. Gen. v. 1. 3. None of these things hinder but God would haue man to fall that God would haue man to fall for some certaine cause vnknowne to vs. And cont Franciscan libertin in opusculis page 441. We saye that the diuell and man both fell by the will of God vnknowne to vs. Beza in 2. par resp ad acta Colloquij MoÌ„tis Belgartensis p. 177 saieth that our first parents fell indeed with the will and Man fall with the will of God decree of God Agayne I saied and do saye that it câ—me not to passe but by the decree of God so willing that our first parents depriued themselues of their natiue goodnesse And l. de Praedest coÌ„t Castell volum 1. Theol. p. 340. hauing obiected to him selfe that if the causes of damnation come with God his will then man were out of all fault and all the fault were in God he denieth the sequele and admitteth the antecedent and addeth that God decreeth and ordaineth the causes of damnation Peter Martyr in c. 9. Rom. p. 348. God is saied to hate sinne God willeth sinne for some other end He would haue Adam to fall He would haue Adam to sinne because he willeth it not for it selfe but for some other end And in locis classe 1. c. 14. p. 116. It cannot be doubted but that God would haue Adam to fall Zanchius l. 5. de natura Dei c. 2. Would not God haue Adam to sinne and vs all together with him to fall into this corruption by which it cometh to passe that we cannot but sinne vnlesse he helpe vs with his grace He would Agayne By this omnipotent will he would and ordained the sinne of Adam that in him all should sinne Piscator apud VorstiuÌ„ in Parasceue c. 3. Sinnes are done with Gods procuremeÌ„t and will that they should be done God will iniquitie God will haue iniquitie to be committed to be coÌ„mitted albeit he do not delighte in it as a sick man will drinke a bitter potioÌ„ albeit he be not delighted with it Because God will declare his iustice and mercie therefore also he will that sinnes be coÌ„mitted And apud eundeÌ„ in Collat. sect 61. God will He will that sinne be done not onely that sinnes may be done but also will that they be done The same Piscator in Thesibus l. 2. p. 184 It is false and implieth contradiction that man fell not with Gods will but with He will sinne though he be no delâ—ghted with it his permission For if he permitted he also would not simply and of it selfe as if he were delighted with sinne but in some sorte and for some other thing Page 187. God can will some thing with which notwithstaÌ„ding he is not delighted As for exaÌ„ple he is not He willeth wickednes for some other end delighted with wickednes yet permitteth it and that willingly and therefore willeth it in some sorte and for some other end And p. 203. It is not ill doctrin to saye That Gods will is done euen by sinning that is euen sinnes are done by Gods will Bucanus in Institut Theol. loco 14. p. 145. Is God not willing God willeth sin with a hidden will iniquitie If you take it simply that God no way will it the scripture is against that Wherefore we must expound it so That God will it not with his allowing or reuealed or signified will but with his hidden or good pleasing will And the same hath Pareus lib. 2. de Amiss Gratiae c. 16. MelaÌ„cthon in cap. 9. Rom. This is a misterie vnspeakable to God willeth sinne Would AdaÌ„s fall Would AdaÌ„s reuolt wit that God willeth sinnes and yet truely hateth them Perkins in Exposit Symbol tom 1. col 773. God would Adams fall for a good end Et de praedestinat col 128. We must say that God would haue Adams reuolt to come to passe And p. 129. Albeit God willeth not sinne simply and for it selfe yet he doth decree it and willeth it to come to passe See more of the like sayings of Protestants if you please in my Latin booke of this matter Chapter 1. Art 1. THE CONFERENCE OF THE FORESAIED WORDS OF THE HOLIE SCRIPTVRE OF CATHOLIKS AND OF PROTESTANTS The Scripture expressely saieth that God will not iniquitie or sinne nay that he cannot looke toward it The same saye Catholiks Protestants expressely say that God would haue Adam to sinne would haue his fall his reuolt that God willeth sinne willeth wickednes for some other end will haue iniquitie to be coÌ„mitted though he delighte not in it as a sick man will drinke a bitter potioÌ„ though he take no delighte in it that the causes of damnation came with Gods will that he willeth sinne with a hidden and good pleasing will Which are as directly against the foresaied words of Scripture as any can be Nether will it auaile Ptotestants to saye as some times they doe that God willeth sinne as it is the occasion of some good to wit of manifesting his iustice in punishing it or his mercie in pardoning it Because in saying that God willeth sinne wickednesse iniquitie mans fall mans reuolt the causes of damnations as in plaine termes they doesaye they not onely affirme that God willeth the act in which iniquitie is but the very iniquitie malice or sinfulnes it self as is manifest both by the foresaied words as also because they some times teach as we shall see hereafter article 5. that sinne as it is sinne is preordinated of God And in saying that God willeth iniquitie or sinfulnes it selfe they directly contradict the aforecited words of holie Scripture For therein they meane that iniquitie or sinne is one of those things which are willed of God which the Scripture directly denieth Nether is this contradiction auoided by adding that though iniquitie be willed of God yet it is not willed of him for it selfe or as it is iniquitie but as it is an occasion of some good because still it is affirmed that iniquitie it selfe is one of the things which are willed of God as in their owne example True it is that a bitter potion is willed of the sicke though it be not willed of him for it selfe nor as it is bitter but as it is a meane to recouer health Wherefore in this matter we must distinguish twoe questions The one is simple or absolute to wit Whether God will iniquitie or sinne it selfe To which question the holie Scripture answereth negatiuely and the Protestants affirmatiuely The other is a redoubling question namely Whether God will iniquitie or sinne as it is iniquitie or sinne and
Properly accursed imputed to him In Galat. 3. v. 13. In that consisteth our saluation that God properly and without any figure powred all his wrathe vpon his Sonne properly and not figuratiuely accursed him â—â— in his humanitie he was our pledge for to receaue vs into grace Pareus in Galat. 3. lection 35. He was made a curse that is accursed Daneus Controu de baptismo c. 23. That which he obiecteth He had need of baptisme that it is mere blaspemie to say that Christ was a sinner and had need of baptisme is it selfe most blasphemous Christ him hath tought that as he was made man for our sake he needed this baptisme Piscator in Thesib lib. 2. p. 125. Christ by imputation was Accursed as the damned truely a sinner because for sinnes he was a curse that is accursed But none is accursed before God but for sinne that is as he is or as he is held for a sinner And p. 619. To be accursed was common to Christ with all those to whome in the day of iudgment he shall say God ye accursed into euerlasting fire Moulins in his Bucler of faith art 17. section 31. Christ made himselfe culpable for to make vs assoiled See more of their like speeches in the Latin booke c. 1. art 11. THE CONFERENCE Scripture expressely teacheth that Christ was separated from sinners was innocent holie vnpolluted immaculate vnspotted that he was his Fathers well beloued Sonne in whome he was well pleased The same say Catholiks Protestants saye that Christ was a sinner the greatest sinner that euer was truely a sinner most truely a sinner not innocent vniust vncleane had need of baptisme had need to be clensed was hatefull to God accursed of God accursed as the damned shal be at the day of iudgment was culpable confessed his delicatenes had desires not premeditated that deserued correction and recalling floted betweene praise and blasphemie reeled betweene temptations vnciuily reiected dishonored and shamed his mother was so ouerwhelmed with desperation that he gaue ouer calling vpon God which was to renounce his saluation ART XII WHETHER CHRIST REEVsed to doe the office of a Redeemer SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY DENIETH. Luke 12. v. 51. But I haue to be baptized with a baptisme and Christ desired to die for maÌ„kind how am I strained vntill it be dispatched Math. 16. v. 23. Where S. Peter dehorted him from suffering Turning saied to Peter Goe after me Sathan Thou art a scandall vnto me because thou sauourest not the things that are of God And c. 26. v. 53. When S. Peter would haue defended him Iesus saieth to him Returne thy sworde into his place Thinkest thou that I cannot aske my Father and he will giue me presently more then twelue legions of Angels Ihon 4. vers 34. Christ saieth My meate is to doe the will of him that sent me to perfit his worke And c. 18. v. 11. The chalice which my Father hath giuen me shall not I drinke it CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY DENIE D. Stapleton in Math. 26. ver 39. Caluin affirmeth that Christ as much as lay in him refused and drew back from doing the office a Redeemer then the which no more greeuous accusation could be laied vpon Christ by any Pagan or Iew. PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME Perkins in Serie Causarum c. 15. Christ was subiect to this Christ forget his office weaknes not to remember the office imposed vpon him by reason of the agonie shaking his sense And c. 18. A litle before Christs death sorrow did so trouble his spirit as for a time it stroake inwardly a marueilous amazement and forgetfulnes of the office imposed vpon him Caluin in Ioan. 12. v. 27. By flying death he confesseth his Had a destre contrarie to his vocation delicatenesse Againe He recalleth the desire which he acknowledgeth to be contrarie to his vocation In Math. 26. v. 36. Yet is not the question quite answered For sith we lately saied that all Christs affections were rightly composed how doth he now correct himselfe For he doth so submit his affection to Gods will as if he had exceeded measure Surely in the first request there appeareth As much as was in him he refused to doe the office of a Mediatour not that milde moderation whereof I spoke because as much as lay in him he refused forbare to do the office of a Mediatour I answere there was no fault in that whiles the terrour of death was before his eyes there fell vpon him such a darknes as leauing all others he laied hould vpon such a desire Nether is it needfull to dispute here subtilly whether he could forget our saluation Agayne In that moment he did not thinke that he was sent vpon condition to be the redeemer of man kinde THE CONFERENCE Scripture expressely teacheth that Christ so desired to accomplish our redemption as he was strained vntill he had perfected it that his meate was to do the will of his Father that he sharply rebuked S. Peter when he dehorted him from suffering and forbadde him to defend him from it The same say Catholiks Protestants expressely teach that Christ was so weake as to forget the office of our redemption that for a time he forgotte it that he fledde death had a desire coÌ„trarie to his vocation refused and forbore to do the office of a Mediatour for a time did not thinke that he was sent vpon condition to be the redeemer of mankinde ART XIII WHETHER CHRIST WAS assured of his saluation SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. Ihon n. v. 41. And Iesus lifting his eyes vpward saied Father Christ knew knew that God did alwaies heare him That the abode in his fafathers loue I giue the thanks that thou hast heard me and I did know that thou doest alwaies heare me Chap. 15. v. 10. If you keep my precepts you shall abide in my loue as I also haue kept my Fathers precepts and do abide in his loue C. 16. ver 28. I leaue the world and goe to the Father cap. 17. vers 10. And now I am not in the world and these are in the world and I come to thee Luke 22. vers 69. But from hence forth the Sonne of man shal be sitting on the right hand of the power of God c. 23. v. 43. And Iesus saied vnto him Amen I say to thee this day thou shalt be with me in paradise Acts 2. v. 25. For Dauid saieth concerning him I foresaw the Lord in my sigth alwaies because he is at my right hand that I be not mooued CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME D. Stapleton in Promptuar Quadrages fer 4. hebdom sanct Christ touching the state of his soule feareth not the least forsaking of God How can any beleiue that Christ could haue the least suspition of Gods malediction or forsaking PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Luther in psalm 22. to 3. fol. 330. It followeth that Christ himselfe suffered the dread and horrour of a conscience troubled and tasting the euerlasting wrath fol. 331.
Virtue their power whiles they denie that they are capable of power to worke miracles steale away their perfect iustice in denying that they are perfectly iust or perfectly do the will of God Robbe them of their honour because they Honor. denie that we may honour them imitate them pray to them or pray to God in their names They spoile them Dignitie of their dignitie in saying that God doth not any good vnto vs for their merits or good deeds They bereaue Knowledge them of their knowledge in saying that they know not any thing that is done on earth They robbe them of Charitie their charitie because they say that they pray not for vs ether in generall or in particular haue no care of vs not exercise any offices of charitie towards vs. Finally they Happines take from them their heauenly felicitie because they teach that they enioy not that vntill the day of iudgment And hitherto we haue spoaken of those who are in heauē now let vs speake of these things which are on earth and first of the word of God CHAPTER IV. OF THE VVORD OF GOD OR SCRIPTVRE ART I. WHETHER ANIE PLACES OF Scripture be hard to be vnderstood SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. PETER 3. vers 16. As our most deere Some places of Scripture hard to be vnderstood brother Paul according to the wisdome giuen him hath written to you as also in all his epistles speaking in them of these things in the which are certaine things hard to be vnderstood which the vnlearned and vnstable depraue CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY DENIE D. Stapleton in Ioan. 17. v. 20. Catholiks denie that all the Scripture is plaine and cleare PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME Whitaker Controu 1. q. 4. c. 3. p. 337. Peter saieth not that Paules epistles are obscure no nor that there are some obscure things in Paules epistles And c. 4. p. 340. It is manifest that the Scriptures are easie to be vnderstood And he addeth that the whole will of God which is declared in his whole word and Scriptures and the whole Scripture is easie The same he saieth p. 341. Of the whole Scripture of the vniuersall Scripture and whole word of God Luther l. de seru arbit to 2. fol. 426. It is spred abrode by No place of Scripture hard the impious Sophisters that there are some things obscure in the Scripture and that all things are not laied open Fol. 427. There is nothing at all left obscure or ambiguous but all things are brought into most cleare light by the word and declared to the whole world whatsoeuer is in Scripture And fol. 440. I speake of the whole Sripture I will not haue anie parte of it to be saied to be obscure The like he hath Postilla in festo S. Iacobi fol. 430. and Cont. Cocleum to 2. fol. 410. Neuer any thing was vttered more simply more purely more clearely more easily then the word of God Praefat. Assert art The Scripture is by it selfe No booke more cleare then the Scriture the most certaine the most easie the most cleare interpreter of it selfe prouing iudging and lightning all things And in psalm 37. to 3. fol. 10. If anie of them say that we need the Fathers interpretation the Scriptures are obscure Thou shalt answere That is false No booke in the whole world is most clearely writtē then the holie Scripture which compared to all other bookes is like the Sunne before all other lights Gerlachius disputat 1. tom 1. pag. 9. We say that the whole Scripture is so cleare as it needeth no interpretation at all Zanchius de Scriptura tom 8. col 408. How then can the Scripture be saied obscure in anie parte thereof col 409. If the Scripture be obscure in no parte as before we haue shewed much lesse in those things which are necessarie to saluation And l. 1. Epistol pag. 98. The places of holie Scripture from whence the decrees of Christian religion are drawne are so plaine and manifest as they need no more diligent or clearer exposition Serranus cont Hayum part 3. p. 267. saieth that there is not anie ambiguitie or obscuritie in the matter or words of the Scripture And p. 269. that the Lord hath plainly laied open in the Scripture all the misteries of our saluation Manie more of their like sayings may be seene in my Latin booke cap. 4. art 1. CONFERENCE OF THE FORESAIED WORDS Scripture expressely saieth that in S. Paules epistles there be some things hard to be vnderstood The same say Catholiks Protestants expressely say that the Scripture saieth not that there are some obscure things in S. Pauls epistles that the Scripture the whole scripture is easie that the whole scripture is so cleare as it needeth no interpretation at all that no parte of it is obscure that all things are cleare whatsoeuer is in the word and declared to the whole world that the Scripture is the easiest and clearest interpreter of it selfe that no booke in the whole world is so cleare as the Scripture and that being compared to them it is like the Sunne to other lights Which are so manifestly contrarie to Scripture as Protestants thēselues sometimes confesse it See lib. 2. c. 30. ART II. WHETHER SCRIPTVRE CAN BE vnderstood without the light of the holie Ghost SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY DENIETH. 2. Peter 1. v. 20. Vnderstanding this first that no prophetie Scripture not vnderstood of our selues or exposition of Scripture is made by priuat interpretation Matth. 13. v. 11. To you it is giuen to know the misteries of the kingdome of heauen but to them it is not giuen Luc. 24. v. 45. Then he opened their vnderstanding that they might vnderstand the Scriptures CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY DENIE D. Stapleton l. 11. de Principijs c. 2. The spirit of God of whome the vnderstanding of the Scriptures is to be asked and giuen is not to be sought in the Scriptures themselues PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME Whitaker l. 1. de Scriptura c. 12. sect 8. The Scriptures may Scripture not vnderstood by onely reading without the holie Ghost be known by onely reading l. 2. c. 8. sect 16. I say that the Scriptures may be vnderstood before faith and without faith Againe But if thou thinkest that the Scriptures cannot be vnderstood at all without peculiar lightning of the holie Ghost thou art in a great errour And Controu 1. q. 6. c. 13. For so much as appertaineth to the knowledge of the letter the Church hath no priuiledge Morton in Apol. part 2. l. 5. c. 10. Anie one though neuer so Anie may vnderstand the Scripture so impious may search the Scriptures to knowledge though not to wisdome that is to the knowledge of truth though not to the attayning of saluation Beza l. de notis Eccles vol. 3. p. 137. But for to vnderstand what the Prophets and Apostles haue in summe thought and thought of euerie article of our religion there needeth onely a wit not wholy dull
Children in state of saluation of infidels I leaue to the iudgment of the almightie and iust albeit I can finde no cause of damnation in them De Peccato orig f. 119. Of Christians children we are sure that they are not dāned for originall sinne albeit to cōfesse plainely that opinion seemeth more probable to vs which we taught to wit that we must not rashly condemne the children of Heathens In Elencho fol. 36. We impiously condemne not onely children of Heathens but also of Christians And de Ratione fidei fol. 540. We rashly condemne the children of Christiā parents yea of Heathen parentes Vorstius in Antibellarm p. 542. In this point the Protestāts do not wholy agree but ether say that all children whatsoeuer are through Christs grace saued as Zuinglius and manie more or at least all elect children whether they be borne of faithfull or other parents though not baptized are saued as the most Protestants say And he addeth These mens opinion is much more secure but the sentence of the former is more gentle and probable enough and therefore not roshly to be condemned Hermingius in Enchiridio class 3. p. 322. If the children of Infidels die without baptisme we must leaue them to Gods iudgment The same also followeth out of that which Caluin loco cit Beza ad reprehens Castel vol. 1. p. 502. and others say that childrē of faithfull parents are sanctified and comprehended in the couenant of life vnto the thousand generation THE CONFERENCE Scripture expressely saieth that the children of the faithfull are by nature or natiuitie the children of wrath as others are that death passed vnto all that condemnation passed vnto all The like say Catholiks Protestants expressely say that Christian children are sonnes of God before they be christened that they are borne Saints that originall sinne is not imputed to them that they are holie within the Church and bodie of Christ before they be baptized Saints by supernaturall grace members of Christe from the wombe borne children of the Church and from the wombe Saints before God Likewise they say of Infidels children that they finde no cause of condemnation in them that they are rashly and impiously condemned that all children whosoeuer or at least all elect children though not baptized are saued that such as come of faithfull though after a thousand generations are sanctified and comprehended within the couenant of life Which are so contrarie to Scripture as sometimes Protestants confesse it l. 2. c. 30. and S. Austin saieth L. 3. de Anima c. 9. Do not beleiue do not say do not teach that infants dying before they be baptized may attaine remission of originall sinne if thou wilt be a Catholik ART X. WHETHER THE BAPTISME of S. Ihon and of Christ were the same SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY DENIETH. Marc. 1. v. 8. S. Ihon saieth I haue baptized you with water S. Ihons baptisme differēt from Christs but he shall baptize you with the Holie Ghost Act. 19. ver 2. S. Paul saied to them Haue ye receaued the Holie Ghost beleiuing But they saied to him Nay nether haue we heard whether there be a Holie Ghost But he saied In what then were you baptized Who saied In Ihons baptisme vers 5. Hearing these things they were baptized in the name of our Lord Iesus CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY DENIE Councel of Trent Sess 7. Can. 1. de baptismo Isanie shall say that Ihons baptisme had the same vertue that the baptisme of Christ be he accursed PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME Whitaker ad Ration 8. Campiani saieth of the baptisme of S. Ihon and Christ It was the same ceremonie the same doctrin Not different the same grace Willet Cont. 12. q. 7. p. 585. Ihons baptisme was not diuers frō Christs baptisme but was all one with it in propertie and effect Zuinglius de ver falsa relig c. de baptismo It is altogether one baptisme whether you call it Ihons or Christs Et de Baptismo to 2. f. 75. It will appeare that that outward baptisme of water which Iohn vsed agreeth with the externall baptisme of Christ and the Apostles and that there is no difference at all betweene them Caluin in Luc. 3. v. 3. It is false that the baptismes of Ihon and Christ were diuers Beza lib. quaest respons pag. 344. I say that indeed it was one onely and the same baptisme administred first of Ihon and after by Christs commandment Bucanus in Inst Theol. loco 47. What differ the Baptisme of Ihon Baptist and of Christ Not in Author not in substance not in doctrine not in signe or ceremonie not also in effector or signification More of their like sayings in my Latin booke c. 9. art 10. THE CONFERENCE Scripture plainely saieth that S. Ihons Baptisme was giuen in water Christs baptisme in the Holie Ghost that S. Ihons baptisme was not giuen in the name of the Holie Ghost in so much as they who had beene Baptized with it knew not that there was a Holie Ghost that they who had beene baptized with S. Ihons baptisme were baptized againe with Christs baptisme The same say Catholiks Protestants plainely say that S. Ihons and Christs baptisme was all one ceremonie one doctrine one grace was not diuers but all one in propertie and effect altogether one that there was no difference at all betweene them not diuers one onely and the same not different in Author substance doctrine signe ceremonie effect or signification ART XI WHETHER THOSE EPHESIANS whereof is spoaken Actor 19. had beene baptized with S. Ihons baptisme SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. Act. 19. v. 3. But he S. Paul saied In what thē were ye baptized The Ephesiās baptized with S. Ihons baptisme Who saied In Ihons baptisme v. 5. Hearing these they were baptized in the name of our Lord Iesus CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME D. Stapleton in Actor 19. v. 5. We must beleiue and stedfastly beleiue that those twelue Ephesians had beene before baptized of Ihon. PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Whitaker lib. 8. cont Dur. sect 70. I denie that those men They were not baptized with S. Ihone baptisme whereof Luke maketh mention in the Actes were baptized againe Caluin 4. Institut c. 15. § 18. I denie that they were baptized againe Zuinglius de Baptismo to 2. f. 80. Behould an other argument whereby it is demonstrated that those Ephesians were neuer baptized in Ihons outward baptisme Resp ad Hueber f. 104. If thou hadst had any consideration of those things thou wouldst neuer haue come to that madnesse to say that these disciples had beene baptized of Ihon. Beza in Actor 19. v. 2. We must needs say that there is not treated of any peculiar historie of twelue men who were ether baptized or rebaptized of the Apostle or of baptisme Sadeel ad Art 10. Abiurat We no where read that Ihons disciples after his death following Christ were rebaptized of the Apostles THE CONFERENCE Scripture expressely saieth that the saied Ephesians were first baptized
because they would not embrace Christ with true faith And in the margent Onely incredulitie damneth men Whereupon Beza in the same Colloquie pag. 421. 448. in part 2. resp pag. 215. saied Surely your speech seemed to vs intolerable That men are not damned for sinne or because they haue sinned And notwithstanding Beza himselfe in the same Colloq pag. 103. saieth The onely efficient cause of damnation is our incredulitie 106. I say that onely incredulitie Onely incredulitie causeth damnation is the efficient cause of the damnation of the impious Et 2 part resp cit p. 6. Men perish not simply for sinne but for incredulitie Schlusselburg to 7. Catal. Haeret. p. 824. No sinnes condemne vnlesse incredulitie be adioyned Bidembachius in Consensu Iesuit Christian printed at Rochel 1584. p. 733. This saying is not ill vsed of some diuines It onely damneth Onely incredulitie damneth Wherefore ether Torrensis must reproue the office of the Holie Ghost reprouing the world and correct his tongue or he must graunt that men are damned for incredulitie alone Reineccius to 3. Armaturae c. 12. Man is punished not because Men are not punished because they did not well Sinnes do not damne Onely infidelitie is cause of damnation he did not well Zuinglius in Ioan. 5. tom 4. Sinnes do not make a man vniust nor damne a man but impietie and incredulitie Pareus in Collegio Theol. 7. Disput 5. It is rightly saied That onely infidelitie is the cause of damnation THE CONFERENCE Scripture expressely saieth that men are damned for sinnes of omission or not doing that which they were bound to doe that euerie one is iudged according to his workes The same say Catholiks Protestants expressely say that men are not punished because they did not well that sinnes condemne not mē that men are not damned for sinnes or because they haue sinned that no sinne is so grieuous as it can condemne a man that damnation followeth no sinne but incredulitie that onely incredulitie damneth men that men are damned for infidelitie onely ART XI WHETHER WE MVST GIVE account of our sinnes SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. Math. 12. vers 36. I say vnto you that euerie idle word that Man must giue account of euerie idle word men shall speake they shall render an account for it in the day of iudgment Rom. 14. v. 12. Euerie one of vs for himselfe shall render account to God 2. Cor. 5. v. 10. For we must all be manifested before the iudgment Of things that he hath done seat of Christ that euerie one may receaue the proper things of the bodie according as he hath done ether good or euill Apoc. 20. ver 12. And the dead were iudged of those things which were written in the bookes according to their workss CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME D. Stapleton in Act. 15. v. 11. Caluinists cannot abide that workes be called to account But these pestilēt teachers lead their followers right to the pitte of hell and directly gainesay the holie Scripture Workes must come to account PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Confessio Palatina p. 202. I beleiue and confesse that God Gods iugdment not to be feared the Father for Christs most full satisfaction neuer remembreth my sinnes so that I haue no need to feare the iudgment of God Luther in Gal. 1. to 5. f. 282. Christ will not exact an account He will not take account of our life Not enter into iudgmēt with vs. of vs of our ill passed life Caluin in Math. 12. v. 36. In this is founded the trust of our saluation that God will not enter into iudgment with vs. In c. 27. v. 26. Nether is it to be feared that our sinnes come any more into Gods iudgment In Roman 4. v. 6. Who are couered with Christs iustice they haue not onely God appeased to them but also to their workes whose spotts and blemishes are couered with Christs puritie that they come not to account In Gal. 3. v. 22. It followeth vndoubtedly If workes come into iudgment we are all damned Beza in Confess c. 4. sect 12. This sanctification of humane nature in Christ imputed to vs by faith hath made that the relikes of that corruption which is euen in the regenerate come not to account before God Scarpe de Iustif Contr. 7. These sinnes shall not come to account before God Tilenus in Syntagmate c. 67. The elect do know that nether their deeds nor all their words shal be called to the reckoning of this last iudgment THE CONFERENCE Scripture plainely saieth that we shall giue account of euerie idle word that euerie one shall giue account for himselfe that euerie one shall receaue for the good or ill which he hath done that the dead shal be iudged according to their workes The same say Catholiks Protestants expressely say that Christ will not exact an account of our life ill passed that God will not enter into iudgment with vs that our sinnes shall not come to iudgment shall not come to reckoning that nether all our deeds or words shall come to the reckoning of iudgment ART XII WHETHER THE ELECT being iustified committeth ill or sinne SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. Psal 50. ver 6. Dauid saieth of himselfe To thee onely haue Dauid did ill I sinned and haue done ill before thee 2. Reg. 12. v. 9. Nathan saieth to Dauid Why therefore hast thou contemned the word of the Lord that thou wouldest doe euill in my sight CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME C. Bellarm. l. 1. de Amiss Grat. c. 7. Dauid himselfe peculiarly bewaileth his adulterie and murder and amongst other things saieth To thee onely haue I sinned and haue done ill before thee PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Zanchius de Perseuerantia tom 7. col 124. Dauid sinned He committed not sinne indeed but neuer committed sinne Et 147. The regenerate commit not sinne Musculus in Locis tit de Peccato The elect commit not The elect commit not sinne sinne though they sometimes do sinne Againe The elect commit not sinne but the reprobates Abbots in Diatribam Tomsoni c. 20. Christ manifestly sheweth that it is one thing to sinne an other to commit sinne and saieth that the iustified do not commit sinne THE CONFERENCE Scripture plainely saieth that Dauid though an elect and iustified man sinned did ill before God contemned Gods word The same say Catholiks Protestants plainely say that Dauid neuer committed sinne that the regenerate commit not sinne that the elect commit not sine ART XIII WHETHER THE ELECT himselfe being iustified sinneth SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. 2 Reg. 24. v. 17. Dauid saieth of himselfe I am he that haue Dauid sinned and did wickedly Did euill sinned I haue done wickedly Et 1. Paralipomen 21. v. 17. It is I that haue sinned it is I that haue done the euill CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME Councel of Trent Session 6. Can. 23. If anie shall say that a man once iustified cannot sinne nor leese grace c. be he accursed
and Luther in Galat. 1. fol. 215. The Confession of Zwizerland addeth that they were holie Churches of God Author Respons ad theses Vadimont pag. 533. affirmeth that they fell not from true faith And Perkins tractat de Baptismo col 819. auoucheth that they were the sonnes of God But if they who denied the resurrection kept the name of a true Church remained the sonnes of God were not excluded from Gods mercie fell not from faith surely ether the resurrection is no article at all of faith or not necessarie ether to grace or saluation THE CONFERENCE Scripture plainely teacheth that there shal be resurrection of the dead and that the contrarie doctrine denieth Christs resurrection and ouerthroweth all Christian faith The same say Catholiks Protestants plainely teach that the more wittie the Gentils were the more they laughed at the resurrection that the more learned men now are the more they thinke the resurrection to be a fable that Luther and Erasmus were not free from this leauen and that in this matter a faithfull soule is rare that Schegkius openly denied resurrection of this bodie which is indeed to denie all resurrection seing resurrection is not but of the same which died and yet was condemned of no Protestants yea excused of some that manie of them both drunke and sober let fall such speaches from them as do shew that they beleiue not the resurrection of the dead That amongst the Sacramentaries two principall Apostles Caluin and Farel did not beleiue the resurrection of this flesh and consequently not the resurrection of the dead that Sozinus was not satisfied about the resurrection of the flesh that manie of them denie the resurrection of the blood and lasty that they auouch that those Christians who denied the resurrection of the dead fell not from true faith not from the Church or fauour of God THE SVMME OF THIS CHAPTER of mans Soule What we haue rehearsed in this chapter plainely sheweth that Protestants thinke farre otherwise of mans soule then the holie Scripture doth For the Scripture and Catholiks with it teacheth that the soule of man is the forme of the bodie is immortall that there shal be resurrection of the dead which Protestants denie It sheweth also that Protestants play the theiues towards their owne soules whilest take from it immortalitie and the nature of the forme of the bodie and denie the resurrectioÌ„ of the dead And hitherto we haue shewed that Protestants in 260. articles contradict the expresse words of the holie Scripture it remaineth that we shew that they also contradict the true sense of the words which we will doe by twoe wayes the one by generall reasons the other by the plaine confession of The Scope of the second booke some Protestants touching manie of the foresaied articles End of the first booke THE SECOND BOOKE IN WHICH IT IS SHEVVED THAT PROTESTANTS CONTRADICT THE TRVE sense of holie Scripture CHAPTER I. THAT PROTESTANTS CONTRADICT the true sense of Scripture because in so manie things they gainsay the expresse words thereof FIRST of all we must consider that when the holie Scripture and Catholiks both of purpose intend clearely to declare their meaning touching the foresaied 260. articles in controuersie they do iumpe ether in the very selfe same or inequiualent words and that coÌ„trariwise wheÌ„ the Scripture and the learnedest of the Protestants intend to expresse their meaning coÌ„cerning the saied articles they vse quite opposite and contrarie speaches Which is a manifest signe that the Catholiks doctrine about the saied articles is the selfe same with the doctrine of the holie Scripture and the Protestants doctrine quite contrarie thereunto For sithence this agreemeÌ„t of Catholiks with the Scripture in words and speach and disagreement of Protestants in the same falleth out so often and in so manie and weightie matters it cannot be attributed to chaÌ„ce because chaÌ„ce as the Philosophers 2. Physâ—c teach is in those things onely which fall out seldome And therefore it proceedeth of the nature of these sentences or doctrines whose agreement or disagreement with the sentence of the holie Scripture breedeth this so frequent agreement or disagreement with the words or speaches of the same Wherefore thus I argue in forme of syllogisme These doctrines which when they are of purpose to be expressed clearely distinctly and as they differ from all other doctrines do of their nature require to be expressed with the very same or equiualent words are in deed one and the selfe same doctrine And contrariwise those doctrines which when they are to be so expressed of their nature require to be expressed with quite opposite and contrarie words or speaches are in deed opposite and contrarie doctrines But the Scriptures and the Catholiks doctrines touching the foresaied 260. articles are of the first kind and the Scripture and Protestants doctrines of the second Therefore they are all one and these quite contrarie The Maior of first propositioÌ„ is euideÌ„t For how could twoe doctrines or opinioÌ„s of their nature require to be expressed with the selfe same or equiualent words if there were any differeÌ„ce betwene them For vndoubtely that difference would exact some difference in the words and those words which clearely and fully expresse the one doctrine could not clearely and fully expresse the other And much lesse could one the selfe same speach clearely expressely theÌ„ both if they were contrarie one to the other And therefore certaine it is that twoe coÌ„trarie doctrines cannot of their nature require to be expressed by the selfe same or equiualent words And consequently also it is most certaine that the Scriptures and Catholiks doctrines which touching these 260. articles of their nature require to be expressed with the selfe same or equiualent words are not opposite one to the other But those doctrines which when they are to be clearely and distinctly expressed of their nature require to be expressed with opposite and contrarie speeches must needs also of their nature be contrarie one to the other For els why should they of their nature require to be expressed by contrarie speaches And the opposition which is betwene the speaches wherewith they require to be signified riseth of the oppositioÌ„ which is betwene the doctrines themselues The Minor or second proposition is proued First by the reason alreadie made Because it cannot come by chance that in so manie and so weightie matters when Catholiks and ProtestaÌ„ts do of purpose clearely distinctly expresse their opinioÌ„s those should agree in words and speach with the holie Scripture and these should disagree This agreement therefore and disagreement in words must needs rise of the very nature of their opinions Secondly it may be proued by examples but for breuities sake I will be content with one That the Protestants opinion touching the Eucharist or that which Christ after his last supper gaue with his hands to be eaten when it is clearely and dinstinctly to be expressed as it differreth from the
withal Which we must vniuersally and alwaies obserue and hould of workes in the cause of our saluation to wit that they are as a way and certaine markes which lead vs to glorie but not by causing or working it Caluin vpon those words 2. Cor. 7. v. 10. For the sorrow that is according to God worketh pennance vnto saluation that is stable writeth thus Paul enquireth not of the cause of saluation but onely commending pennance of the fruite which it Worke. 1. is as a way bringeth forth doth say that it is like a way whereby we come to saluation In this sorte consequence is rather signified then anie cause And to the same place Pareus libr. 4. de Iustificat cap. 7. answereth No efficient cause but a meane or condition which helpeth ether by it selfe or by accident is signified And Scarpius de Iustification Controuers 12. Pennance is saied to worke saluation not by making it by it vertue but by leading as by a way to saluation The same Caluin in 1. Corinth 7. vers 19. Circumcision is nothing and prepuce is nothing but the obseruation of the commandements of God Here saieth he Paul disputeth not of the cause of iustice nor how we obtaine it but onely to what the faithfull ought to bend endeauour And vpon that Wash 1. feele Actorum 22. vers 16. Be baptized and wash away thy sinnes Ablution he saieth he signifieth not the cause but is referred to Paules feeling who hauing receaued the Symbol knew better that his sinnes were forgiuen And 3. Institution cap. 4. § 36. he saieth Where sinne is saied to be purged by mercie and bountifulnesse Prouerb 16. is not meant that by them it is recompensed in the sight of God but is shewed that they shall find God mercifull to them who forsaking vice are turned to pietie as if he had saied Gods wrath is appeased when we leaue our wickednesse And ibidem cap. 14. § vltim hauing obiected to himselfe that the Scripture declareth that good workes are the cause that God doth fauour them he answereth That which in order goeth first he calleth the cause of that which followeth In this manner he deriueth Cause 1. a step sometimes eternall life from good workes not that it is giuen for them but because whom God hath chosen he iustifieth that afterward he may glorifie the former grace which is a steppe to the later he after a sorte maketh a cause Finally by these kinde of speaches order is rather signified then cause Pareus l. 3. de Iustif c. 12. saieth that by those words 2. Timoth. 4. I haue fought a good fight the order and way to the crowne is noted not the cause So that what the Scripture maketh the cause according to these men is onely a meane a way steppe or order In like manner what the Scripture attributeth to one cause they giue to an other as what it atttibuteth to good workes they giue to faith onely what it ascribeth to faith or Sacraments they appropriate to God alone Zuinglius l. de Prouident cap. 6. When Paul writeth to Hearing 1. Spirit the Romans that faith cometh of hearing in the same manner he attributeth that to the nearer cause and more knowne to vs which cometh onely from the Spirit and not from outward preaching And in Math. 4. Oftentimes that is attributed to the later which belongeth to the former as to workes which rather belongeth to faith and againe to faith which most properly Workes 1. faith and truely belongeth to Gods election Sadeel de ver Peccat remiss p. 139. answering to those words Prouerb 16. Iniquitie is purged by bountie and mercie saieth That is attributed to the effects which is proper to the cause after the vsuall manner saieth he of Scripture That is attributed to their vertue which properly is to be attributed to the benefit of Christ alone Illyricus in Claue part 2. tract 6. Faith word and Sacraments Faith c. 1. God are saied to saue vs whereas God alone doth those things And ibid. Thy faith hath saued thee whereas onely Gods mercie and omni potēcie apprehēded by faith doth that And he addeth Scripture oftentimes attributeth things not to their true causes Oftentimes effects are attributed by the Scripture to not true or not principall causes Herevpon it cometh that there is often mention of Alleosis with Zuinglius and of Metalepsis with others by which figures what the Scripture giueth to one thing they transfer to an other Which Alleosis Zuinglius in Exegesi to 2. f. 350. calleth interchangable speach but Luther in Hospin part 2. Histor f. 57. termeth it the Diuels mask Wherefore thus I argue in forme Who gaynesay the expresse words of Scripture in such sorte as we haue seene in the first booke and besides in manie and weightie matters words which signifie a cause do expound of a way meane or order and what the Scripture attributeth to one cause do transferre to an other they contradict the true sense of holie Scripture Protestants doe so Therefore c. CHAPTER XVIII THAT WORDS OF SCRIPTVRE Which say a thing is Protestants expound by ought to be THE 18. argument shal be because what the Scripture saieth Is Protestants expound It ought to be Pareus l. 2. de Iustif c. 7. those words 1. Ioan. 2. v. 5. But he that keepeth his word in him the charitie of God is Is. 1. ought to be perfected expoundeth thus The sentence of S. Ihon as others such like is to be vnderstood of right or dutie not of fact What kinde of charitie ought to be not what kinde is in vs. And ibid. those words Coloss 3. v. 14. Haue charitie which is the bound of perfection he glosseth thus Charitie is called the bound of perfection not which we haue but which we ought to haue and which we shall haue in euerlasting life Et l. 4 c. 11. those words Deuter. 30. v. 6. Our Lord God shall circumcise thy heart and the heart of thy seed that thou maist loue thy Lord God with all thy heart He interpreteth in this sorte The promise to loue God with all thy heart ether speaketh of dutie how we ought to loue God to wit sincerely and perfectly or it speaketh of sinceritie And the same Pareus l. 4. de Grat. lib. arbit c. 6. that sentence of the Apostle 1. Tim. 3. he thus expoundeth The Church is called the pillar and strength of trueth of dutie because she ought alwaies to be so albeit she be not so alwaies in act The same he hath in Gal. 2. lect 18. Moulins in his Bucler pag. 50. and others Tilenus in Syntagmate cap. 46. writeth that in those places Ioan. 14. v. 21. Rom. 13. 8. and Gal. 5. 14. Where the Scripture affirmeth that those who loue God doe keepe his commandements it meaneth not of mans power to performe the law but of our dutie His meaning is that the Scripture meaneth not that who loue God keepe
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
that is a Hedge sparow all and whole It not this a trick of arte Yes surely not vnknowne nor vnsemely to stage plaiers Thus Luther who as being best practised in this arte could best of all others describe it Finally it appeareth that Protestants haue not onely forged a new faith but also a new tongue a new Grammar a new frame of speach For concerning Propositions they bidde vs vnderstand an Affirmation by a Negation and a Negation by an Affirmation and words they bidde vs expoūd by diuerse by disparate and contraries to these which they signifie with other men And this new Grammar of theirs Luther acknowledgeth in these words Gal. 3. tom 5. fol. 345. Those words To doe To worke are to be taken Protestants new Grāmar or language three manner of waies Substantially or naturally Morally and Theologically Insubstances natures and morall matters these words are taken in their vsuall and naturall signification but in diuinitie they are made plainely new words and get a new signification Wherefore when thou readest in Scripture of Fathers of Prophets of Kings that they wrought iustice c. remember that such and the like sayings are to be vnderstood according to the new and Theologicall Grammar of Protestants wherefore I admonish yee agayne that the sentences which the aduersaries obiect out of Scripture of workes and reward be alwaies to be vnderstood Theologically by the definition As if they obiect that saying of Daniel 4. Redeeme thy sinnes by almes streight we must runne to the Theologicall grammar and not to the morall The like he hath in cap. 4. Genes fol. 60. Nor much otherwise writeth Kemnice libr. de origin Iesuit pag. 47. When he saieth It is most certaine that the Holie Ghost would that in this article of Iustification not onely the things themselues and the meaning but also the very names should be by a peculiar signification distinct from the words of Philosophers Schlusselburg also Praefat. libr. Theolog. Caluin distinguisheth betwene the Grammar of Nations and of Deuines and saieth that that taketh the word of Iustice actiuely but this taketh it passiuely The like hath Gesnerus loc 2. de Iustif pag. 47. But what we ought to thinke of these inuentors of Luthers Censure of these new word mongers a new Grammar themselues doe sometimes tell vs. For thus writeth Luther lib. de seruo arbitr tom 2. fol. 435. Whoe will not mock or rather hate this vnsemely changer of words who against all vse endeauoureth to bring in such kinde of speach as to call a begger a rich man By this abuse of speach anie man may bragge of anie thing But this is not the parte of Diuines but of Cooseners and Stageplayers And Caluin libr. contr Libertin cap. 3. The libertines at Libertines the first bouldly reiected the Scriptures but when they saw that thereby they were abhorred of all men they meant to deale more closely and more couertely that making shew not to cast away Scripture they might turne it into allegories and wrest it into diuerse and strange senses changing a horse into a man and as the common speach is feigning the horne of a lanterne to be a cloude And capit 7. Like as Egyptians and other vagabonds such as those who going out of Bohemia wander vp and downe the whole world vse a certaine peculiar speach which none vnderstand but those of their owne crew and brotherhood So c. I denie not but they vse the common words but so they alter their signification as no man can vnderstand what the matter is which is proposed nor what they would affirme or denie Beza also l. de puniend Haer. vol. 1. Theol. Sathan when he could not quite cast the Scripture out of the Church yet by vaine allegories made it altogether vprofitable which course now the libertines and Anabaptistes do take Bullinger Concion Anabaptiste Arians Seruetians Familistes 25. in Apocal. thus writeth of the Arians and Seruetians They turne and winde the words of God with their Giganticall bouldnesse as they list Whitaker l. 1. de Script c. vlt. sect 4. The Familists do leaue almost no article of our faith vntouched whilest with their allegories they turne and corrupt all things And Reinolds in his Conference cap. 2. sect 2. The Familists for to saue their phrensies from the Scripture reiect the literall sense which is the very edge thereof and put that vp into the scabarde of their fanaticall dreames and allegories The like hath Perkins in Conflictu Christi tom 2. This they note in the Libertines Familists Anabaptists and others whereof themselues are no lesse guiltie then those be as appeareth by what hath beene already related But as Luther him selfe saieth Genes 6. tom 6. fol. 84. Who would suffer this libertie in deprauing the true sense in the fables of Terence or Virgils Ecloges and shall we suffer it in the Church And Defension verb. Cenae tom 7. fol. 397. Surely I cannot see that they can be excused by anie plausible pretext as if vpon a good meaning they had beene deceaued by some curiofitie or spirituall blindnesse as it happeneth to most Heretiks But it appeareth that they mocke the word of God vpon obstinacie and malice For I doe not thinke that it can be that these sillie trifles and toies should in earnest moue a man in his wittes whether he were a Turk or Iew much lesse a Christian Thus the Protestants owne Prophet and Father speaketh of Protestants Wherefore thus I argue in the 20. place Who not onely gaynesay the words of holie Scripture so directly and so often as is shewed in the first booke but also in so manie and so great matters expound the words thereof by diuerse by disparates and by contraries so that they bring in a new grammar a new language and signification of words neuer heard of before they manifestly contradict nay mock the true sense of holie Scripture But Protestants doe so Therefore c. CHAPTER XXI THAT PROTESTANTS ARE COMpelled to deuise improprietie of words and all kinds of figures THE 21. Argument wherewith we will proue that Protestants doe contradict the true sense of holie Scripture is because when the proprietie of the word is against them they deuise improprieties and all kind of figures Caluin 4. Instit c. 8. § 2. Authoritie is not properly giuen to Not properly men Beza in Confess c. 5. sect 27. Nether Pastors nor Doctors can properly binde or loose anie man Zanchius de Eccles c. 9. Power of forgiuing sinnes is not properly giuen to the Apostles or to others for they doe not properly forgiue sinnes Vorstius in Resp ad Homium p. 31. I doe not say that faith it selfe doth properly iustifie vs. Perkins in Cathol Reform Cont. 5. c. 3. The kingdome of heauen is called a reward not properly but by a figure Et Cont. 10. c. 4. These words This is my bodie must not be vnderstood properly but by a figure Pareus l. 5. de Iustif
who aâ—ouÌ„d with iustice according to the doctrine of the law not of the Ghospell Scarpe de Iust CoÌ„t 1. IustificatioÌ„ effectiuely is immediatly of Christ alone but sanctificatioÌ„ is of the holie Ghost IustificatioÌ„ quitteth vs in the iudgemeÌ„t of God not sanctificatioÌ„ Et CoÌ„t 7. There is a twoefould ablutioÌ„ of sinne the first is of the guilt and this is iustâ—ficatioÌ„ the second is of the inherence thereof and this is sanctâ—fication Bullinger dec 3. serm 9. There is a duble iustice iustificant and obediâ—nt Polanus part 2. thes The grace which Adam receaued in creation was not grace which maketh gratefull Et in Disp priuat Sinnes are blotted out by pennance not causatiuely but osteÌ„siuely Riuet tract 3. sec 26. We are perfectiuely imputatiuely iust but inhereÌ„tly iust onely imperfectly Touching the law they distinguish in this new sorte It is Of Gods law abrogated from the faithfull according to rigor and imputatioÌ„ no according to obligation There is a twoefould fulfilling of the law legall and Euangelicall Mans law bindeth in generall not in particular Whitaker libr 8. cont Dur. sect 96. saieth The Decalogue is taken away in parte but not simply Caluin in Actor 15. vers 10. The commandements are an vnsupportable yoake for to be exacted not for doctrine Pareus l. 2. de Iustif cap. 7. They are heauie concerning perfection not for inchoation Reineccius to 4. Arm. cap. 13. They are light in respect of imputation and inchoation but not of perfect fulfilling Bucan in Instit loco 19. To the regenerate the law is possible by imputation of the satisfaction of Christ and by inchoation of newnesse Scarpius de Iustif CoÌ„t 12. The law is possible for outward precepts not inward in parte not in whole or by inchoation or in Christ not in our selues Musculus in locis titul de Legibus Christians fulfill the law perfectly in Christ imperfectly in themselues Polanus in disput priuat 40. The regenerate keepe the precepts of God by by imputation but themselues keepe them not Reineccius tom 4. Armat cap. 13. According to the law none is worthie before God but according to the Ghospell the godlie are worthie before God These and manie such other distinctions neuer heard What onely distinctions Protestants say they allow of before among Christians haue Protestants deuised against which at this present I obiect onelie this that themselues teach that no distinctions are to be admitted in Diuinitie which are not gathered out of expresse and plaine places of Scripture For thus Whitaker Contr. 4. quaest 1. cap. 3. That rule is much to be esteemed That in diuinitie no distinctions are to be allowed but such as are proued by plaine passages of Scripture And lib. 2. de Concupisc cap. 7. We may say and defend what we will if such distinctions be accepted Sadeel ad Repetit Sophism Turriani It is a theologicall rule All distinctions in diuinitie must be proued by expresse places of Scripture The like hath Perkins l. de Caena to 1. col 861. and others Their most vsuall distinctions wherewith most coÌ„monly Most vsuall distinctions with Protest they delude the testimonies of Scripture are these though perhaps all of them vse not the verie selfe same termes To wit Before men not before God or which cometh all to one It seemeth so but is not By this distinction they delude all those testimonies of Scripture which teach that reprobate or euill men may beleiue doe good workes be in the Church that reprobates may be iustified that good workes doe iustifie redeeme sinnes or the like Which they expound before men not before God or in shew not in deed An other vsuall distinction of theirs is In it selfe or in an other thing By this they delude those testimonies of Scripture which say that good men are iust worthie of God fulfill the law that baptisme forgiueth sinnes Almes deliuereth from death and such like which they expound in an other not in themselues as that good men are iust worthie of God fulfill the law in Christ not in themselues that almes deliuereth from death not in it selfe but in faith as saieth Confessio Augustana c. de Implet legis and that baptisme remitteth sinnes not in it selfe but in faith So Caluin in Act. 2. v. 38. A third vsuall distinction of theirs is SignificaÌ„tly not Causally By this they delude those testimonies of Scripture which teach that Sacraments worke grace Preists remit sinnes good works doe iustifie doe cause life euerlasting and the like Which they expound Significantly or ostensiuely not Causally Their fourth accustomed distinction is In parte not simply or wholy Thus they delude those testimonies which auouch that there is inherent iustice that sinners are taken away that good mens good workes are good and such like which they expound In parte not simply or wholy Their fift vsuall distinction is A saying of the law not of the Ghospell Thus they delude all the sentences of Scripture which declare that iustice and life euerlasting is to be purchased by good works that the keeping of the law is necessarie to life and such like For these kind of sayings they will haue to be onely of the law not of the Ghospell But their most vsuall distinction of all is Figuratiuely not Properly which kind of deluding the Scripture is most ample and containeth almost all the former kinds For what seemeth to be is not is figuratiuely not properly Likewise what is in parte and not simply what is not in it selfe but in another is figuratiuely and not properly Yet because this their distinction would wax stale if it were vsed vnder the same termes in all places and the vanitie thereof would easily appeare if nakedly it were applied to some places therefore at least in words and with some litle differences they haue deuided it into diuers Peculiarly by this distinction they delude all those testimonies of Scripture which teach that the Eucharist is the bodie and blood of Christ that eternall life is a reward that the Apostles are the foundations of the Church that the Ghospell is a law Christ a law giuer descended into hell that there is in the Church an altar a sacrifice and the like These forsooth are their fine plaisters which they applie to cure all the wounds which are giuen them by the sword of the word of God which if they will let other Heretiks vse in such sorte as they doe nothing at all will be proued out of Scripture Wherefore thus I frame my 22. argument They who besides their opposition to the expresse words of holie Scripture related in the first booke are forced in manie and great matters to deuise friuolous and verball distinctions and such as destroye themselues and were neuer heard of before among Christians they contradict the true sense of holie Scripture Protestants doe so Therefore c. CHAPTER XXIII THAT PROTESTANTS CONFESSE THE vniforme consent of Fathers Councels and of the Church to be against
out of the Fathers writings against vs I plainely say that I will not binde my selfe to their authoritie In like sorte they make litle reckoning of the Church Authoritie of the Churche auaileth nothing Councels For thus writeth Whitaker ad Rat. 3. Camp Can the Church afford vs no confirmation of doctrine no arguments of faith None Et Cōt 1. q. 5. c. 10. The practise of the Church is the opinion of men The sentences of the Fathers is an opinion of Merely humane men The definition of Councels is the iudgement of mē Vorstius in Antib pag. 1. saieth that the testimonie of the Church is merely humane Et p. 382. An Argument from the practise of the ancient Church concludeth nothing Protest contemne Fathers Church and Councels Not to be regarded Contemned Finally they professe to cōtemne both Fathers Church and Coūcells For thus writeth Luther de ser arb to 2. fol. 433. The Fathers authoritie is not to be regarded Et l. de Concil Twentie years agoe I was forced to contemne the Fathers commentaries Melancthon in loc edit An. 1523. I am of opinion that in matters of religion mens commentaries are to be fled like the plague Reineccius to 4. Armat cap. 15. There are Fathers who hould the same error with the Papists whose testimonies we reiect as false and fond Bullinger dec 5. Serm. 4. We answere in one word to the ancient writers of the Church whome they obiect vnto vs testifying I know not what of Peters primacie we doe not so much care what the Fathers thought Litle moued as what Christ hath instituted Caluin 3. Institut cap. 14. § 38. I am litle moued with those things which euerie where are to be found in the writings of the Fathers touching satisfaction Et de ver reform Nether care I for the sentences of the Fathers which these Moderators bring for to tread downe the trueth What to doe with Father◠Humfrey in Proregom What haue we to doe with Fathers with flesh and blood or what pertaineth it to vs what the false synods of Bishops doe decree Whitaker lib. 8. cont Dur. sect 62. I care litle for the Fathers Sect. 69. I care not what We care not What to doe with Coūcels the Fathers thought of Ihons baptisme Cont. 1. q. 5. c. 10. What haue we to doe with Churches or Councells vnlesse they shew that those things which they define be aggreable to Scripture Et l. de Script c. 1. sect 7. An argument which is taken from the bare testimonie of the Church to confirme the Scriptures or anie parte of them or anie point of our faith I say is inualide vneffectuall and vnfit to perswade Iuel in Apol part 4. saieth that Way of the Church fanaticall the way to find the trueth by God speaking in the Church and Councels is very vncertaine very dangerous and in a manner fanaticall Thus thou seest Reader that Protestants confesse that in manie and great matters the Fathers the ancient all Fathers all from the Apostles time the ancient Fathers with mutuall consent all antiquitie likewise the ancient Church the Church of the first 500. or 600. yeares the Church in the very beginning Finally generall Councells all generall Councells are opposite to them and that the Catholik doctrine doth consist of the sentences of the Fathers hath beene beleiued and receaued since the Apostles time and all deliuered by the Fathers with mutuall consent Moreouer thou seest how litle they esteeme the vniforme consent of Fathers Church and Councells yea in plaine termes professe to contemne it I dispute not now how the vniforme cōsent of Fathers of the Church and Councells is infallible in matters of faith which hath beene manifestly proued by many Catholiks writers onely I propose to the Readers consideration how much Note Protestants doe preiudice their cause in the iudgement of all reasonable men by reiecting and contemning the vniforme consent of Fathers of the Church and Councells touching the exposition of Scripture Forsooth yong mē contemne most ancient few very manie disagreing those that most agree men of meane wit or learning those that were most wittie and learned men of small diligēce those that haue beene most diligent vulgar yea profane men those that were most holie nether will admit such and so manie men now happily reigning with Christ who nether knew vs nor them so that could not be partiall ether for iudges or arbiters or witnesses sufficient of the sense of Scripture but quite reiect them as insufficient to decide this controuersie Surely hereby it is euident that the sense which Protestants attribute to the Scripture is not euidēt and cōsequently no point of faith seing so manie so learned so wittie so holie so diligent searchers of Scripture in so manie ages could not finde it For as Andrews saieth in Tortura Torti It is monstrous if among so manie eyes eagles eyes eyes dayly conuersant in Scriptures I adde eyes lightened by the holie Ghost none perceaued this sense grounded as they say must plainely If it had beene most plainely grounded I thinke some Father would haue seene through a lattise at least he would not haue denied it and taught the contrarie Yea it followeth that the sense in which Catholiks expound the Scripture is manifest seing so manie and so great Fathers haue vniformely deliuered it nor deliuered it onely but also condemned those who followed that sense which the Protestants embrace as Heretiks as shall appeare in the Chapter following I adde also that Casaubō in his epistle to Card Perron thus writeth The King will willingly graunt that now it is not lawfull No end of controuersies without the Fathers for anie to condemne those things which are euident to haue beene approued by the Fathers of the first ages by an vniforme consent for good and lawfull Agayne If the testimonie and weight of the primitiue Church be taken away the King willingly graunteth that amongst men the controuersies of these times will neuer haue an end Luther also in Defens verb. Caenae to 7. If this frame of the world shall continew some ages humane means wil be agayne set downe after the manner of the Fathers for to take away distinctions and laws and decrees wil be made for to reconcile and to keepe agreement in religion In forme therefore thus I make my 23. argument Who not onely gainesay the expresse words of holie Scripture in such sorte as hath beene set downe in the former booke but also confesse that in manie and gerat matters they contrarie to the vniforme consent of holie Fathers of the Church and Councels yea reiect and contemne it they are also contrarie to the true sense of holie Scripture Protestants doe so Therefore c. CHAPTER XXIV THAT PROTESTANTS CONFESSE that their doctrine was in ould time condemned for Heresie THE 24. argument for to proue that Protestants cōtradict the right sense of holie Scripture shal be because it is
a contradictorte proposition to the words of Christs institution For Christ saieth This which I giue you to eate is my bodie The Sacramentaries denie it and say That which thou giuest vs to eate is not thy bodie The like hath Musculus art cit They teach that Christ is not in the Supper l. 1. c. 11. art 1. And neuerthelesse thus writeth Beza in Hospin part 2. Histor fol. 301. Manie thinke that we would exclude Christ from the Supper which is plainely impious We are so farre from saying that Christ Iesus is absent from the Supper that aboue all men we most repugne this blasphemie Concerning faith they teach that it is not simply necessarie to saluation l. 1. c. 13. art 15. Which is blasphemous Touching Faith in the iudgement of Luther in Genes 47. tom 6. Zuinglius saieth he wrote of late that Numa Pompilius Hercules Scipio Hector do enioy euerlasting happines in heauen with Peter and other Saints Which is nothing els then plainely to confesse that they thinke there is no faith no Christianitie The like saieth Beza l. de puniend Haeret. Touching good works they denie that it is necessarie Touching good workes they should be present when we are iustified l. 1. c. 14 art 12. Of which doctrine thus pronounce the Electorall Ministers in Colloq Aldel p. 343. It is horrible dishonor to God and a barbarous doctrine to professe that in the very instant and act of iustification not onely merit but also necessitie of the presence of good works is excluded They say that all the good works of iust men are sinnes and mere iniquities lib. 1. cap. 14. art 2. Of which doctrine Zuinglius giueâ—h this verdict in Exposit Fidei to 2. Some of ours haue saied paradox like that euerie worke of ours is abhomination They say also that we may not doe good for reward l. 1. c. 14. art 19. Of which doctrine Remonstrantes in Collat. Hagae p. 95 giue this censure Who denie that the faithfull may doe good workes in regard of reward due to good works he peruerteth and denieth the nature of faith of Gods law of eternall life and death Touching sinne they teach that in the faithfull it doth Touching sinne not expell grace l. 1. c. 16. art 6. Of which Hutter thus writeth They plainely make the Apostle a liar who with open mouth pronounceth that euerie fornicator vncleane and couetous man is excluded out of the kingdome of heauen and also Christ our Sauiour who pronounceth this sentence against those that denie him whosoeuer shall denie me c. They teach that men shall not be damned for their sinfull works but onely for incredulitie l 1. c. 16. art 10. And yet Beza in 2. part Resp ad Acta Montisb pag. 218. after he had recited these positions of Iames Andrews Onely incredulitie damneth men Men are not damned because they haue sinned addeth Durst euer man before this so impudently bring into Gods Church so false so monstrous so abhominable doctrine Et p. 215. Surely your speach seemed into lerable to vs that men are not damned for sinne The like hath Vrsin in Miscellan p. 84. Touching Iustification they teach that a iustified man Touching Iusication cannot leese grace by any sinne that he committeth lib. 1. c. 17. art 12. Which doctrine is thus censured by Wittembergenses in Schlusselb lib. 1. Theol. art 7. It is a great madnesse of the Anabaptistes and other frantike men who say that the iustified cannot fall or at least not leese the holie Ghost and become againe guiltie of Gods wrath albeit they breake Gods commandments against their conscience Hutter in Anal. cit p. 562. It is a blasphemous speach of Zanchius saying that forgiuenesse of sinnes once obtained is not made voyde by sinnes folowing and that the holie Ghost once giuen to the iustified remaineth with him for euer And of Beza writing that Peter denying Christ and Dauid falling into adulterie did not leese the holie Gost Adamus Francisci loc 6. The Caluinists with a horrible madnesse imagin that the regenerate caÌ„not fall into mortall sinne and that if they fall notwithstanding they retaine Gods grace the holie Ghost and faith Et Confess August c. 11. condemneth the Anabaptistes who denie that they who are once iustified can againe leese the holie Ghost They teach that a Sinner doth not cooperate to his conuersesion but that he is iustified doing nothing as a logge or els rebelling lib. 1. c. 17. art 15. Which doctrine thus the Wittembergians condemne in Schlusselb to 5. Catal. Haer. With all our hearts we abhor from that doctrine dishonorable to God and full of Blasphemies against the Sonne of God A man is conuerted not onely as a logge but also resisting and we say that by such speach not onely securitie and profane contempt of God but also horrible sinnes of men are bolstered Of free will they teach that man hath no freedome in good or euill deeds l. 1. c. 21. art 2. Which doctrine Melancthon lib. de Causa Peccati to 2. thus condemneth We doe not applaude the madnesse of the Stoickes or Maniches who are dishonorable to God and pernitious to mans life feigning that men do necessarily commit sinne Finally Iames Andrews in Colloq Montisb condemned manie doctrines of Beza as blasphemous as pag. 381. That the elect though they sinne grieuously doe retaine the holie Ghost pag. 393. That onely the elect infants are adopted in baptisme p. 447. That Christ died not for the sinnes of the whole world p. 422. That God will haue some to perish Et p. 423. That God will not haue mercie on some and that he created some to this end to shew his wrath in them Vorstius also in Parasceue oftentimes condemneth Piscators doctrine of blaphemie And scarce is there anie Protestant that writeth against an other who doth not accuse him of blasphemie Wherefore let this be my 25. argument Whose sundrie doctrines are not onely so opposite to the expresse words of Scripture as hath beene shewed in the first booke but also so blasphemous as sometimes the very Authors of them partely other learned Protestants their brethren do confesse it they are opposite to the true meaning of holie Scripture But manie doctrines of the Protestants are such Therefore c. CHAPTER XXVI THAT PROTESTANTS DOE FRVSstrate and make voide the ends of the coming and passion of Christ MY 26. argument wherewith I will proue that ProtestaÌ„ts coÌ„tradict the true sense of holie Scripture shal be because manie of their positions doe frustrate and make voide the coming and passion of Christ For one end of the coming and passion of Christ was Protest say Christ tooke not away sinne to take away and exhaust our sinnes 1. Ioan. 3. v. 5. And you know that he appeared to take away our sinnes Hebr. 9. v. 28. Christ was offered once to exhaust the sinnes of manie But Protestants as we shewed l. 1. c. 17. art 5. say that Christ did not take
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
other expresse words are directly contrarie And let that faith or rather infidelitie fall perish vanish which in more then 260. articles is condemned of such words of God and in such a sense and in most points is onely supported by humane consequences humane conferences and humane reasons or arguments These are the points Christian Reader taken out of How Protest handle the letter of Scripture the first booke which I desire to fasten and engraue in thy memorie which yet will be more forcible if thou adde to them things which I haue set before thy eyes in thy second booke For there I haue shewed that the holie Scripture doth so manifestly condemne the Protestants doctrine as that touching the letter thereof they are forced to reiect some openly others priuilie to scrape out to call some in doubt to adde some to translate some wrong and change the order of others Touching the propositiōs How the sayings of Scripture they are compelled to say that some of them were certainlie knowne of God himselfe others not spoaken according to his owne mynd others spoaken ironically mimeticallie hyperbolicallie by fiction and amplification and to change vniuersall propositions into particulars vnlimited into limited absolute into conditionals these that were spoakē simply into those that were spoakē in parte and those that were spoaken of one time into those that were spoaken of an other Touching the single How the simple words words of Scripture they are forced those words which signifie the doing of a thing to expound of endeauour to doe it those which signifie the cause to expound of the way or means to an end Which signifie that a thing is to expound that it ought to be Which signifie a true thing to expound of an apparent or signe thereof to expound words by diuerse by disparate or vnlikelie yea by opposites or contraries to deuise all kinde of figures when the proprietie of the word is against them to find out new and neuer heard of distinctions to reiect the vnanimous exposition of Fathers Church and Councels to frustrate the ends of the passion of Christ to take out of the world all true vertue and to open the way to all vice to confesse that they hould opinions her to fore condemned for heresies of the Church and Fathers to acknowledge that some of their opinions are plainely blasphemous and finally which is the end of this worke directly opposite to holie Scripture Who I say in more then 260. articles of cōtrouersie not onelie oppose themselues to the expresse words of Scripture spoaken of purpose to tell vs Gods meaning cōcerning matters that farre passe all mās reach in their proper sense and in which men vsuallie vnderstand them and to which no other places of Scripture are directlie opposite but also laie violent hands vpon the sacred letter or word change almost all the kinds of propositions which the Scripture vseth impiouslie depraue the sense of the words reiect the exposition of Fathers Church and Councells make voide the ends of Christs passion take away all vertue and bring in vice and finallie confesse that diuers of their opinions are blasphemous contrarie to scripture they are to be accounted auoided and eschewed not onely as Heretiks condemned by the Scripture and holie Church but euen of themselues A note to the Reader I HAVE not set downe the editions of the Protestants bookes which I cite in this worke because I haue done that in my booke de Authore Prot. Ecclesiae put forth An. 1619. Where he that list may see them as also he may there see the laws which I prescribe to him that will answere ether that booke or this Moreouer in this English worke I doe not cite the English words of our English Protestant writers because I had not their English works at hand but translate them out of their Latin works Besides I am not so curious to cite the leafe or page as I was in the Latin edition because the vnlearned will not be able to seeke the Latin and the learned Reader will rather I suppose peruse my Latin copie where he shall find the leaues or pages as carefully cited as I could doe by the errors of the Scribe or Printer whose fault no discret reader will impute to me and whose error I hope is no where to be found both in the number of the chapters and of the leaues or pages together So that the one of them may bring the Reader to the place which I alledge if the other chance to be misprinted Laus Deo Virginique Matri AN INDEX OF THE CHAPTERS and Articles contained in the first booke CHAPTR 1. Of the owners of Scripture Whether Catholiks or Protestants be true owners of the Scripture CHAP. 2. Of God ARt 2. Whether God willeth sinne page 45. 2. Whether sinne pleaseth God p. 49. 3. Whether God hateth sinne p. 50. 4. Whether God worketh sinne p. 51. 5. Whether God ordaineth sinne to be p. 33. 6. Whether God commandeth sinne p. 56. 7. Whether God tempteth to sinne p. 57 8. Whether God necessitateth to sinne p. 59. 9. Whether God hateth all that sinne p. 61. 10. Whether God iustifieth the sinner remaining a sinner p. 62. 11. Whether God be angrie with the faithfull when they sinne p. 65. 12. Whether God be delighted with good works p. 67. 14. Whether God be serued by good works p. 69. 15. Whether God esteeme of good works which are not commanded 70. 16. Whether God be appeased by good workes p. 71. 17. Whether God will haue his commādements kept p. 73. 18. Whether God loueth all men p. 75. 19. Whether God would haue all men to be saued p. 77. 20. Whether God would haue some cōuerted who will not conuert p. 78. 21. Whether God call all men p. 80. 22. Whether God of himselfe will the death and damnation of men p. 81. 23. Whether God dāneth men for sinne p. 85. 24. Whether God can doe all things p. 86. 25. Whether God can make a Camell passe through a needls eye p. 88. 26. Whether God can doe that which shall neuer be p. 90. 27. Whether Gods miracles be a sufficient proof of trueth p. 91. Chap. 3. Of Christ Art 1. Whether God the Sonne had his being of his Father p. 96. 2. Whether Christ was predestinated the Sonne of God p. 97. 3. Whether Christ as man is to be adored p. 98. 4. Whether Christ as man could worke miracles p. 100. 5. Whether Christs humanitie be euerie where p. 102. 6. Whether Christ as man be head of the Church p. 104. 7. Whether Christ as man made lawes p. 105. 8. Whether Christ as mā be Iudge 107. 9. Whether Christ made a new testament p. 109. 10. Whether as man he were ignorant p. 111. 11. Whether as man he were a sinner p. 113. 12. Whether he refused to doe the office of a Redeemer p. 116. 13 Whether he was assured of his saluation 118 14 VVhether he had commandment
he nether mentioneth the lawes of answering my saied booke which I set downe and proue by reason testimonie of holie Fathers and confession of Protestants ought to be kept in answering such a booke And which lawes I tell him before hand that vnles he ether keepe or refute I would accounte his answer no solid or lawfull answere but the babling of one who could neither sufficiently answere nor yet hould his peace Secondly because he maketh no other answere to the manifold and manifest depositions of the best learned Protestants which I haue my self brought and clearly confuted by the depositions or testimonies them selues against which confutation of myne he replieth nothing but standeth mute Thirdly because he so miserably mangleth the answere which I make to their Sophisme wherewith they by pretense of true Doctrin would proue that they haue alwaies had true Pastors and People who taught and beleiued it and so pittifully replieth to the saied answere as he plainly sheweth him self to be a true Heretike that is conuicted in his owne iudgement as I think euerie one that compareth his lecture with my Booke will clearly perceiue 4. But sith the Protestants cheife and almost whole pretense of the truth and euer being of their Church is the pretense of the truth of their doctrin by the Scripture I will euidently shew euen by the light of Reason and Prudence that they haue no reasonable or colourable pretense of Scripture but that it maketh expresly clearly and directly against theÌ„ and for Catholiks almost in all points of coÌ„trouersie For whereas there be twoe waies to shew Twoe waies to proue that the Scripture is against Protest that the holie Scripture is plainely against Protestants the one by conferring of diuers places together by bringing the exposition of the holie Fathers decrees of Councels and tradition of the Church the other by onely comparinge the expresse words of Catholiks and ProtestaÌ„ts with Protest Doctrin as clearly contrarie to Scripture as yea is to no. expresse words of holie Scripture touching the same matter I take not the first way which hithertoe Catholike writers haue followed because it is not so fit to the capacitie of commun people for whome especially I compose this worke but the second which is as cleare for euerie one that hath reason to see as it is cleare to see that Yea and Yea of the same matter agree and that Yea and Nay do disagree 4. This perhaps may seeme strange nay impossible to simple Protestants whose eares haue bene still accustomed to heare their ministers vaunt and brag of the word of God of the Scripture and Bible and to auouch that Catholiks haue nothing to alleadge for theÌ„ selues but traditions and word of men But I beseech such to suspend a while their iudgment and sith they wil haue the Protestants doctrin to be tried or iudged by nothing but by Scripture onely let them grant me these two conditions Two conditions to proue the Scripture to be against Protest 1. Touching the letter 2. Touching the sense of trying their doctrin by the Scripture which the very light of reason the authoritie of holie Fathers and the Confession of the best learned Protestants will enforce them to graunt The first condition is touching the words or letter of the holie Scripture The second is touching the sense or meaning of the saied words or letter For as the holie Scripture consisteth of two partes whereof the one is the word or letter the other is the sense therof so I require one condition for the word and an other for the sense 5. The condition touching the word or letter is that the words of holie Scripture be taken as they be in the The 1. coÌ„ditioÌ„ toâ—ching the letter proued Bible or booke of God without anie addition subtraction or transposition breefly without anie chopping or changing whatsoeuer This condition is so iust and reasonable as I think no reasonable man will denie it and neuertheles I wil proue it First because where God alone is Iugde there it is reason that all men be silent and onely harken what God saieth nor interrupt or corrupt his words Let vs heare Lib. 1. peccat c. 20. De vnit c. 13 Serm. 27. de verb. Apo. saieth S. Austin our lord and not ghesses or suspitions of men Againe I beleiue that which I read in holie Scripture not that which vaine Heretiks say And other where There is a controuersie risen let is goe to the Iudge let the Prophet iudge yea let God iudge by the Prophet let vs both hold our peace And yet againe let vs not heare This I say This thou saiest but let vs Lib. 6. cont Iul. c. 4. In Confutat Latomito 2. fol. 234. heare This our lord saieth Yea Luther writeth That mans word added vnto Gods word is a couer nay mans dung wherwith pure truth is hidden Moreouer seing Protestants impose silence to the Church Councells Fathers and all Catholiks in decision of matters of faith and therin admit onely the written word of God it were impudencie for them to request to speake Agayne if Protestants will mingle their owne words with the words of God they admit not the onely word of God for iudge of controuersies but partely also their owne and make one entire iudge of them both Finally Protestants are wonte to crie that the Scriture is the onely and profest rule of faith that they will heare Beza cont Heshus Daneus Cont. 3. 6. 7. Hospin part 2 Caluin cont versipel cont Cathalon nothing besides Scripture that nothing is to be taught but the pure written word nothing to be beleiued but that which is expressely conteined in the Scripture Let them heare therefore in these twoe hundred and sixte points in which I will compare their doctrine with the Scripture mere Scripture onely Scripture and let them harken to nothing but Scripture let all their owne words whatsoeuer be set aside let the Scriptures pure and onely words shew and iudge whether Catholik or Protestant doctrin in these 260. points here set downe be agreable or disagreable vnto it 6. The second condition touching the sense is That The 2. condition touching the sense proued the pure written word of God may iudge betwixt vs according to the pure sense therof which when it is spoken clearly or of purpose to tell vs what Gods meaning is of it self and according to the vsual acception of men it doth afford and this is euident also especiallie if the Church must not be admitted to be the infallible Interpreter of the true sense of Scripture But neuertheles I proue it First because Protestants cannot set downe anie condition which is so reasonable or indifferent to both partes Secondly because ether the Scripture in matters of controuersie clearly declareth her meaning by her self without any help or exposition of man or she doth not If she clearly declare her meaning by her self then needeth she no help of man
speeches of Protestants as it was to me to write them out let him runne ouer the Summe which I make of their words or by the notes in the margent chuse which are fittest to his purpose And thus much for the māner of my proceeding in this booke 11. The profit of this work is manifould First because by it a short and easie way may be taken to make an end The profits of this worke of all controuersies and that out of Scirpture alone as Protestants desire to wit by mere rehearsall of the expresse words of Scripture of Catholiks and of famous Protestants touching 260. articles of controuersie For if it appeare that catholikes in 260. articles agree both in word and sense with the expresse words of Scripture and these spoken of purpose to declare her meaning vnto vs and that Protestants in those 260. articles directly contradict the said words and sense of the holie Scripture no man will doubt but that all Protestant doctrin for as it is contrarie to the Catholik is also contrarie to the holie Scripture An other commoditie is that in this booke are gathered those places of Scripture and they ranked according to order of their matters which in 260. articles directly and in their proper and vsual sense do approue the Catholik doctrin and condemne the Protestant A third commoditie is that hereby are at hand in euerie kind of controuersie such sayings of famous Protestants as not onely directely crosse the Scripture but also many of them are so blasphemous against God against Christ against the Saints the Church Sacraments Faith Good works so opposite to pietie vertue and religion so fauorable to vice and all licenciousnes so repugnant to reason as some Protestants will deny and others scarse beleeue that euer any of theirs taught such doctrin Whome I request The Authors fidelitie in citing Protetestants sayings to take the paines to looke vpon the bookes and places by me alledged and then to beleeue their owne eyes For I not onely gathered their sayings out of their owne bookes but also after I had my self gathered them and caused them to be faire copied out I diligently conferred them with their books and admitted none which he that read their bookes did non find to be truly cited out of them Wherfore I say for my self as Caluin said for him self against Gentilis There shal be no colour for them to cōplaine that they are slandered seing I request that iudgmēt be made of their impietie out of their owne mere words And they who haue had to deale with Protestants ether by word or writing know well how important a thing it is to be able to conuince them that they teach that which in in very deed they teach which may clearly be done by their sayinges here rehearsed 12. The fourth commoditie of this worke is thar hereby shall appeare that almost in all controuersies which betwene Catholiks and Protestants Catholiks do stick fast to the very words of Scripture and religiously keepe her letter and forme of speech and Protestants goe fare from the words at lest of Scripture and bring in a different yea quite opposit forme of speech Nether ought they to think this to be a small fault both because they boasting of the pure and expresse word of God ought also to keep the very letter thereof and not to reiect it and to vse the contrarie as also because the Apostle commandeth to auoide profane nouelties of words and to keepe the 1. Timoth. 6. 2. Timoth. 1. forme of holesome words which we haue learned of him which commandment they do not follow who forsake the Scriptures forme of speech and embrace the contrarie and finally because not onely the sense but also the words and forme of speech vsed by the Scripture did proceed from the holie Ghoste and therefore it is sacrilegious audacitie to reiect Gods words and Gods forme of speaking and to bring in mans words and fashion of speaking quite contrarie As if these new Ghospelers should teach God how to deliuer his mind or he ment to speake otherwise by them then he did by his Prophets Apostles and Euāgelists wherefore their impietie is not to be borne withall who when the Scripture most often and most plainly calleth the beleefe of wicked men or reprobats faith and neuer denieth it to be faith yet dare say that it Caluin 3. Instit c. 2. §. 10. is vnworthie the name of faith When the Scripture often times and most directly calleth the Eucharist the bodie of Christ and not once directly denieth it to be his bodie yet dare say it is not his bodie And the like they doe in many other matters wherin if they controll not the meaning of the holie Ghoste at least they correct his speech and reforme it according to the square of their new doctrin Far otherwise proceeded the holie Fathers who would not suffer so much as a letter or syllable of the holie Scripture to be altered And as S. Austin grauely aduertized Philosophers may speake as they please but we speake according Lib. 10. de Ciuit. c. 23. to a certaine rule lest licencie in words breed impious opinions of the thing which they signifie Yea Protestants them selues some times will seeme to be very carefull of the words and phrases of Scripture For thus speaketh Luther If the In Confutat Latomi f. 227 Scripture terme any thing sin beware thou beest not moued by any words of theirs who as if they could speake better deny it to be sin And Caluin There is to be taken out of Scripture a 1. Instit c. 13. §. 3. certaine forme of thinking speaking by which all the thoughts of our mynd and words of our mouth are to be examined Beza Ad defens Castell also I see that all godlie and learned Diuines haue euer taught that the holie Ghost gouerned not onely the mynd but also the tongue and pen in so much as concerning the wonders of God not onely nothing can be saied of any mā more truly or more habily but also nether so grauely nor so properly Likewise Bucer Prefat in Math. No wisdom of the flesh can reach to these misteries of the kingdome of God Therefore then we speake most plainly most perspicuously and most surely of matters of faith when we speake according to the rule and forme of Scripture And otherwhere we In Hospin part 2. Histor must learne of the Scripture and the holie Ghoste how to speake and think of euerie matter Wherefore the holie Ghost his formes of speaking ought not to be corrected according to the iudgment of our reason Thus they which if they and theires had followed we should not haue had so much speech contrarie to the Scripture 13. The fift and that no small cōmoditie is that by this worke wil be taken from ministers all their false pretense of Scripture and of the worde of God wherewith perpetually they crie that the Catholik
saing directly and expresly This is not my bodie But onely mens inference out of a mixt word to wit Christs bodie is in heauen and can not be in two places which word is mixt partely of Gods word for the former parte and of mens word for the latter And shall we thinke that in a matter of faith which we can not know but by Gods teaching his pure and expresse word is not to be preferred before mens inference out of a mixt word which is in parte mens word What els can we thinke vnles we will euen in Gods matters preferre men before God 15. The seauenth cōmoditie is that in this word are discouered all or the most vsuall shifts wherewith Protestāts vse to delude the testimonies of holie Scripture Which surely is no lesse profitable then to know the deceits of enemies with whom we are to fight And as Tertullian saieth VVoe be to him who whiles he is in this life knoweth not De resur c. 19. the secrets of Heretiks And these are the especiall profits and commodities which may be reaped by this work Now let vs remoue certaine scruples or hinderances of the reaping of them 16. The first scruple may be about the vulgar Latin trāslation Obiections or difficulties remoued which I follow in citing the words of Scripture But to omit all which Catholiks produce for to proue that translation to be authenticall because this is no place to treate of that matter Protestants cōfessions hereof may suffice which may be seene in the Protestants Apologie for the Rom. Church Treat 1. Sect. 10. subd 4. to which I add that Casoubon writeth I acknowledg the Latin translation of the bible to be holie Scripture and I account an vnperdonable fault to so much as doubt thereof That Iuel art 17. sect 4. saieth It hath bene euer more generally receaued in the Church That Beza in Luc. 1. confesseth That the ancient interpreter did most religiously translate the Scripture And in Luc. 8. v. 54. That him self had twoe ancient Greek copies which meruailously agreed with the vulgar Latin And Prefat in Testam That the vulgar interpreter had a truer Greek copie then theirs now are Whitaker also Cont. 1. q. 2. c. 7. graunteth that the Latin Fathers commend it and iustly Hounfrey l. 1. de Rat. interpret affirmeth That the old Interpretor seemeth enough addicted to the proprietie of the word Moreouer Luther and Protestants commonly confesse that Catholiks haue the word of God that the Fathers vsed the Latin translation in their disputes for maintenance of the Catholik faith and confutation of Heresies Besids Fulk in his preface to the Testament saieth that none of them calleth the vulgar translation of the new testament Papisticall as though it were translated by Papists or els made so greatly for Papists when it is rightly vnderstood Finally the vulgar Latin translation differeth not from the originall Hebrew or Greek text but in very few of those places which here I cite and therefore it wil be but vayne to cauil here about this matter 17. The secōd scruple may be that some times the very why Protest can not excuse them selues by the Scripture Scripture contradicteth it self in shew of words and neuertheles in sense and meaning is neuer repugnant to it self And therefore it is not so great meruail if Protestāts some time contradict the words of Scripture nether can it be thereof inferred that the contradict the sense To this I answer that the Scripture nether so often nor in so many and so weightie matters nor so manifestly and directly contradicteth it self in words as Protestants doe Nether need we so many and so incredible shifts for to reconcile the words of Scripture as Protestants need to reconcile their sayings with the Scripture Besids God may speak as he pleaseth therefore may for to exercise our faith and studie mingle some shew of contradiction in his words but Protestants are bound to speak as God speaketh and not to gaine say so much as his words as doubtles they would not if their meaning were not repugnant to his Agayne we may not out of anie seeming contradiction in Gods words infer anie opposition in his meaning because we know that he can not be contrarie to him self but we know that Protestants can not be contrarie to Gods meaning as we see that they be contrarie to his words and therefore out of their so frequent so manifest so direct contradicting of his words we iustly inferre that they also contradict his meaning as we would inferre the same of anie Heretiks whatsoeuer Moreouer this cauil will no more help Protestants then it will help anie other Heretiks sith there were euer scarce anie who so often so plainly so directly contradicted the expres word of God as Protestants haue done And therefore ether we may inferre out of the Protestants contradicting the words of God that they also contradict his true meaning or we can not inferre that of anie Heretiks whatsoeuer But of this more in the second booke cap. 1. 18. The third scruple may be that perhaps also VVhy they can not excuse them selues by Catholiks some Catholik writers haue in shew of words contradicted the Scripture But to this I answere that this is to accuse others not to cleare them selues Let them first answere for them selues before they recriminate others And if anie of them will goe about to lay the like fault vpon Catholiks let him keep these most iust and equal conditions First let him not medle with other matters then such as are in controuersie betwixt vs and them as I touch no other matters Secondly let him bring forth in so manie controuersies so manifest and so direct testimonies of holie Scripture agreeing with their doctrin both in wordes and sense and opposite to our doctrin as I haue brought Thou must proue saieth Tertullian as euidently as we proue Giue me a proof which I demand like to Cont. Prax. c. 11. De vnit c. 6. 24. mine And S. Austin Produce as cleare testimonies as these are which we produce to you We demande some manifest place which needeth no interpreter Thirdly let him shew that the Councell of Trent contradicteth as directly so many and so expres places of Scripture and that in so weightie matters as we haue shewed that theire confessions of faith of which as they say they make almost as great account of as Vorstius praefat Antilpraefat Syntagm we doe of the Councell of Trent Fourthly let him shew that so many and so famous Catholik writers haue in so many and so great controuersies contradicted the expres propositions or assertions of the holie Scripture as we haue shewed of the Protestant writers I say Propositions or Assertions because it is a farre greater matter to contradict the proportions of Scripture in which it pronounceth a thing to be or not to be to be such or not to be such then to varie onely from some of the
Thus by their greater antiquitie of their possession of the Bible and also by the greater antiquitie of the Bible it self did the ancient Christians proue against Heretiks both that their Bibles were the true Bibles and also that they were the true owners of them But manifest it is that Catholiks are ancienter possessors of the holie Scripture then Protestants be in so much as we shall see Protestants confesse that they had the Scripture of Catholiks Therefore Catholiks are the true owners of the Scripture The fourth proof is taken from that there can be no 4. title no beginning of possession named place or time named where or when Catholiks first began to take possession of the holie Scripture besides the very time of Christ and his Apostles who alone could giue true and lawfull possession of the Scripture Whereas See Author of the Prot. religion l. 2. c. 13. we can name the place and time when Protestants first began to Vsurpe possession of the holie Scripture Which is long after the time of Christ and his Apostles And all reason bindeth vs to accounte them the true owners of a thing the beginning of whose possession can not be found but at the very time of the first giuers thereof rather then those whose possession began manie hundreds of years after The fift proof I will ground vpon that the Catholiks 5. title the integritie of Scripture haue conserued the holie Scripture incorrupt For theeues and wrong possessors vse to disfigure the thing they haue stolne as much as they can that it may not be knowne Besides the Scripture must needs be contrarie to the vsurpers and agreable to the true owners therefore necessitie forceth vsurpers to alter the Scripture as false heires are forced to alter the will or testament if they get it into their hands Wherevpon we see that scarce euer there were anie Heretiks who haue not saught to corrupt the Tertul. de prescript c. 17 38. Scripture albeit Catholiks cried out against their sacrilegious impietie How much more then would Papists haue corrupted the Scripture especially whiles for manie ages there were no visible Protestants to reproue them if they had not beene the true owners of the Scripture But Catholiks haue not in all these ages in which Protestants were inuisible corrupted anie parte of the Scripture as is euident by that Protestants confesse that Scripture which they had of Catholiks to be pure and incorrupt Nether do Protestants obiect to Catholiks anie corruption made by them in the Hebrew or Greek text and the vulgar Latin they will haue to be ancienter then Papistrie it self But contrariewise Catholiks haue euer since the beginning of Protestancie charged Protestāts with manie and greiuous corruptions of holie Scripture Wherefore thus I argue All reason teacheth vs to iudge them to be the true owners of a testament who are the freest from corrupting it But Catholiks are farre more free from corruptinge the testament of Christ then Protestants Therefore c. The sixt proof I will take from the Protestants graunt Sixt title graunt of Protestants that they had the Scripture from Catholiks Luther in 16. Ioan. to 4. Germ. witenb fol. 227. There is an argument which can very hardly be wrested from the Papists and which I my self can very hardly answere and refute especially sith we are forced to giue and graunt them so manie thinges which are true to wit that in Poperie is the word the Apostleshippe and that we receaued the holie Scripture baptisme the Sacraments and office of preaching from them otherwise what should we haue knowne of all these things And to 5. in 1. Gal. fol. 293. we had indeed the Scripture and the Sacraments of the Papists Schusselburg to 8. Catal. Haeres p. 439. VVe denie not that Luther saieth that in Poperie is all Christian good and from thence came to vs. D. Daue of Recusancie p. 13. VVe hould the Creed of the Apostles of Athanasius of Nice of Ephesus of Constantinople which the Papists also do hould and the same Bible which we receaued from them Whitaker Cont. 2. q. 5. c. 14. Papists haue the Scripture Baptisme Catechisme the articles of faith the ten commandements the lords praier and these things come from thē to vs. Iames Andreas li. cont Has p. 316. VVe denie not that we receaued the Scriptures from you The like hath Spalatensis lib. cont Suar. c. 1. n. 34. and others A question proposed to Protestants Wherefore I aske the Protestāts how they had the Scripture of vs Did we giue it them Did we sell it them Did we change it with Did we relinquish it as a forlorne thing No one of all these can they proue or affirme with anie apparence How then get they the Scripture from vs but as theeues get the true mens goods and as Turkes and Iews get the same Scripture from vs If anie say as Andrews and Schusselb do intimate that Protestants had the Scripture of Catholiks as Christians had the ould testament of the Iewes I answere that Christians had not the ould testamēt of the Iewes if by Iewes they meane such as remained Iewes For Christians had the ould testament of the Apostles and they of Christ who was lord of the ould and new testament as they had from him the Sacraments and all other goods of the Church Besides euerie Heretik may pretend this as well as Protestants Wherefore thus I argue They whome their aduersaries confesse to haue had the Scripture before them selues and can tell no lawfull means by which they had the Scripture from them are according to all reason to be held the true owners of the Scripture rather then their aduersaries But such are Catholiks in respect of Protestants Therefore c. The seuenth proof I will take from the open and manifould Seuenth title other confessions of Protestant confessions of Protestants For first they confesse that Catholiks are the true Church of Christ as I haue shewed at longe in my foresaied booke of the Author of the Protestant religion lib. 1. c. 2. to which I add these few Spalatensis lib. 5. de repub c. 6. n. 236. The Rom. Church is not gone so farre from the foundation as that she is to be put wholy out of the membres of the Churches of Christ lib. cont Suarem c. 1. n. 20. I think as I haue often saied that the Rom. Church with those that follow here are the true Church of Christ D. Featlie in his Refutation of Fisher p. 82. The Rom. Church we acknowledge to be a member though a sicke and weake one of the Catholik visible Church The like hath D. Hall in his booke of ould religion and his twoe defenders Chalmeley and Batterfeild whereof the latter in his preface saieth he will demonstrate that the Rom. Church is a true Church Now certaine it is that the true Church is the true ower of the Scripture Secondly they confesse that Catholik Pastors are true
his idle permission The like he saieth de Praedestinat p. 727. And ibid. p. 726. Moises clearly affirmeth that hardnes of Pharao to haue Pharoes hardnes proper worke of God beene the worke of God Nether surely is Pharao his crueltie attributed here in any other sense vnto Gods counsell then otherwhere he is saied to giue fauour to his people in the sight of the. Egyptians And l. 3. Institut c. 23. § 1. Whence it followeth that the hidden counsell of God was the cause of this hardnes of harte Beza de Praedestinat cont Castell p. 400. Induration is the iust worke of God and the worke of Sathan Peter Martyr in lib. Iudic. c. 3. These kind of speeches plainly God worketh euerie way euill teach that God not onely by permitting but also by doing worketh euerie way euill in vs. Piscator apud Vorstium in Parasceue c. 3. c. in Amica Collat. sect 130. Because God procureth this manifestation of Procureth sinne it selfe of his iustice and mercie therefore also he procureth sinnes them selues God procured that Absalon rauished his father wiues Zanchius de Excaecat q. 1. to 7. col 204. It is certaine Author of induration that God as iust iudge was the chiefe Author of this induration See more of their like sayings in my Latin booke c. 1. art 4. THE CONFERENCE OF THE FORESAIED WORDS Scripture expressely saieth that God will not doe iniquitie hath not done iniquitie that a good tree cannot yeeld euill fruits that who worketh who committeth sinne is of the diuell The same saye Catholiks Protestants expressely say that God worketh euill in vs and by vs punisheth his ill deeds in vs that Dauids adulterie was the proper worke of God and Iudas his treason was Gods worke as well as Pauls vocation that the euill of sinne is done by the effectuall working of God that God is the Author of Induration or hardnes of hart the cause of it that it is Gods worke that Pharaos crueltie against the Iewes is attributed to Gods counsell in the same sense that the Egyptians fauour towards them that God euery way worketh euill in vs that God it the Author of all those things which Catholike CeÌ„surers thinke to fall out by his permission that God procureth sinne it selfe Which sayings are so blasphemous as the holie fathers affirme that they make God to be no God and so Basil hom quod Deus noÌ„ sit causa mali contrarie to holie Scripture as the same Protestants confesse it See l. 2. c. 25. 30. ART III. WHETHER GOD OERDAINE SINNE to be done and predestinate men to sinne SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY DENIETH. Hieremie 19. v. 5. And they haue builtes the excelses of God ordaineth not sinne Baalim which I commanded not nor haue spaken of nether haue they ascended into my hart The same teacheth the Scripture where it denieth that God willeth sinne CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY DENIE Councell of Trent Session 6. Can. 17. condemneth this doctrin The reprobats are predestinate to euill PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME Perkins de Praedestinat to 1. col 127. We say that Adams God decreed mans fall fall came God not onely foreseing but also willing and decreing it In Serie causarum c. 52. It is wicked to say that God did onely forsee Adams fall but did not ordaine it by an eternall Ordained it decree In Apocal. 1. to 2. God decreed by a generall will that men should fall and sinne Willet in Synopsi Contr. 8. q. 3. p. 859. The fall of Adam was both foreseene of God decreed to be not permitted onely As Adams fall decreed as Christs death Christ his death was decreed and determined so was the fall of Adam For the end of Christs death was to restore Adams fall and if the end be decreed then those things also which are necessarily referred to that end Caluin 3. Institut c. 23. § 8. Adam fell because God iudged it so expedient Man falleth Gods prouidence ordayning so De Prouident p. 736. I acknowledge this to be my doctrin that Ordained of God Adam fell not by Gods permission onely but also by his hidden counsell Et p. 738. I confesse I wrote so Adams fall was ordayned by the secret decree of God De Praedestinar p. 704. Let our faith with seemlie sobernes adore a far of the hidden counsell of God wherwith the fall of men was preordinated Beza de Praedestinat cont Castell p. 340. How God is not in fault if he ordayne the causes of damnation we thâ—nke it a God ordeineth the causes of daÌ„nation question vnexplicable to mans sense Page 4 7. We acknowledge it to be true that God hath predestinated whomsoeuer he pleased not onely to damnation but also to the causes of damnation In Absters calum Heshusij p. 319. We say that Adam could not fall but through the decree and ordination of God We think that Adams fall was decreed of God Zanchius de Praedestinat c. 4. to 7. As well they which Men predestinate to blindnes are blinded are predestinated to blindnes as they which are deliuered from sinne are predestinated to deliuerie De Excaecat q. 5. It is cleare that God hath predestinated some to excecation Sinne euen considered as sinne as it serueth to the glorie of Sinne euen as sinne is preordeined of God God not of it nature but by Gods goodnes so far forth is sinne and the euill of sinne preordayned of God Which words also Polanus hath l. 4. Syntax Theol. c. 10. And the same Zanchius l. 5. de natura Dei c. 2. to 2. This was that which God first decreeth daÌ„nation and then sinne God first decreed of the reprobates from all eternitie to will the euerlasting ordayning of some men to perdition to this were their sinnes ordained and to their sinnes forsaking and deniall of grace Piscator apud Vorstium in Parasceue c. 3. All things Sinne done by a speciall decree of God are done by the decree of God euen sinnes themselues and that by an absolute and speciall decree c 6. God destinated all and euerie maÌ„ to sinne Et in Amica Collat. sect 58. God decreed absolutely and of him selfe that sinnes should be done The same Piscator in thesib l. 2. loco 12. Reprobation deniall of grace followeth this sinnes follow sinnes punishment followeth to all God preordayned the reprobate from all eternitie See more of their like sayings in the Latin booke c. 1. art 5. THE CONFERENCE OF THE FORESAIED WORDS Scripture expressely denieth that sinne ascendeth to the hart of God or that God willeth it The same Catholiks Protestants expreslely affirme that God ordayned decreed determined Adams fall that Adam fell by Gods counsell and because he thought it expedieÌ„t through the decree and ordination of God that God ordaineth the causes of damnation praedestinateth to the causes of damnation whom he pleaseth praedestinateth as well to blindnes or excecation as to deliuerie from sinne preordayneth sinne
as sin as it is occasion of good first predestinated men to perditioÌ„ and after to sinne destinateth euery man to sinne decreeth sinne it selfe to be done by an absolute and speciall decree and that of him selfe Which doctrin is accursed of the Councell of Arausica can 25. and confessed by some Protestants to be contrarie to Scripture See l. 2. c. vlt. ART VI. WHETHER GOD COMMAND any to sinne SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY DENIETH. Ecclesiasticus c. 15. v. 21. He God hath commanded no God commaÌ„deth none to sinne man to do impiously Hieremie 32. v. 35. They haue built the excelses of Baal c. Which I commanded them not CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY DENIE Card. Bellarmin l. 2. Amiss Grat. c. 8. The Scripture manifestly teacheth that God doth not command sinne PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME Caluin de Praedestinat p. 727. You see that by Gods Sathan lieth by Gods commandment commandment Sathan is not onely a lying spirit in the mouth of all the Prophets but c. De Prouident pag. 739. What Where God sendeth for Sathan the minister of his reuenge and giueth him a plaine commandment to deceaue is not this different from bare permission And p. 746. God calling Sathan God biddeth Sathan to lie biddeth him goe to be a lying spirit in the mouth of all the Prophets for deceaue Achab. Beza in Absters calum Heshusij pag. 324. God being angrie with the wicked deliuereth them to Sathan and that with this commandment that by lying and all manner of deceit Expressely commandeth him to deceaue he destroy them miserably Pag. 382. Sathan was sent to deceaue Achab by the expresse commandment of God De Praedest cont Castel p. 403. Caluin wrote rightly and truly that by Gods commandment Sathan solliciteth to these desires which in regard of Sathan and the wicked are euill See more in the Latin booke c. 1. art 6. CONFERENCE OF THE FORESAIED WORDS Scripture saieth expressely that God commanded none to doe wickedly that he commanded not to build the excelses of Baal The same saye Catholiks Protestants expressely saye that Sathan was a lyer by Gods commandment that God giueth him a plaine command to deceaue that God biddeth him be a lying spirit for to deceaue that God commandeth Sathan to destroy the wicked by lying and all kind of deceit that God expressely sent him to deceaue and commandeth him to sollicite men to such desires as in them are euill ART VII WHETHER GOD TEMPTOR push any to sinne SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY DENIETH. Iames c. 1. v. 13. Let no man when he is tempted say that he God tempteth none to sinne is tempted of God for God is not a tempter of euills and he tempteh no man Ecclesiasticus c. 15. v. 12. Say not He hath made me erre for impious men are not necessarie for him CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY DENIE Cardin. Bellarmin lib. 2. de Amiss Grat. cap. 4. If God did push me to that which is against his law he should denie him selfe PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME Whitaker l. 8. cont Dureum sect 7. God pushed the â—indes of the Iewes to kill his sonne God moueth to sinne Zuinglius de Prouident c. 6. tom 1. God euen so moueth the iudge to punish the offenders as he moueth them to sinne Bucer in c. 6. Matth. The Scripture is not afraid to make God the Author of temptation God the author of temptation who some time bringeth the elect into temptation and that such as they truly fall and sinne Caluin 1. Institut c. 18. § 4. Man by Gods iust driuing doth that which is not lawfull for him De Praedestinat p. 727. Nether is Sathan the minister of Gods wrathe onely because he soliciteth soules to naughtie desires but also because he effectually draweth them Beza de Praedestinat cont Castell p. 401. God stirreth vp He stirreth the theefe to kill He tempteth to sinne the ill will of the theefe to kill an other Peter Martyr in locis classe 1. c. 15. § 9. It is no maruell that we can not vnderstand how it can agree with Gods iustice to punish sinne and yet to driue to it by tempting for God can do more then we can vnderstand ibid. p. 1010. We must not denie that God is the Author of temptations In Rom. 1. fol 34. Nether must God be accused of iniustice though he will incline Driueth meÌ„s wills into greeuous sinnes and driue the wills of wicked men into greeuous sinnes THE CONFERENCE OF THE FORESAIED WORDS Scripture expressely sayeth that God is no tempter of euill that he tempteth none maketh none erre The same saye Catholiks Protestants expressely saye that God pushed the Iewes to kill his sonne moueth the offender to sinne is the author of temptation driueth man to that which is vnlawfull stirreth vp the theefe to kill tempteth to sinne driueth into greeuous sinne that the diuel is Gods minister in soliciting and drawing men to naughtie desires Which are so contrarie to Scripture as some times Protestants acknowledge it l. 2. c. 30. ART VIII WHETHER GOD MAKE men necessarily sinne SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY DENIETH. Genesis 4. v. 7. If thou doest ill shall not thy sinne forthwith God imposeth not necessitie to sinne be present at thy dore but the lust thereof shal be vnder thee and thou shalt haue dominion ouer it 1. Cor. 10. v. 13. God is faithfull who will not suffer you to be tempted aboue that which you are able CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY DENIE Councell of Trent Sess 6. Can. 5. defineth that man hath free will in euill PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME Whitaker l. 8. cont Dureum sect 1. On whome the holie Some haue necessitie to sinne Ghost is not bestowed they haue a miserable necessitie to sinne Willet Controu 18. q. 2. p. 855. Indeed Adam in respect of Gods appointment did sinne necessarily The same hath Perkins de Praedestinat col 134. Luther de seruo arbit to 2. fol. 460. If God did foresee that Iudas would be a traitor Iudas was necessarily a traitor nether Iudas a traitour of necessitie was it in the power of Iudas or of any creature to do otherwise or to change his will Fol. 434. This is the highest degree of faith to beleeue him to be iust who at his pleasure maketh men Some necessarily damned necessarily to be damned Zuinglius de Prouident c. 6 Nether let any say The theefe is guiltles because he slew God driuing him For he sinned against Some compelled to sinne the law But you will say He was compelled to sinne I graunt I say that he was compelled Caluin 3. Institut c. 23. § 9. The Reprobats would be excused in sinning because they cannot a void the necessitie of sinning Reprobates necessited to sinne especially sith this necessitie is imposed vpon them by Gods appointment But we denie that they can be iustly excused because Gods appointment is iust De Praedestinat p. 704. It sufficed to mans iust damnation to haue fallen of his accord froÌ„ the way
death to be destroied right who say that it is false that God created some to life others to death onely that he might shew his mercie in them and his power and iustice in these cap. 4. He createth some to this end to be destroied c. 6. That one is saued or damned we must needes confesse that Gods will was and is the cheefest Et apud Schusselburg l. 4. Theol. Caluin art 8. Gods will is the first and vnauoidable Gods will the first cause of perdition cause of the perdition of them that perish And l. 3. de natura Dei c. 4. q. 4. As for that place of wisdome Death entred into the world by the enuie of the Diuel and if there be any such others in which death is attributed to the Diuel as to the Author we answere that it doth not follow that God willeth God author of death not death or is not the author of it For the same effect may proceed from diuers causes Bucanus l. 4. Syntagm c. 10. The cause efficient and mouing for which the decree of affirmatiue or negatiue reprobation was made of God is not sinne The true and onely mouing cause for which the decree of reprobation was made is Gods pleasure or free will See manie more like sayings of Protestants in my Latin booke l. 1. art 22. THE CONFERENCE Scripture expressely saieth that God of him selfe will not the death of the impious or of him that dieth yea God sweareth that he will not his death and the Scripture addeth that God made not death that it entred by the Diuel that impious men are not necessarie for God The same say Catholiks Protestants expressely say the contrarie that God will the death of a sinner with his vnsearchable will that he is the Author of death that he created men to perdition death and damnation that he is the beginning the first vnauoidable cause of the perdition of them that perish That he predestinateth to death whome he would and why he would that sinne is not the cause of the decree of damnation That sinne is nether efficient nor mouing cause of negatiue or affirmatiue reprobation but onely the pleasure and free will of God ART XXIII WHETHER GOD DAMNETH men for sinne SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. Matth. 25. v. 41. Then he shall saye to them also that be at God damneth for sinne his left hand Get ye away frō me you cursed into fire euerlasting For I was an hungred and you gaue me not to eate c. CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME C. Bellarmin l. 2. de Grat. lib. arb c. 16. The Scriptures euerie where teach that by the iust iudgment of God euerlasting punishment is rendred vnto sinne PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Luther l. de seru arb tom 2. fol. 461. This most of all offendeth God damneth men for his mere will Respecteth not deserts in those that are to be damned Damneth those that deserue not common sense or naturall reason that God for his mere will doth forsake harden and damne men Fol. 465. Let vs I pray you feigne that God must be such a one as respecteth deserts in them who are to be damned Shall we not in like manner auouch and graunt that he respecteth deserts in them who are to be saued And fol. 466. It is now incomprehensible how it is iust that he damneth them that deserue not and yet is beleeued Zanchius apud Schusselburg l. 4. Theol. Caluin art 8. Here we saye that there is no other cause of mens damnation thē Gods mere pleasure Rennecber 16. The cause of damnation or reprobation is not to be saught in men but Gods will is the cheefest and supreme cause thereof Also Gryneus 16. Sinnes are Sinne not the cause of damnation not the cause why men are damned And Spindlerus 16. Sinne can no way be the cause why men are damned THE CONFERENCE Scripture expressely saieth that men are damned and adiudged to hell fire for sinne The same say Catholiks Protestants expressely say the contrarie that sinnes are not the cause why men are damned that can no way be the cause why men are damned that there is no other cause of mens damnation then Gods mere pleasure that God damneth those who deserue it not that he respecteth not deserts in those that he damneth that he damneth men for his mere will And thus much of Gods inward and outward acts toward sinne good works and mankinde let vs now see something of his power ART XXIV WHETHER GOD BE ALmightie and can doe all things SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. Genes 17. v. 1. Our Lord appeared vnto him and saied vnto God is almightie him I am the God almightie Iob. 42. v. 2. I know thou canst doe all things Mathew 19. v. 26. With God all things are possible The same is repeated Marke 10. and 14. Luke 1. vers 36. There shall not be impossible with God any word CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME Card. Bellarmin l. 3. de Euchar. c. 2. All diuines write that Gods power is not absolute God is saied to be almightie because he can do all that implieth not contradiction SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. Caluin in Resp ad Nebulon. p. 730. Caluin euerie where earnestly reiecteth that deuise of Gods absolute power which the Sophisters prate of in their scholes Which he repeateth de Praedest 728. de Prouid 755. 1. Inst c. 17. § 2. l. 3. c. 23. § 2. in c. 25. Isaiae Beza cont Heshusium vol. 1. p. 299. That saying of thine All thinges are possible to God hath some exception P. 300. You forsouth shall teach vs that Gods omnipotencie must not Gods omnipotencie limited Some things impossible to God be tied to that order which willingly he hath appointed to him selfe And pag. 302. He saieth that God can no more put Christs bodie in two places at once then he can make new Gods In Colloq Montisbel p. 27. God cannot make that Christs bodie be substantially in many places at one time Lib. quaest vol. 1. p. 658 God cannot make that one and the same bodie be substantially in many places or in any place not coextended to the place Which also he repeateth Respons ad Acta Torgens vol. 3. p. 60. Peter Martyr Respons ad Gardiner obiect 11. We complaine that you alwaies obiect Gods power whereas this Christs To which Gods power doth not extend Gods omnipotencie not without exception Beareth not some things bodie to be at once in manie places is of that kinde of things to which Gods power doth not extend And lib. 1. Epistolarum Zanchij pag. 408. We warne the godlie that Gods omnipotencie which we beleiue is not to be beleiued without all exception Sadeel ad art 14. aburat We haue shewed that Christs bodie cannot be really present in many places at once and that Gods omnipotencie cannot beare this And yet these men say that their faith can make present things that are to come absent and farthest of as
Christ was no lesse Christ freighted as the damned are freighted in soule then we or the damned are whiles they dread and flie God fol. 333. He was most troubled with wandring fears and most vnquiet affections And addeth fol. 330. cit that In exceeding despaire Christ was at once both excedingly glorying and despairing Melancthon in c. 26. Matthaei apud Hofmeister in Art 3. Floted betwixt hell and life Augustan The third that the greatest cause of Christs dread was a feeling of Gods forsaking and wrath whereby Christ floted betwixt hell and life Caluin in Catechismo c. de fide Because he preseÌ„ted himselfe Christs conscieÌ„ce anxious before the tribunall seate of God for to satisfie for sinners it was needfull that his conscience should be tortured with this anxietie as if he had beene forsakeÌ„ of God yea as if he had God his mortall enemie In Math. 26. ver 37. The depth of horrible destruction did greeuously vexe him to feare anxietie In v. 39. It was needfull Feared profound death for him to feare the profound depth of deathe Christ was stroaken with the dread of Gods malediction In Hebrae 5. v. 7. I doubt not but the Apostle meaneth that Christ was deliuered Feared to be swalowed of death Almost perswaded that he was cast away from that which he feared to wit lest ouercome with euills he should yeeld or be swallowed with death And the same repeateth Beza vpon the same place and addeth He was almost persuaded that he was cast away And in Luc. 22. v. 44. Nether did Christ wrasle onely with the fears of death as other men dâ—e but with the dreadfull iudgment of his angrie Father then the which nothing can be thought more dreadfull And in this deiection of Christ consisteth the summe of our comforte Pareus l. 3. de Iustificat c. 12. When Bellarmin had saied He cannot feare who by faith is assured of his saluatioÌ„ Answereth The proposition vnlesse it be limited is vniuersally false Who more sure of his saluation and predestination that our Sauiour and yet did he not crie vpon the Crosse and not without feare My God c. See more of their like sayings in my Latin booke c. 2. art 13. THE CONFERENCE Scripture expressely saieth that Christ knew that his Father did alwaies heare him that he did abide in his loue that he went to his father that he should sitt on the right hand of the power of God that he should be in paradise that God was at his right hand that he be not mooued The same say Catholiks Protestants expressely say that Christ suffered the dread of a conscience tasting euerlasting wrath was freighted in his soule like to the damned was exceedingly despairing did flote betweene hell and life was tormented with anxietie as if God were his mortall enemie was grieuously vexed with the dread of horrible destruction did feare the profound depth of death and Gods malediction feared lest he should be ouercomen with euills and swallowed with death was almost perswaded that the was cast away was afraied of his saluantion And yet these men as we shall see c. 17. art 10. auouch that euerie one of them is assured of his saluation and account him no Christian or faithfull man who is not so assured yea they make assurance of saluation an essentiall point of faith So that they make theÌ„selues farre more assured of their Saluation then they make Christ and condemne vs for doubting of our Saluation who make Christ to doubt feare and despaire of his ART XIV WHETHER CHRIST HAD a commandment of his Father to giue his life or to die for vs SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. Ihon 10. vers 18. I yeeld my life that I may take it againe No man taketh it away from me but I yeeld it of my selfe and Christ commanded to giue his life I haue power to yeeld it and I haue power to take it againe This commandment I receaued of my Father cap. 18. vers 11. The chalice which my Father hath giuen me shall not I drinke it Roman 5. v. 19. For as by the disobedience of one man manie were made sinners so also by the obedience of one manie shal be made iust Philippen 2. v. 8. He humbled himselfe made obedient vnto death euen the death of the crosse CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME S. Thomas 3. parte quaest 47. art 2. Christ receaued a commandment of his Father to suffer PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Polanus in Disput priuat periodo 1. disput 36. They say Not commaded to die A law was made that Christ should die But this is against Scripture For so his merit should not haue beene voluntarie The same also do other Protestants meane who ether say that in euerie proper merit the oblation must needs be not commanded as Hutterus in Analysi Confess Augustan artic 4. or that it must not be due or of obligation as Whitaker saieth lib. 9. cont Dureum sect 34. Perkins in Cathol reform Contr. 5. c. 2. Vorstius in Antibellarm p. 638. and others THE CONFERENCE Scripture expressely saieth that Christ receaued this coÌ„mandment of his Father to yeeld his life that his Father gaue him the chalice of his passion that he was obedieÌ„t to death and that by his obedience manie are made iust But as Polanus himselfe confesseth part 2. thes p. 219. obedieÌ„ce cannot be so much as imagined but in regard of the law to which it is afforded The same say Catholiks Protestants expressely say that there was no law made of Christs death that if it had beene commanded his death had not beene meritorious ART XV. WHETHER CHRIST MERITED any thing for himselfe or had any thing for merit SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. Christ exalted for his humiliation Philippen 2. v. 8. 9. He humbled himselfe made obedient vnto death euen the death of the crosse For the which thing God also hath exalted him hath giuen him a name which is aboue all names c. Hebrews 2. v. 9. But him that was a litle lessened vnder the Angels we see Iesus because of the passion of death crowned with glorie and honour CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME S. Thomas 3. part q. 19. art 3. Christ had by merit the glorie of his bodie and those things which pertaine to his outward excellencie as ascension whorshippe and such others PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Caluin in Philippen 2. ver 9. Nether Christ got nor sought Christ got nothing for him selfe any thing for himselfe In 2. Institut c. 17. § 6. To enquire whether Christ merited any thing to himselfe as the Scholastiks doe is no lesse foolish curiositie then temerarious resolution wheÌ„ they affirme it With what merits could man obtaine to be iudge of the world head of Angels Daneus Controu 2. p. 27. The Sententiarians do say that Christ merited also to him selfe but we denie it He merited nothing for for himselfe Pareus l. 5. de Iustif c. 3. It is false that
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
fable that it skilleth not greatly to know how he descended into Hell that some of them eagerly impugne this article of the Creed and would haue it put out of the Creed and that some haue put it out Which is so plaine a contradiction of Scripture as diuers Protestants confesse it See l. 2. c. 30. ART XXII WHETHER CHRIST SVFfered the paines of Hell of the damned and the second death of the soule SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY DENIETH. Acts 2. v. 24. Whome God hath raised vp loosing the sorrows of Christ loosed the paines of Hell Free among the dead Hell according as it was impossible that he should be houldē of it Psal 87. v. 6. I am become as a man without helpe free among the dead CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY DENIE D. Stapleton in Promptuar Quadrages feria 4. Hebdom Sanctae It is a very diuelish speech and execrable blasphemie of Caluin that Christ in soule suffered the horrible torments of damned and lost man PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME Whitaker l. 8. cont Dur. sect 20. Christ suffered the paines of Hell for a time Perkins in Explicat Symboli col 679. Others so expound Suffered the paines of Hell He felt and bore the torments and anguishes of Hell This is a good and true exposition Col. 680. Those words Crucified dead and buried are not to be vnderstood of a common and ordinarie death but of an execrable and cursed death by which Christ sustained the full wrath of God yea the anguishes of Hell both in bodie and mynd De Serm. Dom. col 575. Christ bore the sinnes The anguishes of Hell in mynd and bodie Suffered the second death of the elect together with the punishment due to them so much as appertaineth to the substance thereof to wit the first and second death Parkes cont Willet p. 114. Luther Illyricus Latimer tought that Christ descended into Hell bodie and soule and there sustained torments after death Willet Cōtr. 20. q. 3. p. 1083. I will shew in what tolerable sense Died in soule Christ is affirmed to die in the soule Et pa. 1112. That Hell flames are not eternall in Christ the worthines of his person obtained Luther in Psal 22. to 3. fol. 330. Christ suffered that which we should haue suffered for sinne and which the dāned now suffer In Gen. 42. to 6. f 586. I thinke that Christ sustained the sorrows of Hell Let vs know that Christ must haue borne the paine of Hell Hutterus in Analysi Confess Augustan art 3. Christ suffered the true sorrows of hell Lobechius disp 6. p. 136. Christ suffered the punishment of Suffered the paines of the damned the desperate and damned and euerlasting paines Caluin 1. Instit c. 16. § 10. He suffered that death which God in anger inflicteth vpon the wicked He suffered in soule the horrible torments of a desperate and lost man In Catechismo c. de fide he asketh How can it come to passe that Christ who is the saluation of the world should be subiect to this damnation and Answereth He was not so vnder Was subiect to damnation it as he remained vnder it In Rom. 10. v. 6. He suffered the horrors of hell for to deliuer vs from them Beza lib. Quaest vol. 1. p. 672. He was in the middest of the torments of hell Daneus Cont. 2. p. 165. Bellarmin saieth that the onely death which Christ suffered in bodie satisfied God for our sinnes This is false For the reward of sinne is death and that is twoe fould The Suffered the separation of God from his soule first is the separation of the soule from the bodie the second is the separation of God from the soule Both which Christ suffered therefore both death of soule and bodie and that wholie for vs and not onely the death of the bodie Vrsinus in Catechismo pag. 278. To beleiue in Christ who descended into hell is to beleiue that Christ suffered in his soule the hellish torments and sorrows Polanus in Sylloge thes par 3. p. 450. Christ died the eternall death And Pareus Colloq Theol. 2. disput 5. citeth Brentius saying Christ burnt in the flames of hell More like hellish Was burnt in the flames of hell speeches of theirs are in my Latin booke ca. 1. art 22. See Rogers vpon the 3. Article of English Confession THE CONFERENCE Scripture saieth that Christ was free among the dead that he loused the sorrows of hell and could not be held of it The same say Catholiks Protestants say that Christ suffered the paines the sorrows the anguishes of hell the true sorrowes of hell hellish torments that which the damned now suffer the torments of a desperate and lost man that he burnt in the flames of hell was in the middest of the torments of hell sustained the anguishes of hell both in bodie and mynd suffered the torments of hell both in bodie and soule that he suffered the execrable death the first and secōd death that death which God in his wrath inflicteth vpon the wicked the second death of the soule which is seperation from God that he died the eternall death that he was vnder damnation ART XXIII WHETHER CHRIST ENTRED vnto his disciples the doores being shut SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. Ihon. 20. v. 19. When it was late that day the first of the Sabboths Christ entred the doores being shut and the doores were shut where the disciples were gathered together for feare of the Iews Iesus came and stood in the middest Et v. 26. After eight daies againe the disciples were within and Thomas with them Iesus cometh the doores being shut and stood in the middest and saied c. CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME D. Stapleton in Ioan. 20. v. 19. The Euangelist saieth that Christ entred the doores being shut which words exclude all opening of any entrance PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Willet Controu 20. q. 2. p. 1079. We graunt that Christs coming in the doores being shut was miraculous because one substance gaue place to an other for a time and after the passing of his bodie the place remained whole and shut as before but not in the very instant of passing Spalatensis lib. 5. Repub. cap. 6. num 180. Christ could He opened the dores truely open himselfe the doores and streight waies shut them and in the meane time hould the eyes of his disciples that they should not see ether the doores open or himselfe enter vntill he was in the middest Peter Martyr in dialogo col 97. When our Lord would The doores gaue place enter the doores of themselues gaue place Caluin Admonit vlt. ad Westphal p. 805. But if Christ by his diuine power did miraculously open the shut doores doth it therefore follow that his bodie was infinit Beza cont Westphal vol. 1. Theol. p. 231. Caluin thinketh He opened the doores rather that the Euangelist spake of the doores shut to giue to vnderstand that of themselues they opened to Christs entrance In Ioan. 20. v. 19.
Ether the doores of themselues opened to Christ or he passed through the walls Piscator in Respons ad Buscherum c. 13. As if it were not more probable that Christ by his diuine power did open the shut doores More of their like sayings may be seene in my Latin booke chapt 2. art 23. THE CONFERENCE Scripture expressely saieth that Christ entred to his disciples the doores being shut and when the doores were shut The same say Catholiks Protestants expressely say that the doores were not shut in the instant of Christs entrance that Christ truely opened the doores that the doores of themselues opened and gaue place Which doctrin diuers Protestants confesse to be contrarie to Scripture See lib. 2. c. 30. ART XXIV WHETHER CHRIST PENEtrated the Heauens SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. Hebrews 4. v. 14. Hauing therefore a great high Preist that Christ penetrated the Heauenes hath penetrated the Heauens Iesus the Sonne of God CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME C. Bellarm. l. 3. de Euchar. c. 6. It cannot be temerariously saied of the bodie of Christ that the Heauens were broaken when he ascended to his Father PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Vorstius in Antibellarm p 402. The question is begged in Did not penetrate heauē all the examples which are bought to proue penetration of quantites whereas in truth no such thing is any where redde in Scripture Spalatensis lib. 5. de Republic cap. 6. num 182. I admit no penetration Gualterus in Ioan. 20. calleth it a monstruous new doctrin to say that twoe bodies can be at once in the same place Tilenus in Syntagm cap. 8. saieth that Christ ascended without penetration of quantities And the Ministers in the Conference at Paris 1588. affirmed that he could not ascend but renting and breaking the Heauens THE CONFERENCE Scripture expressely teacheth that Christ penetrated the Heauens The same say Catholiks Protestants expressely teach that in Scripture there is no example of penetration that they admit no penetration that it is a monstruous new doctrin that Christ ascended without penetration and could not ascend but by renting the heauens ART XXV WHETHER CHRISTS DO IN heauen pray for vs SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. Ihon 14. ver 16. And I will aske the Father and he will giue Christ our aduocate with the Father Maketh incession for vs. you an other Paraclete 1. Ihon 2. v. 1. But and if any man shall sinne we haue an aduocate with the Father Iesus Christ the iust Rom. 8. vers 34. Christ Iesus that died yea that is risen also againe who is on the right hand of God who also maketh intertercession for vs. Hebrews 7. v. 25. Whereby he is able to saue also for euer going by himselfe to God alwaies liuing to make intercession for vs. CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME C. Bellarm. l. 1. de Sanctis c. 20. Christ praieth for all Et. l. 2. de Missa c. 8. Christ is our onely immediate intercessor with his Father Tolet in Ihon. 16. Annot. 35. The holie Fathers teach that Christ in heauen as man praieth his Father for vs albeit some denie it but improbably PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Peter Martyr in 1. Corint 13. But they must know that Christs intercessiō with the Father for vs is nothing else but that Christs intercession nothing but c he is alwaies present with the Father and that by his prosence because he was deliuered to death for vs Gods mercie towards the elect is most speedily obtained Caluin in Ioan. 16. v. 26. But when it is saied that Christ praieth for vs to his Father we must not imagin any carnall thing of him as if falling at his Fathers fect he humblie made Maketh not būble praier praier but the vertue of his Sacrifice wherewith he once pacified God to vs being euer of force this effectuall blood with which he clensed our sinnes and the obedience which he performed are a continuall intercession for vs. And in Rom. 8. v. 34. he saieth that because his death and resurrection are in steed of an eternall intercession and haue the efficacie of a liuely praier he is saied to intercede for vs. The like hath Perkins de Serie Causarum to 1. col 21. Bezain Confess c. 4. sect 16. Nether therefore may we imagin Praieth not as a Suppliāt that Christ as a Suppliant praieth for vs but he reconcileth vs to the Father by the perpetuall odour of his onely sacrifice and maketh our praiers effectuall before God Bucanus in Instit Theol. loco 35. Christ not by a gesture or praier as casting himselfe at his Fathers feet doth humbly pray for vs but both by the merite and vertue of his death and also by offering our praiers to the Father The like say others as may be seene in my Latin booke c. 2. art 25. THE CONFERENCE Scripture expressely saieth that Christ in heauen is our aduocate asketh for vs maketh intercession for vs. The same say Catholiks Protestants expressely say that Christs intercession is nothing else but his presence with his Father that he doth not humbly make praier for vs that his death and resurrection are in steed of praier that he praieth not for vs as a Suppliant that he doth not humbly pray for vs. A SVMME OF THIS CHAPTER OF CHRIST In the former Chapter we shewed that Protestants crie that we make a new God and that this fault rather falleth vpon them now we will shew that they obiect the like vnto vs concerning Christ and that themselfes are faultie therein M. Perkins in Cathol reform Controu 9. cap. 11. thus writeth of Catholiks They worshippe an other Christ then we doe And in Conflictu Christi cum Diabolo tom 2. col 130. The Papists Christ is a feigned Christ In Apocal. 2. col 189. The Papists Christ is a false Christ yea Protestants new Christ an idol of Christ But out of that which hath beene related in this chapter it will appeare that the Catholiks Christ is the true Christ described vnto vs by the Scripture and that the Protestants Christ is a quite different and opposite Christ For the Christ which Scripture and Catholiks propose is as he is man to be worshipped to be called vpon head of the Church lawmaker iudge can forgiue sinnes worke miracles None of which things agree to the Protestants Christ According to Protestants Christ as man was ignorant most truely a sinner was afraied of his saluation but not according to Catholiks According to Scripture and Catholiks Christ merited some thing for himselfe truely merited our redemption and that by his bodilie death or blood nether was his blood corrupted but according to Protestants he merited nothing for himselfe merited not our redemption with a iust price but by acceptation of his Father nor by his corporall death but by some greater matter and his blood was corrupted nor is now any more in being According to the Scripture and Catholiks Christ died for the wicked for the damned for all descended into hell was free
of faith in Christ of iustifying faith of faith of remission of sinnes The like hath Ambing apud Hospin in Concord discordi fol. 140. Beza de Praedest cont Caste l. vol. 1. p. 393. There is no mētion in the law of this benefit of free redemption by Christ For the declaratiō of this will belongeth to an other parte of Gods word which is called the Ghospell Apol. Cōf. Augustan c. de Iustific The Ghospell preacheth iustice of faith in Christ which the law doth not teach THE CONFERENCE Scripture expressely saieth that Moises wrote in the law of Christ that Moises wrote things concerning Christ That Moise commanded the people to heare Christ in all things The same say Catholiks Protestants expressely say that the law neuer knew faith in Christ that Moises cōmandeth not faith in Christ that the law knoweth nothing of faith in Christ that in the law there is no mention of free redemption in Christ that the law teacheth nothing of faith in Christ ART IX WHETHER ANY VNWRITTEN word or Traditions be to be kept SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. 2. Thessal 2. v. 15. Therefore brethren stand and hould the traditions Traditions not written to be helde which you haue learned whether it be by word or by our epistle CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME Coūcell of Trent Sess 4. The holie Coūcell doth with equall pious affection reuerently receaue and honour traditions belonging to faith or manners as ether deliuered by Christs mouth or the holie Ghost and by continuall succession conserued in the Catholik Church PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Whitaker Cont. 1. q. 3. cap. 10. We care not for vnwritten Not to be helde traditions And Contro 2. q. 5. c. 18. We acknowledge no other word then that which is written And what doctrine soeuer is not written we hould for bastard doctrine Perkins in Cathol ref Contr. 20. c. 2. We acknowledge the onely written word of God Luther Postil in ferias S. Stephani Nothing is to be affirmed Nothing but that which is expressed in Scripture which is not expressed in Scripture Iacobus Andreae l. cont Hosium p. 169. That faith is no faith but an vncertain opinion which is not grounded vpon an expresse testimonie of Scripture Wigand apud Scusselb to 7. Catal. Haeret. p. 681. Onely those doctrines whose very words or equiualent for sense are extant in the Scripture are to be tought and deliuered in the Church Caluin in Gratulat ad Praecentorem pag. 377. Nothing is to be beleiued which is not expressed in Scripture And cont versipellem pagin 353. There is no mention of vnwritten traditions Beza in Rom. 1. v. 17. Christians acknowledge no other object of this faith then the written word of God Etad Reprehens Castell p. 503. Whosoeuer beleiueth in doctrine of religion that which is not written I say he embraceth opinion for faith and an idol for God Vallada in Apol. cont Episc Luzon c. 13. In all the holie No speech of an vnwritten word Scripture there is no speech of an vnwritten word Daneus Controu 7. pag. 1350. The foundation of Christian faith is one onely to wit the word of God and that onely written Hospinian part 2. Histor Sacram. fol. 23. The Magistrates of Zurich commāded that hereafter nothing should be proposed or preached in their Church but the pure fined word of God contained in the bookes of the Prophets and Apostles THE CONFERENCE Scripture expressely teacheth that traditions as well they which are learned by word as they which are learned by writing are to be obserued Catholiks teach the same Protestants expressely teach that onely written doctrin is to be tought nothing to be beleiued but what is written onely the pure fined written word to be tought no obiect of faith but what is written nothing to be beleiued but what is expressed in Scripture and that in verie words or in equiualent sense that there is no mention of vnwritten traditions no speech of vnwritten word that they care not for vnwritten traditions A SVMME OF THIS CHAPTER OF THE WORD of God or Scripture What we haue rehearsed in this chapter doth clearly shew that Protestants do farre otherwise iudge of Scripture then the Scripture it selfe and Catholiks doe For the holie Scripture together with Catholiks teacheth that in it are some things hard to be vnderstood that it cannot be vnderstood without the light of the holie Ghost that the Ghospell is or containeth a law that it doth preach pennance and good workes reproueth sinne promiseth saluation vnder condition of good workes and is not contrarie vnto the law of God that the law of Moises commandeth faith in Christ and that vnwritten traditions are to be obserued And Protestants defend all the contrarie They shew also that Protestants steale from the Scripture Protestants steale from Scripture her excellencie wherewith she surpasseth the capacitie of mans wit and from the Ghospell that it containeth any law preacheth pennance or good workes reproueth sinne promiseth saluation vpon condition of well doing and agreement with Gods law whereby we see what a libertin Ghospell they bring in to wit such as containeth Libertin Ghospell of Protestants no law preacheth no pennance or good workes reproueth no sinne promiseth saluation without all condition of well doing and is quite contrarie to the law of God And that they steall from the law of Moises that it commandeth faith in Christ and finally they take away all the vnwritten word of God CHAPTER V. OF SAINT PETER AND THE APOSTLES ART I. WHETHER S. PETER WERE first of the Apostles SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. MATHEW 10. v. 2. And the names of the twelue S. Peter first of the Apostles Apostles be these The first Simon who is called Peter CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME C. Bellarm. l. 1. de Pontif. c. 18. Peter was put first by reason his dignitie PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Whitaker Contr. 3. q. 5. c. 3. Wheresoeuer mention is made Not first of Peter if we looke well into the place we shall find that nothing is giuen to him which agreeth not to the other Apostles And Controu 4. quaest 2. c. Paul maketh himselfe equall to Peter in all points Tindal in Fox his Acts p. 1139. S. Paul is greater then Peter by the testimonie of Christ Articuli Smalcaldici pag. 345. We giue no prerogatiue to Peter Luther in Gal. 2. to 5. This place clearely sheweth that all the Apostles had equall vocation and commission There was altogether equalitie amongst them no Apostle was greater then an other Illyricus in Praefat. lib. de Sectis It appeareth that Christ gaue no primacie at all in his Church to any man Caluinus in Matth. 20. v. 25. Christ shewed that in his kingdome No primacie or firstnesse there was no primacie for which they contended Beza in Matth. 10. v. 2. What if this word First were added of some who would establish Peters primacie Festus Homius disput 12. All the Apostles were equall in dignitie authoritie
title and power Againe Peter had no primacie amongst the Apostles CONFERENCE OF THE FORESAIED WORDS Scripture expressely saieth that S. Peter was the first of the Apostles Catholiks say the same Protestants expressely say that S. Peter had no primacie at all and suspect that the word First is added to the Scripture they say also that Saint Peter had nothing which was not common to the other Apostles that all the Apostles were equall in dignitie authotitie title and power that there was altogether equalitie amongst thē and none greater then an other that S. Paul was equall to S. Peter in all points nay greater then he by the testimonie of Christ ART II. WHETHER THE CHVRCH was built vpon S. Peter himselfe PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME Math. 16. v. 18. And I say to thee That thou art Peter and vpon The Church built vpon S. Peter this rock will I build my Church And I will giue thee the keyes of the kingdome of heauen CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME D. Stapleton in Promptuar Cath. in Festo Petri Pauli S. Chrisostome doth diligently teach that twoe things were here giuen to Peter The one the guift of the Father to wit the reuelalation of the word incarnate The other the proper guift of the Sonne to be the rock of the Church PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Whitaker Controu 4. q. 2 c. 2. Peter is not the rock because Not vpon S. Peter Christ doth not build his Church vpon Peter Luther in Matth. 16. to 5. vpon this that is vpon me not vpō thee Item He cannot be vnderstood to build vpon Peter Zuinglius l. de vera falsa relig cap. de Clauibus I will build my Church vpon this rock not vpon thee for thou art not the rock Againe Onely Christ not Peter is the rock vpon the which the Church standeth Bucer in Matth. 16. Faith in Christ is that rock vpon which the Church is saied to be built not that man Peter Caluin in Math. 16. v. 19. He faigneth that Peter is called the foūdation of the Church But who seeth not that he giueth that to the person of a man vhich was spoaken of Peters faith Beza in Matth. 16. v. 18. But Mathew or whosoeuer was his interpretour seemeth by this difference of words to distinguish Peter from that rock on which the building relieth Zanchius l. de Eccles c. 9. The opposition of the Fathers is not admitted in this place vpon this rock that is vpon Peter Vorstius in Antibell p. 64. Our men vse to answere that by the name of Rock not the person but the faith or confession of Peter or Christ himselfe is to be vnderstood More of their like sayings may be seene in my Latin booke c. 5. art 2. THE CONFERENCE Scripture expressely teacheth that Christ speaking to Peter himselfe hath in the words which immediatly goe before that clause vpon this rock c as also in the which immediatly follow it and designing S. Peters person both by his Father and by his proper name Peter which he had giuen to him Which both in the Syriack tongue in which Christ spoake and in the Hebrew tongue in which Saint Mathew wrote his Ghospell is wholy one and the selfe same word that Rock is and also in the Greek language is equiualent or synonimall with it as Protestants confesse and finally designing him by that pronoune This saied vpon this Rock which is as much as is he had saied vpon this Peter I will build my Church The same say Catholiks Protestants expressely say that S. Peter is not the Rock of the Church not the foundation not he vpon whome the Church is built Which is so manifest a contradiction of Scripture as manie Protestants confesse it See libr. 2. cap. 30. ART III. WHETHER THE KEYES OF the kingdome of heauen were giuen to S. Peter himselfe SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. Mathew 16. vers 18. 19. And I say to thee That thou The keyes giuen to S. Peter art Peter And I will giue to thee the keyes of the kingdome of heauen CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME D. Stapleton in Prompt Cathol in Festo Petri Pauli The power of the keyes was promised by Christ to Peter alone and therefore it was truely giuen PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Whitaker Controu 9. quaest 5. c. 3. Surely the keyes of the Not to any one men Church were not giuen to any one singular man but to the Church it selfe Bucher in Matth. 16. This power of the keyes is in the whole Church but the authoritie of administring it is in the Preists and Bishops as in ould time in Rome the power was in the people the authoritie in the Senate Articuli Smalcaldici We must needs confesse that the keyes belong not to the person of any one man hut to the Church Daneus Contr. 3. c. 10. p. 244. Christ called faith the rock Not to Saint Peter to which rock not to Peter he gaue these keyes and the strength against the power and gates of Hell THE CONFERENCE Scripture expressely teacheth that Christ promised and consequently gaue the keyes of Heauen vnto S. Peter The same say Catholiks Protestants expressely teach that the power of the keyes is not in the priests and Bishops that they were not giuen to Peter nor to any one singular man Which contradiction of the Scripture is so plaine as some Protestants acknowledge it See l. 2. c. 30 ART IV. WHETHER S. PETERS faith failed SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. Luc. 22. v. 31. And our Lord saied Simon Simon behould Saint Peters faith failed not Sathan hath required to haue you for to sift as wheat But I haue praied for thee that thy faith faile not CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME D. Stapleton in Lucae 22. v. 32. Christ doth in those words manifestly teach that S. Peters faith should not faile PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Whitaker Cont. 4. q. 2. c. 2. Whē Bellarmin had saied Peter lost charitie but not faith when he denied Christ answereth It seemeth that a greater wound was giuen to his faith then to his Saints Peters faith failed charitie Againe That was surely a short apostasie Hutterus in Analysi Cōfess Augustan art 12. It is a blasphemous speech of Beza when he writeth That Peter denying Christ did not loose his faith Reineccius to 1. Armat c. 22. Peter retained not faith And to 3. c. 4. For a time Peters faith surely failed whiles he denyed Christ Daneus Contr. 3. c. 10. Bellarmin dreameth when he saieth that Peters faith could not faile For by the deniall which afterward he made it appeareth to be false which he impudently affirmeth of the indefectibilitie of Peters faith The same he hath ibid. lib. 4. cap. 3. Lambertus and Schusselb l. 1. Theol. Caluin art 14. saieth that Peter when he fell had not that true faith wherewith we trust in God alone and the infidelitie preuailed against Peter Iunius Contro 3. l. 1. c. 10. Certainly Peter erred from faith THE CONFERENCE Scripture expressely
AFFIRME D. Stapleton Cont. 1. q. 2. art 1. The Catholik doctrine is that there is but one Church which we professe in our Creed and that she consisteth of the elect and reprobate PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Whitaker Cont. 2. q. 1. c. 7. We say that the Church consisteth Reprobates not of the Church indeed not of reprobates but of onely predestinate Agayne A reprobate may seeme to be of the Church but he cannot be indeed of the Church And q. 5. c. 3. That is a false Church which consisteth of reprobates Rainalds in Apol. Thes p. 170. I determine that the elect alone are contained in the Church of the Creed M. Perkins de praedest tom 1. col 154. A reprobate is but in Onely in shew members of the Church shew onely a member of Christ Abbats in Diatribam Thomsoni c. 8. Reprobates are not reputed in the Church Caluin in 1. Ioan. 2. v. 19. Ihon plainly pronounceth that they Neuer members of the Church who falle away were neuer members of the Church Beza in Confes cap. 5. sect 8. As for the rest Beside the elect they are not be numbred among the members of the Church albeit they were Apostles Daneus Cont. 4. p. 689. The true Church of God containeth onely his elect Pareus Colloq Theol. 1. disput 12. The reprobate are not truely and indeed of the Church nor belonge vnto it before God Not truely of the Church Sadeel in Refutat Posnan c. 4. Reprobates pertaine not to the true Church And Musculus in the former article will not so much as the name of the Church to be bestowed vpon the reprobates THE CONFERENCE Scripture expressely teacheth that those who are to be be cast out and to be burnt with vnquenchable fire that is reprobates are in the kingdome of heauen and in the flore of God that is in his Church Catholiks say the same Protestants expressely teach that reprobates are not in the Church not in the true Church not in the Church of the Creed not indeed not before Good that the Church the true Church containeth onely the elect that the re-reprobates onely in shew and apparence can be of the Church that they deserue not the name of the Church that she is a false Church which consisteth of the reprobates ART IV. WHETHER THE CHVRCH continueth euer SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. Mathew 16. vers 18. Thou art Peter and vpon this rock Church inuincible will I build my Church and the gates of hell shall not preuaile against it Luke 1. v. 33. And he shall reigne in the house of Iacob for Shall haue no end euer and of his kingdome there shal be no end CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME D. Stapleton Cont. 1. q. 3. art 2. The Church of Christ continueth to the end of the world PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Apologie of the Church of England Longe agoe hath The whole Church cleane fallen downe the Bishop of Rome willed to haue the whole Church depend vpoÌ„ himselfe alone wherefore it is no meruaile though it be cleane fallen downe longe agoe Agayne When we likewise saw that all thinges were quite troden vnderfoote by these men and that nothing remained in the temple of God but pittifull spoiles and decaies we reckoned c. Cartwright in Whitgifts Defense p. 217. When Antichrist Rooted out from the ground had rooted out the Church euen from the ground c. Luther in c. 49. Genes tom 6 The Pope hath extinguished the Church Caluin cont Sadolet p. 132. The matter came to that passe that it was cleare and manifest both to the learned and vnlearned Christ kingdome flat downe that the true order of the Church theÌ„ perished Christs kingdome was cast flat downe when this principalitie of the Pope was erected Beza in Conf. c. 5. sect 29. But for that horrible tyranie of the Popedome which ouerthrew the whole Church and whicb almost alone doth stay her renewing we c. Daneus in l. Augustini de Haeres c. 95. About the yeare of our lord 574. arose this destruction plague and tyranie of the Rooted out from the foundation whole Church which after rooted out the kingdome of Christ from the foundation Chassanio l. 2. de Ecclesia p. 151. It is false That the Church shall neuer be broken of More of ther like sayings may be seene in my 2. booke of the Author of the Protestant religion c. 1. Where also c. 2. I haue refuted their euasions THE CONFERENCE Scripture expressely saieth that the gates of hell shall not preâ—aile against the Church that there shal be no end of the kingdome of Christ The same say Catholiks Protestants expressely say that the whole Church was cleane fallen downe long agoe that nothing remained in the temple of God but pittifull spoiles decaies that the Church was rooted out from the ground the Church extinct the whole Church ouerthrowne the whole Church destroied that the kingdome of Christ was cast flat downe and rooted out from the foundation which are so contrarie to the Scripture as sometimes Protestants confesse no lesse See lib. 2. cap. 30. ART V. WHETHER THE CHVRCH BE alwaies visible SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. Matth. 5. vers 15. Christ thus speaketh to his disciples or Church cannot be hiddeÌ„ Church You are the light of the world A cittie cannot be hidde situated vpon a mountaine And c. 18. v. 17. And if he will not heare them tell the Church And if he will not heare the Church let him be to thee as the Heathen and the Publican Isaie 62. v. 6. Vpon thy walles Hierusalem I haue appointed Wacth meÌ„ for euer in the Church wachmen all the day and all the night for euer they shall not hould their peace CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME D. Stapleton Cont. 1. q. 3. art 1. The Church which we are to beleiue must necessarily alwaies be visible There must alwaies be a visible Church PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Whitaker Cont. 2. q. 2. c. 1. Their Papists opinion is that Militant Church inuisible the militant Church is alwaies visible But we teach that the whole Church that is the Catholik is inuisible not onely the triumphant parte but also the militant Et q. 4. c. 1. We confesse that there is alwaies on earth some number of them who piously worshippe Christ and hould the true faith and religion but we say that this member is not alwaies visible Their Papists opinion is that there is perpetually some visible Church on earth Caluin in Praefat. Instit Papists will haue the forme of the Church not apparent Church to be alwaies apparent and visible we on the contrarie affirme that the Church may consist of no apparent forme Et in Catechismo c. de fide She is not alwaies seene with eyes discerned by markes Daneus Cont. 4. l. 3. c. 12. Oftentimes God will haue some visible Oftentimes no visible Church Church on earth oftentimes none And l. 4. c. 8. The
true Church may some time faile to be visible Scarpe de Iustif Cont. 5. The members of the visible Church The whole visible Church may faile In the vttermost extent may faile yea the whole visible Church as such Vorstius in Antibellarm p. 136. Whence it followeth that the visible Church of Christ not onely in a great parte but euen whole taken in the vttermost extent may for sometime faile from the true faith and be wholy obscured Againe The externall Church of Christ may be obscured and faile More of their like sayings may be seene in my foresaied booke c. 4. THE CONFERENCE Scripture plainly teacheth that the Church of Christ cannot be hidden and biddeth vs to tell and heare her The same say Catholiks Protestants plainly teach that there is not alwaies a visible number of those who piously worshippe Christ that the Church may haue no apparent for me is not alwaies seene with eyes sometimes faileth to be visible that the whole visible Church as such may faile that the whole visible Church taken in her vttermost extent may faile from the faith that God oftentimes will haue no visible Church on earth Which are so opposite to Scripture as Protestants sometimes confesse it See l. 2. c. 30. ART VI. WHETHER THE CHVRCH be infallible in faith SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. Isaie 59. vers vltim This is my couenant with them saieth Gods spirit euer in the mouth of the Church our Lord My spirit that is in thee and my words that I haue put in thy mouth shall not departe out of thy mouth and out of the mouth of thy seede and out of the mouth of thy seeds seede saieth our Lord from this present for euer Mathew 16. vers 18. And the gates of hell shall not preuaile Gates of hell preuaile not against her against it Ioan. 16. v. 13. But when the Spirit of trueth cometh he shall teach you all trueth 1. Tim. 3. ver 15. Which is the Church of the liuing God the The pillar of trueth pillar and ground of trueth CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME D. Stapleton Controu 4. qu. 2. art vnico The Church in her determinations of faith is euer must certaine and infallible PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Whitaker Cont. 2. q. 4. cap. 3. God hath not promised to his The vniuersall Church may erre In necessarie matters The whole Church Church that she should not erre The vniuersall Church may erre The whole Church may erre It is euident that the true Church may for a time erre euen in necessarie matters Yea after Christs ascension and that descent of the Holie Ghost vpon the Apostles it is manifest that the whole Church did erre about the vocation of the Gentils and not onely the common sorte of Christians but euen the very Apostles and Doctors And quaest 5. cap. 17. The Church may for a time erre in some fundamentall points Beza de notis Eccles vol. 3. If some particular Church may erre euen in some principall head of Christian religion and yet leaue not therefore to be a true Church why may we not say the same of all particular Churches taken not onely seuerally but all together for this is the Catholik Church And the margēt The Catholik Church and in fundamentall points The whole Churrh saieth Some errors may creepe into the Church euen in some fundamentall head of saith Daneus Controu 4. l. 3. c. 17. The whole Church all Pastors generally may erre The whole Church may be deceaued slippe and erre Author Resp ad Theses Vademont p. 503. The Catholik And grieuously Church may erre and that sometimes most grieuously The like they teach commonly THE CONFERENCE Scripture expressely teacheth that Gods spirit and his word shall neuer departe from the mouth of the Church that the gates of hell shall not preuaile against her that the Holie Ghost teacheth her all trueth that she is the pillar and ground of trueth Catholiks say the same Protestants expressely teach that the Church the true Church the vniuersall Church the whole Church may erre most grieuously and in some fundamentall and necessarie matters that the whole Apostolik Church euen after the descent of the Holie Ghost did erre Which is so repugnant to holie Scripture as sometimes Protestants confesse it See lib. 2. c. 30. ART VII WHETHER THE CHVRCH be to be heard simply in all things SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. Matth. 18. v. 17. If he will not heare the Church let him be Church simply to be heard to the as the Heathen and the Publican Luc. 10. v. 16. Who heareth you heareth me and who despiseth you despiseth me CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME D. Stapleton Cont. 4. q. 2. art 3. We must simply and absolutely obey the voice of the Church in doctrine of faith PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Whitaker Cont. 1. q. 3. c. 3. We must not simply receaue whatsoeuer Not simply to be heard the Church teacheth but whatsoeuer she is commanded of God to teach and proueth by Gods authoritie And q. 5. c. 5. The Church is to be heard not simply in all her sayinges decrees sentences and commandments The same he hath Cont. 2. q. 4. c. 2. and l. 1. de Scriptura c. 11. Bucanus in Inst Theol. loco 43. Must we simply heare the voice of the Church and receaue whatsoeuer she teacheth No. Reineccius to 4. Armat c. 3. We must beleiue the Church in Not simply to be beleiued all things not taken simply and absolutely but relatiuely and with condition as farre as according to Scripture and out of that she proposeth diuine trueth THE CONFERENCE Scripture simply and absolutely biddeth vs to heare the Church and saieth that who heareth her heareth Christ The same say Catholiks Protestants denie that she is simply to be heard or obeyed ART VIII WHETHER TRVETH IN respect of vs do relie vpon the Church SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. 1. Timoth. 3. ver 15. Which is the Church of the liuing God Church the pillar of trueth the pillar and ground of trueth CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME D. Stapleton Controu 4. quaest 2. artic vnico The Church according to the ordinarie course is for faithfull men the pillar of all reuealed trueth and for faith it selfe the ground For the faitfull relie vpon the teaching of the Church as an vnmouable pillar PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Whitaker Contru 2. q. 4. c. 2. The trueth of faith doth not Not pillar in regard of vs. relie vpon the Church as a foundation no not in regard of vs. Trueth doth not relie vpon the authoritie of the Church Againe If the trueth of faith did relie vpon the authoritie of the Church in respect of vs who then c. Bucer in Disp Cantabrig It is manifest enough that no Sustaineth not trueth Church is to be termed the pillar and ground of trueth as if she did sustaine and conserue trueth Melancthon in locis c. de Signis Eccles to 3. Faith doth not relie wpon the
regenerated ether by baptisme or at the time when they are baptized finally that baptisme profiteth none but is a vanie and vnprofittable thing What Christians I pray the are these who make this account of their Christendome And these sayings are so repugnant to Scripture as sometimes Protestants confesse it See l. 2. cap. 30. ART VIII WHETHER IN BAPTISME euen sinnes to come be pardoned SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY DENIETH. Act. 8. v. 21. S. Peter speaketh thus to Simon Magus already Sinnes to come not forgiuen in baptisme baptized Doe pennāce therefore frō this thy wickednesse and pray to God if perhaps this cogitation of thy hart may be remitted thee 1. Cor. 5. v. 5. S. Paul commandeth a Corinthian baptized for incest to be deliuered to Sathan that his spirit may be saued in the day of our Lord. CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY DENIE C. Bellarm. l. 1. de baptismo c. 18. Catholiks gather that the efficacie of baptisme doth not extend it selfe vnto the time to come but onely to the time past for it pardoneth sinnes committed and not yet remitted PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME Perkins in Serie Causarum c. 33. In baptisme once administred Sinnes prēsent and to come forgiuen in baptisme is giuen remission of sinnes not onely past and present but also of those that are to come all your life time The like he hath in Galat. 3. to 2. Whitaker lib. 8. cont Dur. sect 101. Who are baptized are baptized in Christs death but Christs death auaileth to wash away not onely those sinnes which goe before baptisme but also those which follow in all the life time The like he hath Cont. 2. q. 5. 7. p. 515. Willet Cont. 12. q. 6. p. 579. Baptisme is a seale of remission of sinnes for the confirmation of our faith euen of those which are committed after baptisme as well as of sinnes done before Therefore baptisme sealeth vnto vs the remission of all our sinnes going before or following after Bezal Quaest resp vol. 3. p. 344. Baptisme therefore doth not abolish onely sinnes past Yea the fruite thereof stretcheth through the whole life of the faithfull And in Hebr. 10. v. 11. Whosoeuer is sprinkled with blood of Christ is deliuered for euer from sinnes past and to come Et Epist 5. The fruit of baptisme is the sealing of adoption the ablution from sinnes both past and to come Daneus de baptismo cap. 18. tom 2. Howsoeuer that grace and remission of sinnes be sealed vnto vs it pertaineth as is referred in all Christs sacramēts to blot out all our sinnes past present and to come Zanchius in sua Confessione cap. 18. to 8. For baptisme is not giuen in remission onely of originall or sinnes past but of all for all the life time Festus Homius in Disp 44 Remission of sinnes not onely of those which were committed before baptisme but also of those which are to be committed all the life is sealed in baptisme vnto the faithfull More of their like sayings may be seene in my Latin booke c. 9. art 8. THE CONFERENCE Scripture plainely teacheth that a baptized man must doe pennance for remission of such sinnes as he committeth after baptisme that a baptized man was deliuered to Sathan that his soule might be saued The same say Catholiks Protestants plainely teach that in baptisme is giuen remission of sinnes past present and to come that baptisme auaileth for sinnes that follow all the life time that baptisme is a seale of remission of sinnes as well committed after as before that whosoeuer is once sprinkled with Christs blood is deliuered for euer of all sinnes past and to come that in baptisme is giuen and sealed to the faithfull remission of all sinnes to be committed all their life time Which is to oppen a brode way to all wickednesse And whereas Protestants haue falsely saied that the Pope giueth pardons for sinnes to be done we see that they Protestants pardon to sinne manifestly giue such pardon to all and euerie one that is baptized or iustified with them ART IX WHETHER THE CHILDREN of the Faithfull be borne and abide in state of damnation vntill they be baptized SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. Ephes 2. v. 3. And we were by nature the children of wrath Children of faithfull borne in state of damnation as also the rest Rom. 5. v. 12. As by one man sinne entred into this world and by sinne death and so vnto all men death did passe v. 15. For if by the offence of one manie died v. 18. Therefore as by the offence of one vnto all men to condemnation so also by the iustice of one vnto all men to iustification of life The same also is cleare by the places before cited for the necessitie of baptisme CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME D. Stapleton in 1. Cor. 7. v. 14. It is a new and profane paradoxe of Caluin that the children of Christian parents are borne the sonnes of God PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Perkins de baptismo tom 1. col 842. Baptisme doth not Not in sote of damnation make the children of Christian parents the sonnes of God but onely doth seale vnto them the couenant of grace and certifieth them that they are comprehended in it In Gal. 2. v. 15. Originall sinne which is hidden from beginning in them is not imputed to them The children of the faithfull are borne Saints Willet Cont. 12. q. 3. p. 565. The children of the faithfull are Are holie holie already euen before they be baptized Zuinglius in 1. Co. r 12. tom 4. The children of Christians are In the Church with in the Church and bodie of Christ euen before they be Christened Caluin 4. Instit cap. 16. § 31. Who are borne of faithfull parents Are Saints are by supernaturall grace Saints § 32. Streight after they are borne they are had and acknowledged of God for children In Actor 8. v. 37. I say that the children of the godlie are borne Members of Christ children of the Church and from the wombe reputed members of Christ And de ve◠reform pag. 349. he stretcheth this fauour not onely to the immediat children of faithfull parents but also manie generations after and as he saieth 4. Instit c. 16. § 9. to the thousand generation And seing that there is no man in the world who is a thousand generations from Noe he must say that all children whosoeuer at lest all the elect are borne saints and in state of grace saluation Beza l. cont Heshus vol. 1. Theol. p. 307 The children of Are Saints the faithfull are saints before God euen from the wombe The like hath Confessio Heluet. cap. 20. Gallica artic 35. Peter Martyr in locis Class 2. c. 8. and others commonly as also may appeare by what hath beene saied before art 4. Nay sometimes they say that euen the children of Infidels are borne in state of grace and saluation Zuinglius de baptismo to 2. f. 91. Infants which are borne Infidels
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
more in my Latin booke art 6. THE CONFERENCE Scripture expressely saieth that euerie one and whosoeuer dimisseth his wife and marrieth an other committeth aduoutrie that a woman parted from husband must be reconciled to her husband or remaine vnmarried that she is bound to the law of marriage so longe as her husbād liueth that man cannot separate those whome God hath ioyned The same say Catholiks Protestants expressely say that who hauing put away his wife for adulterie marrieth an other doth not commit aduoutrie that one may marrie againe for aduoutrie for malitious forsaking for deniall of coningall dutie for incitation to wickednesse for leprosie that whordome dissolueth marriage that one may haue ten or more fugitiue wiues at once that if the Mistresse will not the Maide may be called ART VII WHETHER THEY WHO lie a dying are to be anointed with oile SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. Iames 5. v. 14. Is anie man sick among you Let him bring in the preistes of the Church and let them pray ouer him anoiling The sick are to be anointed with oile him with oile in the name of our Lord praier of faith shall saue the sicke and our Lord shall lift him vp and if he be in sinnes they shal be remitted CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME Councel of Trent Sess 14. Can. 2. If anie shall say that the holie anoiling of the sicke giueth not grace nor remitteth sinnes nor lightneth the sicke but that is now ceased as if in ould time is had beene onely the grace of curing be he accursed PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Confessio Saxonica art 19. That which is now called extreme Not to be anointed with oile vnction is now a spectacle full of superstition Confess Heluet. c. 19. calleth it a deuise of man Et Confess Writemberg An vnprofitable and idle ceremonie Caluin 4. Institut c. 19. § 18. Of the same nature is the anoiling of the sick to wit an histrionicall hipocrisie It pertaineth not now to vs. Beza in Confess c. 7. sect 11. The sacrament of anoiling is idle and vaine and now altogether superstitious Hospinian part 2. Histor f. 23. The preists were commanded that they should not anoile those that dyed for that was superstitious and contrarie to the expresse word of God THE CONFERENCE Scripture expressely saieth that those thall lie a dying are to be anoiled with oile and it promiseth remission of sinnes to them The same say Catholiks Protestants expressely say that this anoiling pertaineth not to vs that it is hypocrisie an idle and vaine ceremonie and contrarie to the expresse word of God ART VIII WHETHER THE SACRAments of the ould law were of equall vertue with oures SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY DENIETH. Hebr. 10. v. 1. For the law hauing a shaddow of good things to Sacraments of the ould law shadows of the new come not the very image of the things c. Coloss 2. vers 17. Let no man therefore iudge you in meate or in drinke or in parte of a festiuall day or of the new moone or of the Sabboths which are a shaddow of things to come but the bodie Christs CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY DENIE Councel of Trent Sess 7. cap. 2. If anie shall say that the very sacraments of the new law do not differ from the Sacraments of the ould law but because they be other ceremonies and ether rites be he accursed PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME Whitaker l. 8. cont Dureum sect 39. Paul expressely teacheth Equall to the Sacraments of the new law that the Israelites had the same sacraments in substance which Christ deliuered vnto vs. Confessio Heluet. c. 19. For so much as belongeth to that which is the cheefe and the substance in the sacraments the sacraments of both people were equall Lutherus l. de Captiuit to 2. fol. 75. It cannot be that the new sacraments do differ from the ould sacraments Caluin 4. Institut cap. 14. § 23. The Apostle speaketh not more honorably of them then of these In the sacraments he maketh them equall to vs. Whatsoeuer he gaue vs in the Sacraments the same the Iewes in ould time receaued in theirs what vertue ours haue the same also they felt in theirs Beza ad Repetit Sanctis c. 8. p. 30. Vnlesse with the Apostle you make the ould sacraments the same indeed there wil be litle or no difference at all betweene the true God and the false God of Marcion THE CONFERENCE Scripture plainely saieth that the Sacraments of the ould law differed from the sacraments of the new as much as a shaddow differeth from the image or from the bodie it selfe The same say Catholiks Protestants plainely say that in substance they were the same were equall did not differ that what vertue we receaue in our Sacraments the Iewes felt the same in theirs THE SVMME OF THIS CHAPTER OF the other Sacraments The things which haue be declared in this chapter do euidently demonstrate how differently Protestāts thinke of the other Sacraments from the holie Scripture For the Scripture together with Catholiks teacheth that Preists forgiue sinnes that sinnes are to be confessed to men that grace is giuen by Imposition of hands that hands are to be imposed vpon those that are baptized that Matrimonie is a Sacrament that one wife being put away it is not lawfull to marrie an other that those who lie a dying are to be anointed with oile that our Sacraments are more excellent then those of the ould law All which are denied of Protestants They also shew that Protestants in this matter also keepe their ould custome and steale from Preists power to forgiue sinnes steale away the necessitie of confessing sinnes to men from the baptized they steale imposition of hands and from the imposition of hands vertue to giue grace from Matrimonie also they steale the nature of a Sacrament and the indissolubilitie thereof from those that die their anoiling and from all our Sacraments their excellencie and vertue aboue the Sacraments of the ould law And thus farre of the Sacraments Now touching Faith CHAPTER XII OF FAITH ART I. WHETHER FAITH BE A WORKE or to beleiue be to doe SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. I HON. 6. v. 28. 29. They saied therefore to him Faith is a worke what shall we doe that we may worke the workes of God Iesus answered and saied to them This is the worke of God that you beleiue in him whome he hath sent Act. 16. vers 30. The Gailer saied to S. Paul and Hilas Maisters what must I doe that I may be saued But they saied To beleiue is to doe Beleiue in our Lord Iesus and thou shalt be saued and thy house Iames 2. v. 19. Thou beleiuest that there is one God Thou doest well CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME D. Stapleton in Ioan. 6. v. 30. The worke of faith because it is a worke of man wherewith he beleiueth and giueth glorie to God is an actiue and free worke PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Luther de Captiuit Babilon to 2. fol. 71. Faith is no
vayne Homius in Disput 70. Almes hath not that force which Papists blasphemously attribute to it to wit to dispose a man to the grace of iustification to wipe away sinnes and to satisfie for them Willet Contr. 19. q. 3. p. 1034. It is an abominable and blasphemous Not by workes opinion that anie man by his workes should be able to redeeme his sinnes THE CONFERENCE Scripture expressely saieth that sinnes are redeemed by almes that sinnes are purged and redeemed by mercie Catholiks say the same Protestants expressely say that sinnes are not redeemed by almes or charitie that it is not possible to redeeme sinnes by almes that Christs eath had beene in vaine if sinnes could be redeemed by almes that it is abhominable and blasphemous to say that sinne may be redeemed by almes Which are so contrarie to Scripture as sometimes Protestants confesse it See lib. 2. c. 30. ART IX WHETHER TO ABSTAINE from great sinnes be necessarie to saluation SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. 1. Cor. 6. v. 9. Do not erre Nether fornicatours nor seruers of Great sinners shall not enioy heauen Idols nor adulters c. shall possesse the kingdome of God Ephes 5. v. 5. Know you this that no fornicatour or vncleane or couetous person which is the seruice of idols hath inheritance in the kingdome of Christ and God Rom. 8. v. 13. If you liue according to the flesh you shall die Shall die CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME C. Bellarm. l. 4. de Iustif cap. 9. It can no way be that faith accompanied with euill workes can saue a man PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Whitaker Contr. 2. q. 5. c. 7. We say If anie haue an act of No sinne hurteth where faith faith that sinne cannot hurt him This Luther saieth this we all say Luther de Captiuit Babyl to 2. f. 74. So thou seest how rich A Christian cannot leefe his saluation by anie sinne a Christian or baptized men is who though he would cannot leese his saluation with what great sinnes soeuer vnlesse he will not beleiue For no sinnes can damne him but onely incredulitie De votis ib. fol. 281. There are none so ill workes of one that beleiueth in Christ which can accuse and condemne him De libertate ib. f. 8. No worke profiteth an infidell to iustice and saluatioÌ„ No sinne daÌ„neth infidelitie and contrariwise no euill worke maketh him euill or damned but incredulitie In c. 53. Isaiae to 4. No sinne can hurt him that beleiueth In Gal. 2. to 5. f. 313. The false Apostles taught that vnlesse you liue according to the law you are dead before God Paul teacheth the plaine contrarie In c. 4. f. 404. The true knowledge of Christ or faith disputeth whether thou hast done good workes to iustice or euill workes to damnation but simply thus determineth whether thou hast done good workes thou art not therefore iustified or whether thou hast done ill thou art not therefore damned Et to 1. Epist edit Ienae f. 345. Be a sinner and sinne No murther or fornication can draw vs from Christ Perseuerer in sinne are iust stoutly Sinne shall not draw vs from Christ albeit we commit fornication or murther a thousand times a daye Bergenses apud Hospin in Concordia discordi f. 86. Iustice is imputed euen to them who perseuer in sinne Melancthon in Ioan. apud Cocleum in Art 6. Confess Augustanae As by the Ghospell onely faith is iustice so that though thou hadst done all the sinnes of all meÌ„ yet if thou beleiuest that the Father hath mercie vpon thee for Christ thou shalt be safe So contrariewise by the Ghospell onely incredulitie is sinne Onely incredulitie is sine Reineccius to 4. Armaturae c. 15. Euill workes do not make an euill man to wit him that is in Christ Zuinglius lib. de ver falsa relig tom 2. c. de Peccato Onely increduliâ—ie is not pardoned It followeth that onely incredulitie is that to which pardon is denied Caluin in Rom. 8. v. 13. Howsoeuer we be yet subiect to sinne neuerthelesse he promiseth vs life so we prosecute our desire of mortifying the flesh Author resp ad theses Valentinianas p. 925. This would that notable Diuine Luther and all our men So we haue true faith no sinne how great soeuer shall hinder ws to be made partakers of the euerlasting inheritance See more in my Latin booke c. 15. art 8. THE CONFERENCE Scripture expressely biddeth vs not erre for nether fornicatours nor adulterous nor such grieuous sinners shall possesse the kingdome of God and that if we liue according to the flesh we shall die Catholiks say the same Protestants expressely say that a Christian cannot be damned with what great sinnes soeuer so he will beleiue that onely incredulitie can damne him that though he commit fornication and murder a thousand times aday shall not be drawne from Christ though he had done all the sinnes of all meÌ„ he shal be saued if he beleiue that pardon is denied onely to incredulitie that so one haue faith sinnes can not hurt him that so we haue true faith no grieuous sinnes whatsoeuer shall hinder vs to enter into heauen What other I pray you is this but that voice of the Serpent to Eue Yee shall not die ART X. WHETHER SINNES BE THE cause for which men are damned SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. Math. 25. v. 41. Get yee away from me you cursed into euerlasting Men are damned for not exercising charitie According to their workes fire which was prouided for the Diuel and his Angels For I was an hungred and you gaue me not to eate c. Apocal. 20. v. 12. And the dead were iudged of those things which were written in the bookes according to their workes CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME C. Bellarm. l. 2. de Grat. lib. arb c. 16. The Scripture euerie where teacheth that eternall punishment is by the iust iudgment of God rendred to mens sinnes PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Luther in Ionae 1. to 4. f. 409. Let vs know that we are not Men are not damned in sinne Onely incredulitie damneth damned in sinne nor saued by good workes Postilla in Dom. 8. post Trinitat f. 300. I obserue that no worke is so euill as it can damne a man onely incredulitie daÌ„neth That a man committeth adulterie that worke condemneth not but adulterie doth shew that he hath lost his faith In Dom. 4. post Pascha Onely incredulitie is held for sinne In die Ascensionis Nether is there anie sinne so great which can coÌ„demne a man onely incredulitie damneth whosoeuer are damned Damnation followeth no sinne but infidelitie Iacobus Andreae in Colloq Montisbel p. 109. None but None but infidels are damned Men are not damned because they haue sinned the incredulous is damned 105. Vnlesse incredulitie were in those that are to be damned none should be damned p. 447. Those that are to be adiudged to eternall punishmeÌ„t are not therefore daÌ„ned because they haue sinned but
Catholik doctrine of the same matter of it nature requireth to be expressed by a proposition which is simply negatiue appeareth manifestly First because their opinion of that matter is simply negatiue to wit that it is not the bodie of Christ And an opinion which is simply negatiue requireth to be expressed by the like proposition such as this is This is not Christs bodie Secondly because manie and the learnedest of the Protestants and often times and in manie places haue expressed their opinion of this matter by such a proposition when they ment purposely to expresse it clearely and distinctly as it defferreth from the Catholike doctrine as I haue shewed before c. 11. art 1. who best knew with what kinde of proposition their opinion required to be expressed when it was most clearely and distinctly to be expressed when it was most clearely and distinctly to be declared And in the same manner it is euident that the Catholik doctrine of this matter of it nature requireth to be expressed by a proposition which is simply affirmatiue as this is This is Christs bodie because their doctrine of this matter is simply affirmatiue and because Catholiks vse to expresse their doctrine by this kind of proposition And that the doctrine of the Scripture concerning the same point of it nature requireth to be expressed by a proposition which is simply affirmatiue is manifest because she foure times of purpose expressing her meaning of this matter she vseth a proposition which is simply affirmatiue and neuer vseth a proposition negatiue Wherefore ether the Scripture neuer expressed her meaning of this matter in such a proposition as of it nature it required to be expressed withall but alwaies by a contrarie kinde of proposition and then also when of purpose she ment to expresse her meaning most clearely and distinctly or the Scriptures meaning touching this matter of it nature requireth to be expressed by a proposition which is simply affirmatiue as this is This is my bodie or This is Christs bodie And consequently it is one and the selfe same kinde of proposition wherewith the Scriptures and Catholiks doctrine of this point requireth to be expressed to wit a proposition simply affirmatiue and the propositions wherewith the meaning of the Scripture and of Protestants of the same matter are to be expressed are quite opposite to wit the one simply affirmatiue the other simply negatiue and the like are their meanings But that the force of this argumēt may better appeare 1. Head from the numbers of articles in which Protest contradict the Scripture I will deuide it into diuers heads The first shal be taken from the multitude of matters of articles in which Protestants do contradict the expresse words of Scripture which are as we haue seene 260 and more For though it may chance that one once or twise or seldome may contradict the expresse words of an other and yet not contradict his sense or meaning yet it can no way be thought that this can fall out so often Because so great and so frequent opposition betwene their words cannot as I saied before come by chance therefore it must rise of the opposition which is betwene their meaning For how should their tongues so often iarre whoses myndes alwaies agree How should they who alwaies meane the same so often speake cōtrariwise How should the same sense and mynd be expressed so often by contrarie signes The second head shal be taken from the qualitie and 2. From the number of Protest who doe cōtradict multitude of Protestants who haue crossed the expresse words of Scripture For admit that some one or few Protestants and those not the lest learned should crosse the expresse words of Scripture and yet the Protestants doctrine should not crosse the true meaning of the Scripture yet it is altogether incredible that so manie and so famous Protestants should so often fight with the expresse words of Scripture and yet their doctrine should not be contrarie to the meaning of the Scripture For this their crossing of the Scriptures words could not rise of chance because it is in so manie Protestants nor of ignorance because they were the learnedest amongst them and therefore it proceedeth of the verie nature of their doctrine And consequently their doctrine of it nature is opposite to the Scriptures doctrine The third head is taken of the manner wherewith 3. From the manner in which they contradict Protestants crosse the expresse words of Scripture Because for the most parte they crosse them so directly so plainely so manifestly as they crosse the verie words of Catholiks which of set purpose they contradict or as euer anie Heretik crossed the expresse words of Scripture or as anie man can crosse them Wherefore ether let them denie that the contradict the meaning of the Coūcel of Trent of D. Stapleton or C. Bellarmin which of purpose they do contradict or let them grant that they contradict also the meaning of the holie Scripture or els let them say that the contradictiōs of senses or meanings are not to to be gathered out of anie opposition in words though neuer so great and manifest but out of their pleasure Besides ether let them denie that euer anie Heretike cōtradicted the true meaning of the Scripture or let them graunt the same of themselues seing they haue often times as directly and as euidently crossed the expresse words of Scripture and those spoaken of purpose for to declare the Scriptures meaning as euer anie Heretike crossed the Scriptures words Moreouer they not onely crosse the expresse words of Scripture as ditectly and plainely as euer anie did but also they manie times crosse them in so manie and so different formes of speach as scarce anie who would haue it knowne that he did contradict the Scriptures meaning could diuise more manners how to contradict it The fourth head is taken out of the qualitie of the 4. From the qualitie of the words which they contradict words of Scripture which Protestants do contradict For they are expresse formall cleare not obscure nor doubtfull and spoaken not by the way but of purpose for to expresse the Scriptures meaning of those matters as is euident in all the articles And what can be the true sense of Scripture if that be not which such kind of words do of themselues most euidently afford Or who can be thought to contradict the Scriptures true meaning if he do not who contradicteth the euident sense of such kind of words Surely I doubt not but if these words were written in anie other booke then in the Scripture that the Protestants would confesse that they contradict the sense of them as well as they contradict the sense of Catholiks words For as S. Austin saied in the like case of Pelagians Lib. 1. de peccat mer. c. 9. If I should speake thus these would oppose and crie that I speake not well I thought amisse for they would vnderstand no
maintainers of the trueth These are such things as that now it may onely seeme to be wanting to set the Diuel himselfe in the throne of God and of trueth And Epist 16. What I Good counsell of Beza admonished before I admonish now in the Lord agayne and agayne to wit that at lest they would consider with themselues from whome and to whome are they gone For that I may imitate the words of S. Austin l. 2. cont Iulian. c. 10. Hath long time so confounded the highest with the lowest Shall light so be termed darkenesse and darkenesse light that Aërius Iouinian Vigilantius become to see and Austin Hierome Epiphanius be blinde But in some I thus argue in the 24. place whose doctrine in manie and greatest points is opposite to the expresse words of Scripture and besides as themselues confesse was condemned of the ancient Church and holie Fathers for heresie that is repugnant to the true sense of Scripture But such is the doctrine of Protestants Therefore c. CHAPTER XXV THAT PROTESTANTS THEMSELVES sometimes confesse that diuers of their opinions be blasphemous THE 25. argument wherewith we will proue that Protestants contradict the true sense of the Scripture shal be because it is so manifest that diuers of their doctrines which in the former booke I shewed to be opposite to the expresse words of Scripture are blasphemous as partely the very Authors of them partely other learned Protestants being compelled by their conscience and the euidencie of the matter doe confesse it Concerning God Protestāts teach that he willeth sinne Blasphemie that God willeth sinne as hath beene seene l. 1. c. 2. art 1. Which doctrine to be blasphemous thus confesseth Caluin in Resp ad Nebulon. p. 732. Was it a doubtfull blasphemie to make God the author of of sinne to will sinne to thrust to sinne Beza de Praed cōt Castel vol. 1. Theol. p. 372. Out of these things none of these blasphemies followeth to wit ether that God is the author of sinne or is delighted with sinne or also willeth sinne Et p. 397. It cānot be saied without blasphemie that God willeth iniustice Ib. l. Quest Resp p. 681. What then Shall we say that God willeth iniquitie God forbidde For this is the most horrible blasphemie of all Zanchius l. 3. de Nat. Dei c. 4. We should surely say that God is the cause and author of sinne if we should say that properly speaking he willeth sinne or would haue sinne to be done Hutterus in Analysi Cōf. Aug. p. 625. The blasphemie of Sacramentaries is execrable who are not ashamed to referre the most dolefull fall of our first parents and all that world of euils which thereō insued not in regard of the punishmēt but of the sinne vnto an absolute and eternall decree of God and to his effectuall working and immutable will Et p. seq But let heauē be astonished the elements amazed at such mostrous blasphemies whereof no pious man should suffer to heare the onely outward noise without shaking much lesse should assent vnto them in his heart And Ioannes Andrae in Colloquio Montisb p. 422. This assertion that man fell by Gods will is impious and horrible to heare and so contrarie to the expresse and reuealed word of God They teach also that God willeth sinne euen as it is That God willeth sinne as sinne sinne as hath beene shewed lib. 1. cap. art 2. But that this is blasphemous is acknowledged by Beza l. de Praedest p. 410. in the words If euer we had thought to speake or write that sinnes as sinnes proceed from the will of God we would confesse that we were worthie of all punishment Lobechius also Disp 21. This principle of Diuinitie is firmely to be held and to be beleiued with all our heart that God nether willeth nor commandeth ill deeds as they are such much lesse worketh or helpeth them or by an eternall decree doth destinate or secretly driue men to commit them They teach also that God worketh sinne and is the That God is cause of sinne cause and author of it as is to be seene l. 1. c. 2. art 4. And yet Caluin l. de Prouident p. 742. aliâs 736. confesseth that it is a monstrous blasphemie that wickednesse is done not onely by the will of God but also he being the author thereof And pag. 471. Thou wranglest with me as if I had saied that sinne is the iust worke of God which in all my writings I euer more detest Instruct contr Libertin cap. 14. God must denie himselfe and become a Deuil if he did worke euill which these men doe attribute vnto him The like he hath libr. de Praedestin pag. 711. And in Actor 2. ver 23. saieth I denie that God is the author of euill because in this word an euill affection is insinuated Beza in Absters Calumn Heshus pag. 316. calleth it blasphemie That God worketh the wickednesse of the wicked And de Praedest cont Castel p. 401. God forbidde that anie of ours should haue saied or written as thou auonchest that God ether giue or permit or worke an euill will or anie wicked or filthie desires when as euen our thoughts doe altogether abhorre from these kinde of blasphemies P. Mart. in locis classe 1. c. 14. If God wrought sinne he were a sinner Kemnice in locis part 1. tit de Causa Peccati All mens mynds and eares do so abhorre from that speach God is the cause of sinne that therefore the Maniches did feigne an other God Vrsin in Miscellan p. 72. Thou saiest that these are the speaches of manie of men God doth effectually worke in the reprobate that they sinne With all our heart we accurse this speach and doctrine Whitaker ad Rat. 9. Campia That is horrible Campian and not to be spoaken which thou saiest that anie should make God the Author of sinne He deserueth that God should streigth with a thunder boult cast him into the bottomlesse pit of hell Pareus in Colleg. Theol. 1. disput 2. The Fathers iustly condemned that impious doctrine of the Maniches and Libertins ascribing the cause of fall and sinne to God the Creator And Disput 3. God was not nor is not the efficient cause of sinne which heretofore was the blasphemie of the Maniches and now is of some Libertines They teach that God doth predestinate and ordaine That he predestinated men to sinne mē to sinne as is related l. 1. c. 2. art 5. Which to be blasphemous confesseth Vorstius in Amica Collat. sect 89. in the words which doctrine that God doth destinate men to sinne I scarce beleiue that thy selfe wilt thinke to be voide of blasphemie if thou doest well consider it Hutter in Anal. Confes August c. 9. The troupe of Sacramentaries Beza Caluin Renecher doth not feare to write with a most execrable and most wonderfull blasphemie that some are fatally and absolutely destinated not onely to their last end to wit damnation but also to the
conferred by them and ioyned with some humane principle and brought into sillogisticall forme Whereas a Iudge must be such as by himselfe without anie helpe of ether of the parties he can giue sentence Besides the sentence of the Iudge and especiallie if there can be no appeale from him must be so cleare as no man can doubt for whether partie it is But such is not the sentence of Scripture in manie controuersies Agayne there is controuersie betwene vs about diuers bookes of which the rest of the Scripture saieth nothing Finallie before Moises the Church had no Scripture and for sometime after Christ it had no parte of the new testament and yet she neuer wanted a Iudge And as we saw in the Chapter before Protestants confesse that Scripture of it selfe is not sufficient to determine all controuersies of faith and therefore not to iudge all Wherefore we must needs haue some other Iudge For these and the like causes some Protestants seing how absurd it is that Scripture is the onely Iudge in the Church say that Christ or the holie Ghost speaking in the Scripture is the Iudge Whitaker c. 7. cit We say that this Iudge is the holie Ghost speaking in the Scripture In like sorte Confes Heluet. c. 12. Academia Nemaus loc cit Lutherans in Colloq Ratisb sess 9. and others But seing Christ or the holie Ghost is no otherwise in the Scripture then as in a signe of his will to say that the holie Ghost as he is in Scripture is Iudge is no other thing indeed then to say that the Scripture is iudge And as the King as he is in his written laws is not a sufficient iudge of the common wealth because els eueÌ„ after his death he should be iudge but besides there must be a liuing iudge who both heareth and speaketh who can heare the parties and giue senteÌ„ce So nether is the holie Ghost a sufficient iudge is in the holie Scripture Others therefore acknowledge that there must be in the Church a speaking iudge or man For thus Eliensis loc cit Wherefore we all of long time demand a free and lawfull synod Protest admit a liuing Iudge in words And Lutherans in Colloq cit sess 9. We professe that God hath giuen some power to the Ministers and Doctors of the Church to iudge of controuersies of religion Neuerthelesse in trueth they denie the verie nature of the Iudge For ether they will not admit such a Iudge as we are bound to obeyâ— as appeareth by that they denie the vniuersall Church all Pastors or generall Councels to be infallible yea Moulins in the preface of his Bucler saieth that there But not in effect can be no greater temeritie then to desire that men sinners may be infallible iudges of the seÌ„se of the law And the LutheraÌ„s loc cit It is simply and absolutely certaine that the Ministerie may erre But this in trueth is to denie the Iudge whose end is The iudge in the Church admitteth not appeale to make peace and to compose debates which he cannot doe vnlesse men be bound to obey him and all the foresaied authorities reasons which proue that there ought to be a iudge in the Church proue also that he ought to be such from whome we may not appeale Wherevpon Whitaker CoÌ„t 1. q. 5. c. 4. thus writeth I answere that those words Deuteron 17. cit are to be vnderstood of authoritie to define hard contentions and controuersies as Ecclesiasticall by the Minister and politicall by the Magistrate that there might be in both some from whome there should be no appeale els there would be no end of contending But this he meaneth onely in the Nether in outward nor inward Courte externall or outward courte not in the inward courte of conscience For thus he addeth A great weight of iudgement was in the Priest and what he had once determined was good in the externall courte that so controuersies and debates might be ended And Cont. 4. q 1. cap. 2. Controuersies may be brought to the externall Courte and there defined but conscience resteth not in that Courte But this shift is easilie refuted First because the distruction of the externall Courâ—e is without cause deuised in this matter Secondlie because the peace of the Church especially consisteth in the internall courte to wit in faith Wherefore in this Courte we may not appeale from the Iudge of the Church otherwise there would neuer be peace of conscience Thirdly the practise of the Church in the Councell of the Apostles and in other generall Councels sheweth that the Iudge of the Church hath power to end controuersies euen in the inward courte of conscience Finallie if one were bound to obey the iudgement of the Church in the outward Courte and not in the inward it would follow that sometimes he were bound to denie Gods trueth before men to wit if the Church should define against Gods trueth Besides the authoritie of the Church is spirituall and ouer the soule and therefore her power of iudging extendeth it selfe euen to the inwarde Courte of the â—oule Wherefore let this be our 29. argument Whose doctrine in manie and weightie matters doth so contradict the expresse words of Scripture as they dare not admit anie Iudge in the Church they are to be thought to contradict the true sense of the Scripture But such are Protestants Therefore c. CHAPTER XXX THAT PROTESTANTS DOE SOMEtimes confesse that their doctrine doth contradict the holie Scripture THE last proof which we will make to shew that Protestants doe contradict the true sense of Scripture shal be taken from their owne confession wherewith sometimes they confesse it implicitlie sometimes plainelie and expressely Implicitly they confesse it diuers wayes First because they acknowledge that they Protest cannot reconcile their doctrine with the Scripture know not how to reconcile their doctrine with the holie Scripture Luther de seru arbit to 2. fol. 466. How this is iust that he God condemneth those that deserue it not is now incomprehensible yet it is beleiued till the Sonne of man be reuealed Et f. 486. In the light of grace it is vnanswerable how God condemneth him who with all his power can doe nothing but sinne and be guiltie Here both the light of nature and the light of Grace teach that it is not the fault of wretched man but of vniust God Et to 1. f. 390. It is a wonderfull probleme that God rewardeth iustice which himselfe reputeth iniustice Melancthon in Rom. 9. edit 1. This misterie is inexplicable that God both willeth sinnes and yet truelie hateth them Peter Martyr in locis Class 1. c. 16. § 9. It is no meruaile that we cannot vnderstand how it is not contrarie to Gods iustice to punish sinnes and by tempting to enforce them because God can doe more then we can vnderstand Caluin 1. Institut capit 18. § 3. By reason of the weaknesses of our vnderstanding we doe not
proper to the Elect 350 22. VVhether faith come by hearing 352 23. VVhether faith be euer lost 353 24. VVhether faith be rewarded 355 25. VVhether the faith of those who toucht Christs garments were pure 356 Chap. 14. Of good workes in generall Art 1. VVhether anie worke of a Sinner may be good p. 360 2 VVhether euerie good worke be sinne 362 3 VVhether good works be a sweet smell to God 364 4 VVhether good works be fully good 366 5 VVhether they be iust or iustice in the sight of God 369 6 VVhether in good works there be anie worth 371 7 VVhether eternall life be promised to good works 373 8 VVhether good works be meritorious 374 9 VVhether there may be glorie in good works 376 10 VVhether all good works be equall before God 378 11 VVhether good works be commanded of God 379 12 VVhether they be necessarie to iustification 381 13 VVhether they be necessarie to saluation 384 14 VVhether they be profitable to saluation or iustification 387 15 VVhether they be anie cause of saluation 390 16 VVhether they be a testimonie of iustification or predestination 393 17 VVhether they be a cause of Gods loue towards vs 395 18 VVhether we ought to doe good works 396 19 VVhether they may be done for reward 399 20 VVhether they be to be done for the glorie of God 401 Chap. 15. Of workes in particular Art 1. VVhether it be good not to marrie 406 2 VVhether virginitie be a vertue 406. 3. VVhether the state of virginitie be better then marriage 408 4. VVhether God would haue men to liue single 410 5. VVhether Fasting be a vertue 412. 6. VVhether fasting be a preseruatiue against the Diuel 414. 7. VVhether choice of meats be laudable 415. 8 VVhether we may pray for all 416. 9. VVhether we may pray for the dead 417. 10 VVhether we may pray for that which God hath not promised 419 11. VVhether anie obtaine for the worth of their praier 421. 12. VVhether we may pray in an vnknowne tongue 422. 13. VVhether we be commanded to say our lords praier 423 14. VVhether we may make vows 424 15. VVhether almes deliuer from death and sinne 426 16. VVhether we may giue all to the poore 427 17. VVhether pennance be commanded to all 428 18 VVhether affliction of the bodie be a parte of pennance 429. 19 VVhether pennance of the Niniuites was good 431 20. VVhether Eremitical life be lawfull Chap. 16. Of Sinnes Art 1. VVhether sinnes be imputed to the faithfull 435. 2. VVhether anie sinne be mortall to the Elect and faithfull 437. 3. VVhether onely incredulitie be sinne 438. 4. VVhether sinne ought to be ouercomen of vs 440. 5. VVhether anie that serue the flesh can serue God 441. 6 VVhether by greuous sinnes we fall from grace 442. 7 VVhether sinne can staÌ„d with iustice 8. VVhether sinne may be redeemed by good works 447. 9. VVhether to abstaine from great sinnes be necessarie to saluation 448 10. VVhether sinne be the cause of damnation 451. 11. VVhether we must giue account of our sinnes 453. 12. VVhether the iustified commit ill p. 454. 13. VVhether the iustified commit sinne 455. 14 VVhether the iustified euer do sinne wilfully 457. 15 VVhether the widows 1. Tim. 5. did sinne in marrying 458. 16 VVhether vsurie be sinne 459. 17. VVhether all sinned in Adam 460. 18. VVhether there is originall sinne 461. Chap. 17. Of Iustification Art 1. VVhether Iustification be of works 465. 2. VVhether it be of faith onely 467. 3. VVhether the iustified be iust in Gods fight 469. 4. VVhether the iustified be cleane 472 5. VVhether sinne remaine in the iustified 474. 6. VVhether sinnes be simply forgiuen 477. 7. VVhether all the iustified be equally iust 478. 8. VVhether there is anie inherent iustice 478. 9. Whether inherent iustice can be imputed 481. 10. Whether the iustified be infallibly certaine of their iustice 482. 11. Whether pennance goe before iustification 845. 12. Whether iustificatioÌ„ can be lost 487. 13. Whether the iustified may feare to fall 489. 14. Whether iustification be proper to the Elect 492. 15. Whether we cooperate to our iustification 493. 16. Whether after iustification anie punishment remaine 496 Chapt. 18. Of life and death euerlasting ART 1. Whether life euerlasting be a reward p. 499. 2. Whether it be a crowne of iustice 501. 3. Whether it be of faith onely 503. 4. Whether all men be to be iudged 505 5. Whether eternall life be to be rendered to anie 506. 6. Whether the soules of the Reprobates doe now suffer in Hell 507. 7. Whether Hell be anie place 509. 8. Whether Hell fire be true fire 510. Chapt. 19. Of Gods law ART 1. Whether Gods law be possible 513. 2. Whether euer anie kept Gods law 515. 3. Whether anie loued God in all theâ—â— heart 517. 4. Whether Gods law be in thâ— heart of anie 519. 5. Whether we ◠〈◊〉 â— that we may keepe Gods law 520. 6. Whether the keeping of Gods law be necessarie to saluation 521. 7. Whether the law of God be abrogated from the faithfull 522. Chapt. 20. Of mans law and superioritie ART 1. Whether there be anie Superioritie among Christians 526. 2. Whether man can make laws 527. 3. Whether mans law bindeth the conscience 529. Chapt. 21. Of free will ART Whether man be free in indifferent matters 532. 2. Whether man be free in morall matters 534. 3. Whether man cooperate with Gods grace to good 536. Chap. 22. Of mans Soule ART 1. Whether mans Soule be immortall 539. 2. Whether Mans soule be the forme of his bodie 545. 3 Whether there be anie resurrection of the dead 547. THE INDEX OF THE CHAPTERS CONTAINED in the second booke CHAPTER 1. That Protestants contradict the truâ— sense of Scripture because iâ— so manie points they gaynesay the expresse words thereof pag. 549. Chapt. 2. That Protestants confesse they contradict the sense of those words which the Cathol Church long since and manie of themselues now beleiue to be the words of God p. 611. Chapt. 3. That Protestants are forced to vse violence to that parte of Scripture which they receaue p. 615. Chapt. 4. That Protestants ouerthrow all force of the words of Scripture yea contemne and deride them p. 620. Chapt. 5. That Protestants say that words of Scripture which make against them were not spoaken of certaine knowledge p. 630. Chapt. 6. That Protestants saye that manie weightie sayings of the Scripture were not spoaken according to the mynd of the speakers p. 633. Chapt. 7. That Protestants are forced to say that the Scripture speaketh ironically c. p. 640. Chapt. 8. That Protestants are forced to turne the most generall speaches of the Scripture into particulars p. 647. Chapt. 9. That Protestants limitate manie propositions not limitated by the Scripture p. 654. Chapt. 10. That Protestants change manie absolute speaches of Scripture into conditionals p. 665. Chapt. 11. That Protestants change conditionall speaches of Scripture
according to their order and in euerie matter I distinguish manie articles which I propose in forme of question After I set downe the expresse words of Scripture Next I bring the decrees of the Councell of Trent or the Instructions of the Catechisme of that Councell And where I find not their determinations I alledge the doctrin of S. Thomas or of D. Stapleton or Cardinal Bellarmin Against these I produce the assertions of one or manie famous Protestants directly opposite to the doctrin of the Scripture and of the Catholiks Lastly I gather together a summe of the words of the holie Scripture together with a summe of the sayings of Protestants that thereby the opposition betwene the doctrin of them both may the better appeare As for the words of Scripture Plessie of the Church c. 5. p. 145. Let them bring one text that is cleare and euident and we are readie to yeeld vnto them I bring not all which might be brought of euerie article because nether is that necessarie to my purpose sith God is as much to be beleeued in one word as in manie nether as the Councell of Arausica saieth truly will manie testimonies of Scripture auaile any thing with him to whome few are not sufficient but I bring those onely testimonies which to me seemed most opposite to the words of Protestants Nether do I proue that the words of Scripture which I cite be cleare and vttered of purpose to declare vnto vs Gods mynd of that matter wherof they treate or do of themselues and according to their accustomed acception amongst men manifestly afford that sense in which Protestants gayne saye them because al thefe points are manifest by them selues and the shifts which Protestants vse to delude them do manifestly proue them Nether also do I proue that Protestants can not at least touching the most of these Articles produce any such testimonies of Scripture which in expresse words may seeme directly and without any inference conference or exposition of theirs to speake for them as in these 260. points the testimonies which I bring do speake for vs. First because this being a denial it is of it self sufficiently proued vnles the Protestants can demonstrate their contrarie affirmation Secondly because this is euident to euerie one who See Tertul. l. de Resur c. 3. Luther de verb. Caenae fol. 389. considereth the testimonies brought by ProtestaÌ„ts which in verie few and almost no matters at all in controuersie betwixt vs and them are such as of them selues without the addition of some humane principle or illation they may so much as seeme to be directly opposite vnto vs. Which if ProtestaÌ„ts would consider they should easily see almost in all controuersies as much difference betwene our proofes out of Scripture and theirs as there is betwixt the expresse word of God and humane discourse Nether may they saye that they are not bound to proue Why Protest are bound to prooue their negatiue points of doctrin those points wherin they contradict vs because their denial needeth no proof Both because in some controuersies they are the affirmers and we the deniers as when they say that God will and worketh sin tempteth and predestinateth to sin That Christ was truly a sinner feared his daÌ„nation suffered the paines of hel the like In which questions seing Catholiks proue their denial by expresse words of Scripture much more ought Protestants by the like expresse words to proue their affirmation As also because it is one thing simply to deny or not to beleeue the Catholik affirmation as euerie Iew Turk or infidel doth an other thing not onely to denie it or not beleue it but also to condemne it as an vntruth contrarie to See Tertul. de Corona c. 2. Scripture and to auouche the denial as a truth taught by Scripture For albeit a simple denial or not beleefe need no proofe yet such a mixt denial as denying the opposite affirmation affirmeth it self to be auouched by Scripture and the affirmation to be condemned thereby hath as great need of proofe out of Scripture as any other affirmation whatsoeuer Moreouer these denials are articles of faith with Protestants and as such are put in their Confessions of faith and therfore ether ought to be proued by Scripture as other articles are or they must confesse that they can not proue out of Scripture the greatest parte of their faith which principally consisteth of these negatiue articles or denials of our faith 9. As for Catholiks for the most parte I produce the Why one Cath. saying is alledged words of one onely of the foresaied Authors because the agreement of Catholiks in matters of faith is wel enough knowne I might if I would haue my self set downe the Catholik doctrin in euerie article in the same words in which the Scripture deliuereth her doctrin of the same or perhappes haue found the Catholike doctrine proposed by some Catholikâ— Author in the verie same words which the Scripture vseth But that Protestants should not saye that it was no maruel if the Catholik doctrin be deliuered in the Scriptures words by any Author whatsoeuer or when it is done of purpose I would not set it downe but in the words of some famous Catholik writer those spoaken not of purpose to accomodate their speech to the phrase of Scripture but spoaken to declare and expresse the Catholik doctrin And here by we may see that when the Catholik doctrin is to be sett downe most plainly and distinctly by theÌ„ who best know it of it nature it requireth to be deliuered with the very same or the likewords which the Scripture vseth Whence we may also gather as I shal herafter that the Catholik doctrin is in very deed one and the self same with the doctrin of the Scripture 10. For the like cause I haue alledged the words onely Why manie Protâ—stants sayingâ— alledged of famous Protestants such as almost all were not onely writers but also Professors of Protestant diuinitie lest any should attribute their words to ignorance And some times I haue cited diuers sayinges of the same Author partly lest any should think that such words fell from him vnawares partely also because some times they contradict the Scripture in so different manners of speech as if they would that none should be ignorant therof partely also to the end that the Catholik Reader may make choice amongst manie sayings of Protestants which he iudgeth most opposite to the Scriptures words Nether yet do I feare that the multitude of Protestants sayings opposed against the Scripture may scandalize any weake Catholik for seing the Scripture most directly contrarie to them and armed with this sheild he wil no more regarde the Protestants words then so many barkings of of doggs against heauen so many cries of Ieves against Christ so many blasphemies of damned men against God And if it be wearisome or irkesom to the Catholik Reader to read all the blasphemous
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