it be contained among the chief articles of the Creed or plainly expressed in scripture 9. So sufficient that it be able to explicate determine all articles and doubtes in religion 10. So complet that it containe virtually be able to resolue plainly all questions and conclusions of Faith which may at any time vpon any occasion arise All which are necessary for such a rule and foundation vpon which so important a matter as faith and religion is grounded And this is the first thing to be obserued for the properties and conditions both of the Iudge and his rule of faith The whole body of the Church cannot be this Iudge SECT II. SECONDLY We may note that this infallible authority to iudge of controuersies of faith is giuen neither to the whole body and congregation of the Church of God as the rigid Lutherans with Brentius do hould nor to the secular Princes and Parlamentes as all the Lutherans at first and the State-Protestants of England do yet defend nor to the lay-people and priuate persons as Caluin and the Caluinists do maintaine nor yet is it residing in the wordes and text or scripture as the ordinary preachers pretend but only is giuen to the Pastours and Prelates of the Church of Christ who are lawfully by authority from Apostolicall succession ordained and Catholickly continue without diuision of heresy or schisme in the same and among them principally to the chiefe head and Pastour the successor of Peter and Bishop of Rome All which concerning euery one shall be briefly proued First therefore although the whole body of the Church collected haue the infallible assistance of the holy Ghost that it cannot erre or be deceaued in faith yet hath it not the same assistance that it may ought to be iudge determiner of faith For as in a naturall body the soule doth informe and giue life to the whole body and euery member of it but doth not discourse and giue vse of reason to the whole or euery part but only to the head so the spirit of God assistes the whole Church with the priuiledge of freedome from errour in faith but doth not likewise giue to it the priuiledg◠of authority to teach and iudge of faith and direct others in the same for which cause God hath giuen a measure of donation diuisions of graces and ministrations and made some not al Apostles Doctours Prophets that some may rule others be ruled some teach and others be taught some be superiours to iudge and direct others be inferiours to be iudged and directed and so an order and subordination a peace and vnity may be obserued and kept in the whole body among the members of Christs Church Whereof see more in the next fourth Section Secular Princes cannot be this Iudge SECT III. THIRDLY That this infallible authority is not in secular Princes or their Assemblies and Parlaments either as particuler members of the Church against Melancthon or as Princes and Superiours among the rest against Brentius so that they can and may lawfully and infallibly iudge of Controuersies make ecclesiasticall lawes giue authority to preach and prescribe a forme of doctrine a manner of seruice and an order of Sacraments and sacrifice though it be largely by many proued against the supremacy of Princes in causes Ecclesiasticall and requires a treatise more large yet in briefe it shall by these reasons be proued First because Kinges and Princes are in the Church of God and spirituall affaires as sheep to be ruled and ordered not as sheepheardes to rule and gouerne they are Lambes to be fed by Peter Sheep of the fold of Christ Members of the Church of God and seruants of the family of Christ Thus did the ancient and holy Fathers freely tell and admonish them and the Christian and good Emperours themselues acknowledged it S. Gregory Nazianzen told Valentinian That the law of Christ did subiect them Emperours to his power and Tribunall and that they were holy sheep of his holy fold S. Ambrose told Theodosius the Great that he was a sonne of the Church and that a good Emperour is within not aboue the Church Theodoret sayes of Constantine the Great that as a louing sonne he did propose busines to the Bishops and Priests as Fathers Constantine himselfe cōfesses that God gaue Priests power to iudge of Emperours witnesse Ruffinus that they were bishops within the Church he without it witnes Eusebius Valentinian the elder confesses that he as a laye man might not interpose himselfe in Church affaires but the Bishops and Priestes had care of such affaires witnes Sozom. And that himselfe was to submit himselfe to them witnes Paulus Diaconus And Theodosius the Great obeyed S. Ambrose his excommunication departed out of the Chancell at his command and cōfessed that thereby he had learned to know what difference there was betweene an Emperour and a Bishop witnes Theodoret and Nicephorus Secondly because the offices of the Bishops and Emperours are diuers and distinct the one of bodyes and goods the other of soules and fayth the one of life and death for offences against the King and common-wealth the other of sinnes and sacraments belonging to Gods lawes mans conscience the one is temporall of the kingdome and common-wealth the other is spirituall of the Church flocke of Christ which the hereticall Emperours forgetting were stoutly and zealously admonished and reprehended by the holy Bishops vnder them for the same As for example Cōstantius the Arian 1. by Hosius of Corduba willing him not to medle with Ecclesiasticall affaires nor to commaund them but to learne of them because to him God had committed the Empire but to them the Church 2. By Leontius of Tripolis because being ruler of military and politicke affaires he should not rule in thinges that belong only to Bishops 3. By S. Hilary of Arles wishing him to writ to Iudges of Prouincies that they should not presume or vsurpe to intermedle with the causes of Clergy men 4. By S. Athanasius of Alexandria that he and such who will be Presidents in ecclesiasticall iudgments who will make the Tribunals of the Court the seales of deciding ecclesiasticall causes themselues Princes and Authours of Church affaires are the abomination of desolation yea euen Antichrist himselfe Valentinian the yonger seduced by his wife was told by S. Ambrose of Milane That he had no Imperiall right in thinges that are diuine for the Court doth belong to the Emperour but the Church to the Priest And being called by the Emperour to reason with Auxentius the Arian he answered That if a conference was to be made of fayth it was to be made by the Priestes as it was vnder Constantine who prescribed no lawes but gaue free iudgement to Priests That it was neuer heard that in a cause of fayth Lay
prayer is as needlesse as to pray for the birth of Christ past or for the day of iudgment to come because euery one by his speciall faith belieues as certainly that his sinnes are forgiuen him as by his generall fayth that Christ was crucified for him as assuredly that he shall perseuer in fayth and come to heauen as that there shal be a day of iudgment and resurrection of his body therefore prayer for the one is as needlesse as for the other Againe if they pray for Gods grace to wash them from sin to keep Gods commandements to auoid concupiscence and lust and to loue God aboue all and not to offend him their prayer is as fruitlesse as to pray for Gods grace to keep them euer being sicke or euer dying or to leape ouer the sea or fly to the starres because according to them the one is as impossible as the other therefore as hopelesse to be obtained by prayer as the other 2. To pray for the preuenting of any euil whether it be malum culpae as sinne or malum poenae as punishment and whether it be punishment temporall as losse of goods affliction of body or death of friends or spirituall as losse of fayth of Gods fauour and of the ioyes of heauen or to pray for the obtayning of any good either temporal as riches health or the life of friends or spirituall as the good of Gods Church the remission of our sinnes and our perseuerance in state of grace or obtaining the kingdome of heauen is both needlesse and fruitlesse because all as well euill as good shall infallibly fall out as God hath according to his owne irrespectiue immutable ineuitable will pleasure decreed and appointed it therefore needlesse it is to pray for the obtaining of good and fruitlesse to pray for the preuenting of euill because both must fall certainly as God hath ordained decreed What end or vse therfore is there of prayer since the euent and the effect will be the same as well without prayer as with prayer all as God without any respect or foreseene consideration of vs or our deserts or prayers or other works hath according to his owne absolute will decreed and appointed to happen to vs. Thirdly willingly to do any act which is belieued and supposed to be a sinne and that mortall deseruing eternall damnation is vnlawfull sinnefull and damnable and so not to be done with a good conscience but such is all prayer euen the best and deuoutest we can vse according to their principles because euery worke euen the good workes of the best persons according to Luther Illyricus Caluin Beza Paraeus VVhitaker Tindall and others are sinnes mortall sinnnes damnable sinnes and nothing but sinne euen in the iust and elect though no more imputed to them then their bad workes of adultery murder c. which they say are not at al imputed to them Therefore all prayer how good or deuout soeuer is a sinne and that mortall and damnable so is vnlawfull sinnefull and damnable and not to be vsed more then swearing lying drinking both being sinnes and neither imputed punished as sinnes in the elect in whome they are couered and both imputed and punished as sinne in the reprobate in whome they are neuer forgiuen All which is confirmed diuers wayes by the expresse wordes first of Luther who affirmes 1. That no man obtaines any thing at Gods hand for any dignity either in his prayer or in himselfe but only by the bounty of God Also which he constantly auouches that the iust man doth sinne euen in praying according to that of Dauid Let his prayer be a sinne 2. By the wordes of Illyricus who affirmes that prayer is no good worke but a begging of wages And of Bucer and Caluin his scholler who both affirme that Christ did not prescribe vs to pray in these very wordes of the Pater noster but shewed to what end and with what affection we should pray 3. By the practise of many Precisians or Familists in England witnesse D. Smyth who vse to protest they will rather dye then say the Lords prayer 4. By the practise of the purer forte of Protestants who haue left off condemne all saying of canonicall houres and deuotion in the Church haue not only turned all publicke praying into preaching neuer vsing any at all in their meetings but also did for example in France pull downe destroy witnesse Richeâ—me in one six monthes no fewer then ten thousand houses of prayer or Churches in 400. Citties which they by rebellion kept froÌ„ their soueraigne King and Prince By all which is apparent not only how little they esteeme either Prayer or houses of prayer but also that according to their grounds all prayer in generall is needlesse and fruitlesse yea sinnefull and damnable and so not to be vsed and practised SVBDIV. 2. In particuler opposing all the seauen Petitions of the Pater Noster IN particuler that by this doctrine is oppugned all euery part and petition of the Pater noster shall likewise be proued For first in the preparation Our Father which art in heauen how can they call or esteeme him a louing Father whome they belieue to be a cruell and vniust iudge who decreed and created them to sinne that for that he might damne them Or what confidence can they haue in the mercy of this Father who is thus rigorous to them in his iustice and more then iustice How can they call or esteeme themselues his children by adoption from whome they receaue no inward grace of iustification How can they call him our Father or the Father of all whome they belieue as a Father to haue predestinated called and giuen meanes only to a few and as a cruell Iudge to haue excluded all the rest and the greatest part of which euery one may iustly feare himselfe to be one from any possibility of vocation grace or saluation How can they expect from him a crowne of glory in heauen of whome they belieue they cannot merit any reward in earth Why should they not feare a heauy hand of iustice yea despaire of any kind of mercy from him who beyond iustice hath proceeded so terribly as to predestinate so many to so great paines as are the paines of hell who had deserued or giuen no cause of any paines at all Who can imagine that God dwelleth in the iust and elect as in the heauens who are so fowly stayned in euery part of their soule with the deformity of all sinne and iniquity that no one part or action of them is cleare and vnstained from sinne Surely they who belieue this of God and his cruelty and of man and his deformity cannot confidently say neither Our Father which imports Gods mercy to man mans confidence in God or VVhich art in heauen which specifyes that as God dwels in the iust so they as the temple of God should be pure
or forme of true doctrine which they had learned and is committed to them The doctrine which they receaued froÌ„ the beginning VVhich was first euangelized to them Or the precepts of the Apostles and ancients Or rather of our Sauiour deliuered by the holy Prophets and Apostles And the word of God which remaines for euer That the knowledge of this rule or doctrine of fayth is presupposed to the true knowledge and vnderstanding of scripture is proued both by scripture and reason By scripture the Prophet Isay sayth as S. Cyprian and S. Augustine do both of them read and vnderstand it Except you belieue you cannot vnderstand that is sayth S. Cyprian the Iewes cannot vnderstand the scripture except they first belieue in Christ S. Augustine sayth There be some of you who vnderstand not and therefore they vnderstand not because they belieue not let vs first adhere by Fayth that we may be reuiued by vnderstanding And in another place Fayth must go before Vnderstanding that the vnderstanding may be the reward of Fayth Therefore Fayth and the rule of fayth is necessary before the vnderstanding of Scripture Secondly the Scripture for the sense is a Booke sealed with seauen seales these seales none can open but he who hath the key of Dauid This key of Dauid is giuen only to them who are faythfull with Dauid therfore the key of faith is requisit to the opening the sense of the booke of scripture which is confirmed by S. Hierome who alleadging the same words sayth The Law is spirituall and requires reuelation that it be vnderstood For proofe of which he produceth the example of the Eunuch who read but vnderstood not the scripture till Philip did expound it to him made him faythfull and so became of a scholler a Maister Thirdly Euery learned Scribe in the Kingdome of Heauen is like to a man the maister of a family who bringeth out of his treasure new and old The Scribes were the Maisters and Interpreters of scripture but they were in the kingdome of heauen that is in the Church by Fayth and so did interprete the new and old Testament which S. Augustine alleadging to the same purpose against the Manichees sayth You vnderstand not because you belieue not as sayth I say for you are not instructed in the kingdome of heauen that is in the true Catholike Church of Christ for if you were you would produce old and new out of the scriptures Therfore one must be a scholler in the Church by fayth before he can come to vnderstand the scripture as a Maister Fourthly S. Paul sayth to Timothy Thou hast learned holy scriptures from thy infancy which are able to instruct thee to saluation by fayth which is in Christ. If the scriptures instruct by Fayth then Fayth is prerequired before we can be instructed by them or vnderstand them Fifthly the holy Fathers and Doctours of the Church haue by the breach of this rule as a signe discerned Heretikes and by the authority of it as a strong argument confuted the same Thus were discerned Marcion Valentinus Câ—rinthus and Basilides by their deprauing the rule of truth witnesse Irenaeus Thus Paulus Samosatenus by his forsaking the Canon of the Church and flying to strange and adulterous doctrine Thus Montanus by his vttering strange words contrary to the custome of the Church deriued by tradition and succession from the Apostles witnes of both Eusebius Thus Nestorius by forsaking the ancient doctrine and introducing of new witnes Socrates And thus all Heretikes by their forsaking the rule of Christianity witnesse S. Augustine They being all esteemed to haue truth on their side who walke according to the rule which the Church receaued from the Apostles the Apostles from Christ witnes Tertullian Thus did S. Hierome confute and confound the heresy of the Luciferians by the light of the Sunne of the Church Gregorius Nazianzen the same by the doctrine abhorring the same S. Basil the Eunomians by the vnwritteÌ„ tradition of the Church Athanasius the Arians by the authority of the Orthodoxe Church and his ancestors opposite to them and abhorring their doctrine S. Epiphanius the Melchisidechians by the tradition of the Apostles and succession of doctrine The Millenarians by their transgressing the limits of the holy Church of God and the hope of Propheticall and Apostolicall tradition in fayth and doctrine And the Demerâ—s and other Heretikes by the style of Christianisme and the phrase of the Apostles receaued from the Fathers S. Augustine the Pelagians by the grounded custome of the Church hastening to baptisme infants By the most ancient knowne and vndoubted rule of Fayth truth And by the authority of the Church so commended in scrâ—pture The Donatists by the authority of the Church and by apostolicall Tradition And both Irenaeus Origen and S. Augustine did confute all Heretikes by the tradition of the Apostles manifest to the whole world in the Church sayth Irenaeus By the Ecclesiasticall tradition dissented off by none sayth Origen By the Catholike Church whose not receauing any opinion is sufficient sayth S. Augustine to confound any heresy Therfore the doctrine and practise of the ancient Fathers was to discerne and confute all Heretikes by this rule of Fayth Sixthly the same is proued by Reason because the scripture is the booke of the faythfull not the faithlesse therefore as it was writ to the faythfull as the conuerted Iewes Romans Corinthians c. so it is vnderstood truely only by the faythfull as the Christians not by the Infidels as the Iewes Turkes and Heretikes who haue and read the wordes but vnderstand not the sense meaning because the veile is yet ouer their eyes in the reading of it for want of fayth therefore the letter that is the words and reading of it doth kill them and is to them a ministration of death and only the spirit that is the vnderstanding of it doth giue life to them who haue fayth Of which necessity of Fayth prerequired to the vnderstanding of Scripture see Stapleton de principijs Doctrinalibus where the same is further proued out of the ancient Fathers testimonyes to wit S. Augustine Irenaeus Origen Athanasius Cyrill of Alexandria Theodoret and Vincentius Lyrin who sayth that the holy and learned men did interprete the holy Scripture according to the traditions of the Catholike Church and the rule of Catholike fayth And againe That the line of propheticall and Apostolicall interpretation must be directed according to the rule of the Catholike and Ecclesiasticall sense Which and much more he alleadges against the custome of Heretikes who haue alwayes the Scripture in their mouth and out of it do confirme their errours Out of which may be inferred how vntruly and fraudulently the Protestants do generally auerre that in the scripture the spirit of God is and is to be sought
by our selues or permissiue by God When Christian liberty is for liberty from sinne or misery frō the law of Moyses or Christ or from obedience to Princes or Prelates c. All which and many more are difficulties vsuall and controuerted in the scripture both of the old and new Testament This priuate spirit in euery man cannot explicate when the figure is not only in the words but in the matter when one thing is a figure of another as the paschall lambe of Christ the red sea of baptisme the māna of the Eucharist mount Sion of the Church or when one thing is a figure of many things as Ionas of Christ and the Iewes the rocke of the baptisme of the faithfull and the punishment of the vnfaithfull the flood of Noe of baptisme and of damnation When one and the same thing is a figure in one sense not in an other as the fornicating wife of Osee was of the Iewes as she sinned in fornication before mariage not as she liued chast after mariage This spirit cannot explicate in euery one many seeming contradictions as that the sonne shall not beare the iniquity of the father and that God doth visit the iniquity of the fathers vpon the Children to the third and fourth generation That the gifts of God are without repentance and God repented that he made Saul King That In the Arke was nothing els but two Tables of stone and In the arke were the pitcher of manna the rod of Aaron and the Tables That Do not answere a foole according to his folly and answer a foole according to his folly That i God made not death and life and death are of God That The disciples should take nothing in the way not a rodde and should take nothing in the way but a rodde That If I giue testimony of my selfe my testimony is not true and If I do giue testimony of my selfe my testimony is true That Mary came to the monument when it was yet darke and She came when the sunne was risen That A man is iustified by faith without works and A man is iustified by works and not by faith That t If I did please men I should not be the seruant of Christ and I please al men in all things That S. Pauls companions at his conuersion with many others did heare a voice and did not heare a voice All which with many more many very learned both ancient as S. Augustine and moderne as diuers Interpreters haue with great paines in great volumes laboured to reconcile This spirit cannot vnfould many bookes Chapters and places in scripture most difficult as the first Chapter of Genesis about the creation of the world the bookes of Kings Paralipomenon and the Acts of the Apostles about Genealogies and reignes of Kinges The Prophesy of Daniel about the seauenty weekes Of Ezechiel about the Temple Of S. Iohn in the Apocalips about the Angels the seales the trumpets the phyals the dragon the whore and the rest in which saith S. Hierome are as many misteries as words If one should aske this spirit in euery ordinary Protestant how it will explicate and reconcile Moyses who according to the Hebrew and vulgar edition omits Cainam betweene Arphaxad Sala and with him 130. yeares in the genealogy of Adam with S. Luke who folowing the greek of the Septuaginte doth adde Cainā How it will accord the Hebrew text which accounts but 292. yeares from Noe to Abraham with the Septuaginte who account 942. yeares adding more then the hebrew 100. yeares almost to euery generation or person How it will accord the hebrew text which from Adam to Noe reckons vp but 1656. yeares with the greeke of the Septuaginte which reckons vp 2242. yeares somtimes adding somtimes detracting from the former How it will make an agreement betwixt the history of Moyses in Genesis and the relation of S. Luke in the Acts. 1. in Abrahās departure out of Haram Moyses by computation affirming it to haue beene before the death of his Father Thare for Abraham was 75. years old when he departed and was borne in the 70. yeare of his Father Thare who liued 205. and so Abraham departed out of the Land when Thare his Father was 141. yeares old that is 60 yeares before he dyed and yet S. Steuen sayth he departed after Thare his fathers death 2. In the tyme of the Israelites mansion in Aegypt Moyses by computation affirming it to haue beene but 215. yeares which S. Paul confirms accounting from the promise to Abraham till the departure out of Aegypt but 430. years that is 215. before the entrāce and 215. after the entrance till their departure and yet S. Luke and S. Steuen affirme from the entrance till the departure to haue beene 400. 3. In the number of persons that entred into Aegypt with Iacob Moyses saying that they were but 66. or 70. and S. Steuen and S. Luke saying that they were 75. 4. About the buriall of Iacob in this 1. in the place Moyses saying it was in Hebron ouer against Mambre and S. Luke and S. Steuen saying it was in Sichē 2. In the seller of the field or sepulcher Moyses affirming Abraham to haue bought it of Ephrem the sonne of Seor and S. Luke and S. Steuen of the sonnes of Hemor Which Hemor sayth Moyses sold it to Iacob not Abraham and was according to Moyses the Father of Sichem not as S. Luke and S. Steuen say the sonne of Sichem 3. In the buyer of the same sepulcher Moyses affirming that Iacob S. Luke that Abraham bought it of them 4. In the price of the sayd sepulcher or field Moyses affirming Iacob to haue bought it for a 100. Lambes or to haue got it by the sword or bow from the Amorrhoites S. Luke and S. Steuen affirming him to haue bought it for siluer If one should aske how the bookes of the Kinges and Paralipomenon and the Acts can by this spirit be explicated and made agree 1. In the yeares of Saul who 1. Reg. 13.1 is sayd to haue beene a child of two yeares old when he began to raigne and to haue raigned two yeares and yet 1. Reg. 9.2 he is sayd before his raigne to haue been higher by the shoulders vpward then any in Israell and Act. 15.12 to haue reigned 40. yeares 2. About the computation of tyme from the diuision of the land vnder Iosue to Samuel which according to S. Luke and S. Paul in his speach in the Synagogue at Antioch Act. 13.20 according to the Greeke and Protestant edition are 450. yeares but according to the computation made by raigne of the Iudges are but 345. For 3. Reg. 6.1 the Temple was built 480. yeares after the departure out of Aegypt from which if there be deduced 50.
God a mediatour and priest and both to pray and to be obedient to the father and distinguish in him a person of God distinct from the person of a mediatour and therby with Nestorius make him to haue two persons All which if it be true that is if the sonne or second person as God be not cōsubstantiall with the father if he be not God of God if he be passible the vicar and second after the father if he be a mediatour and priest obedient to the father if he haue two persons then is he not God coequall and coeternall and the same in substance with the father nor one only sonne of God but two persons And so this third article Iesus Christ his only sonne our Lord is oppugned Fourthly In the fourth article attributed to S. Andrew is oppugned the humanity of Christ and virginity of his mother VVho was conceiued by the holy Ghost borne of the Virgin Mary 1. By the Vbiquitarians who make the humanity to haue omnipotency immensity all the properties of the deity so to do all to be all where and in all places which is proper to a diuine not humane nature 2. By the Anabaptists and others who make Christ to haue passed through the body of his mother as water doth through a conduct and not to haue taken flesh of her womb 3. By Molineus Bucer Beza Willet and others who affirme our B. Lady to haue suffered detriment of her virginity in the birth of our B. Sauiour and so make Christ not to be borne of a virgin which this article affirmes Fiftly In the fifth article attributed to S. Philip is oppugned the vertue of the death and passion of Christ Who suffered vnder Pontius Pilate was crucified dead and buried And that many wayes 1. In that the vertue of his passiō is not according to them generall for al sinners and wicked persons but particuler only for a few elect that is for some certaine Protestāts of some one sect who only are the faithful among them leauing all the rest destitut of any vertue from it or of any vocation or iustification by meanes of it 2. In that those elect it cures not from sinne but only couers their sinne remits not sinne but only imputes it not washes not away the guilt or offence of sin but only frees them from the punishment due to it and enables not a man to resist sinne but permits him in euery action to sinne strengthens him not to keep any one commandement but leaues him so that he must needes breake all 3. In that it giues to the soule of mā neither any life of grace by which it raises him from spirituall death to life nor any inherent iustice by which it makes him iust before God cleane from any sinne or solid in any perfection of vertue piety and good life nor any vertue by which it enables him to do any good worke to satisfy for any offence or to merit any reward of glory or increase of grace nor any inward vnction by which it adopts him to be and to be called the sonne of God or to be inheritour of the kingdome of heauen 4. It had in Christ as it was endured and offered by him no dignity from his diuine person which did giue an infinit valew and worth to euery action it had no vertue or validity to satisfy Gods iustice for any sin to pay a price sufficient equiualent for any sinne it could not by all the paines and torments which Christ suffered in body euen to the sheding of the last droppe of his bloud auaile any thing for mans redemption except he had suffered in soule also It could not redeeme man from any sinne except Christ besides had suffered all the paines due to sinne euen the same torments of Hell which any damned doth suffer for sin It so far ouercame Christ that it made him troubled inconsiderate abrupt effeminate doubtfull of Gods fauour and forgetfull of his office of a Redeemer It made him wauering staggering desperate renouncing his saluation It tormented him with horrour of conscience with anxiety of mind with sense of Gods wrath and with feeling of the sorrowes paines and torments of eternall death and hell All which as it is their doctrine of the death and passion of Christ in their owne particuler wordes before cyted so it derogates from the vertue of Christs bloud diminish◠the dignity of his passion and is dishonourable sacrilegious and blasphemous to his person and in all oppugnes this article of Christs suffering vnder Pontius Pilate All which is contrary in our Catholike doctrine as shal afterward be shewed which attributes to the vertue and passion of Christ that dignity validity and vertue that euery action any passion the least drop of his bloud was sufficient superaboundant to haue pacified Gods wrath satisfyed his iustice paid the price of sinne redeemed from sinne hell all the world and infinit worlds more and that it did de facto merit for all men inward grace to wash away remit the guilt of sinne to giue life and beauty to the soule to adopt it to the title of the sonne of God that it did giue strength to man to resist sinne before it be committed and satisfy for it in some sort after it be committed to keep Gods Commandmēts to merit a reward at Gods handes Of which doctrine whether doth giue more honour vertue to the death passion of Christ his suffering vnder Pontius Pilate for vs let the indifferent Reader be Iudge Sixthly in the sixth article attributed to S. Thomas is oppugned both the descension of Christ into hell his Resurrection from the dead He descended into hell and the third day rose againe from the dead And first his reall descending in soule to Limbus Patrum to free the Fathers there and make them blessed or which is propable to the place of the damned also not to suffer but to confound the Diuell shew his Maiesty is oppugned 1. By those who deny that any Limbus Patrum was euer at all and affirme that the soules of the dead Patriarches were locally in heauen though not beatifically blessed by the sight of God before Christ as Caluin Beza 2. By those who deny that as yet there is any locall place of hell at all or any reall fire and torments of the damned there as Luther Bucer Brentius Lobecius Perkins VVillet Caluin the Deuines of k Heidelberge 3. By those who deny his descension to haue been either in body or soule substantially but only in vertue and effect meritoriously in that he merited the freedome both of the Patriarches before him and of vs after him from the paines of hell as Bullinger Zuinglius the Diuines of VVittemberge and others 4. By those who affirme his descension to Hell to haue beene only in body not
in soule and that not to the lowest Hell but only to the graue or buriall and so Act. 2. Thou shalt not leaue my soule in hell they change soule into carkasse and hell into graue translating it Thou shalt not leaue my carkasse in the graue as Beza and Bucer 5. By those who admit his descension to haue beene in soule but yet suffering the very paines of hell and of the damned either after his death in hell as Luther Gerlachius and some other mentioned by Beza or before his death in the garden and vpon the Crosse as Caluin VVillet and others before cited 6. By those who question this article as suspected to haue beene intruded into the Creed after it was made as Caluin All which opinions as they either deny any Limbus Patrum to haue euer beene or any reall torments of hell as yet to be or as they affirme Christ to haue descended only in vertue and merit not in body or soule or only in body to the graue or in soule to suffer the paines of hell either after death in hel or before death vpon the Crosse and in the garden are all contrary to this part of this article in which is affirmed Christs descending into hell that is in soule to Limbus to free the Fathers and Patriarches there and to carry them with him into heauen Secondly his Resurrection from the dead in the same article is oppugned 1. By those who according to Beza deny all resurrection as yet of Christs body more then of other mens 2. By the Vbiquitarians who affirme his body to haue had immensity and therby to haue beene euery where in all places euer after his Incarnation 3. By Caluin Beza and other who deny his Resurrection with the guift of subtility or penetration and affirme that his body could not pierce through the stone of the sepulcher or enter the doors to his Disciples without either the remouing or altering of the nature of the dores and stone by resoluing them into some liquid matter 4. By Caluin and others who deny the rysing againe of his bloud that was shed vpon the Crosse thereby the resurrection of his whole and entire body All which as they deny either any resurrection at all or the complete Resurrection of Christs body or the resurrection of the same with subtilty or penetration do euery one oppugne this article of Christs resurrection from the dead in such due sense as it ought to be belieued Seauenthly in the seauenth article attributed to S. Bartholomew is oppugned both the ascending of Christ to heauen and his sitting at the right hand of God the Father by power and dignity equall to him in person and excelling all creatures in his humane nature 1. By the Vbiquitarians who by the all-presence of Christs body in euery place take from it all possibility of ascending to a new place 2. By Caluin who by giuing to Christ a power not equall with God but Vicary or deputary to him and an honour not the same but only second in degree to Christ after God the Father by denying al situatiō either of sitting or standing of Christs body in heauen doth oppose both his Ascension and sitting at the right hand of God 3. By the same Caluin and others who deny all Ascension through the heauens by way of penetration and admit it only by diuision and by cutting off the heauens 4. By those who yield the Patriarches a priority and deny Christ the primacy of tyme in ascending to heauē All which as they either affirme an euery where presence of Christs body or a difference of honour between◠Christ as God and God the Father or as they deny either any penetration of Christs body through the heauens or any priority of his ascending before other soules are all opposite to the manner of Christs ascension and sitting at the right hand of God in glory Eightly in the eight article attributed to S. Matthew is oppugned the Cōming of Christ to iudge the quicke and the dead by their generall doctrine that God is authour and worker of all sinnes that the Commandements of God are impossible that man hath no freewill that there is no reward for good deedes that all sinnes be mortall and damnable For these supposed no way is left to discusse rightly the differēce of sinnes to punish iustly mens sinnes or to reward duly their good deeds Ninthly In the ninth article attributed to S. Iames the lesser is oppugned the beliefe of the holy Ghost and of the Catholicke Church both which S. Augustine makes one article Of the holy Ghost in that some as hath been shewed make it only the vertue not the substance of God others expung it out of their Letanies Others as the Geneuians deny the adoration of it Others as before do make it the authour worker of all sinne the sauiour of all sects who by a perswasion they cōceiue of it do euery one assure themselues of saluation which authority reason and experience conuince to be false Of the holy Catholicke Church in that some reiect the name Catholicke as vaine and change it into Christian others leaue it wholy out of the Creed as superfluous and all of them do generally affirme the Church for many ages to haue beene latent inuisible erroneous adulterous and antichristian without either head to gouerne it or authority to end any controuersies and to conserue vnity or to punish offenders in it and without any sanctity in the professours of it whom they make all to be sinners and that in all sinnes generally and in great sins mortally then how can such a Church be truely holy vniuersall and infallible in deciding the beliefe of articles determination of controuersies Tenthly In the tenth article attributed to S. Simon is oppugned the Communion of Saints and forgiuenesse of sinnes The communion of saints is oppugned 1. The communion of saints in earth one with another by denying all meanes of vnity in faith vnder one head and Iudge 2. The communion of saints in earth with the soules in purgatory by denying all prayer for the dead 3. The communion of Saints in earth with the Saints in heauen by denying all honour or praying by vs vnto them and all knowledge and praying by them either for vs in earth or others in purgatory The remission of sinnes is oppugned by denying al power of priesthood in Gods church to pronounce any sentence of absolution all vertue in Sacraments to haue any operation as instruments in the remitting of sinne all infusion of grace to blot out and wash away all vncleannesse and deformity of any sinne either originall or actuall which according to them are neuer remitted or taken away but only couered and not imputed Eleuenthly In the eleauenth article attributed to S. Iudas Thaddaeus is oppugned the resurrection of the body by all who before oppugned the resurrection of Christs body and
of the same heere on earth In which we honour him belieuing that as man he is the head of men of the Church and of the visible monarchy of the Church which he established for euer and that euery knee ought to bow downe and adore him as the Sauior of it and that he hath dominion ouer all by his death and resurrection and did also leaue a visible Vicegerent after him by whom we should be gouerned visibly as by himselfe inuisibly Fourthly from his authority to make lawes and iudge vs they derogat and dishonour him in that they take from him al power to make any lawes or giue any precepts of true faith morall life or good manners for our instruction direction deny him as a iudge to haue exercised any iudgment vpon the liuing and faithfull In which we giue him the honour to haue beene our law maker our iudge and to haue made a new law of grace abrogating the old of Moyses and in it to haue prescribed vnto vs obedience to his precepts of faith and good life Fiftly From his Sanctity they derogatiue much and dishonour him greatly in that they call him truly and properly a sinner a great sinner and the greatest sinner of all sinners who sinned in discurtesy to his mother in inconsideration in his actions in forgetfulnesse of his function in staggering betweene praising and blaspheming God betweene hope and despaire and in renouncing his saluation for which he was execrable to God cursed with the damned being in all these properly a sinner and not only by the imputation of our sinnes to him as in their opinion euen man is iust by imputation of his iustice to him and so as truly sinfull as euer any man was iust All which we abhorre as blasphemy belieuing that he suffered paines and payed therby the price of our redemption but was innocent impolluted immaculate incontaminat and segregated from all sinners and sinfull actions bearing the punishment of our sinne in his body but being free from all imputation of the guilt of sinne in his soule Sixtly From his redemption of mankind they derogate and dishonour him 1. In that they deny the vertue of his death passion and precious blood to haue been any full satisfaction or redemption of mankind but only the inâ—ernal paines and suffering in his soule to haue been accepted as sufficient 2. In that they deny the vniuersality and fulnesse of his redemption to haue been offered for all men affirming him to haue dyed only for the elect and to haue offered or left no meanes of redemption for the wicked and reprobat 3. In that they deny the effect and efficacy of the same to haue extended to the abolishing and washing away of sinne to the inward sanctification of the soule by any inward and inherent grace and iustice which should enable it to keep the commandments of God and to auoid mortal offence against God In all which we honour him and his redemption in that 1. We belieue and professe that his pretious bloud shed vpon the crosse and his death and passion offered vp to God was a full price a perfect redemption from sinne 2. That the same was a full price satisfaction and redemption for all the sinnes of all persons in all the world 3. That the same purchased of his part for all sinners not only are imputatiue but also an inherent and reall iustification by grace which doth wash away the deformity of sinne cure the infirmity of the soule and giue strength to the keeping of Gods commandements and to the auoiding of sinne and so the meriting of a reward at Gods handes Seauenthly from his merit and satisfaction they derogate and dishonour him in that they deny him to haue by it satisfyed the iustice of God for any one sinne or to haue merited to himselfe his owne exaltation to glory or to our workes either any satisfaction for sinne or any merit of reward by his grace In all which we honour the same belieuing that he fully in iustice satisfyed and offered to God a sufficient price for our sinnes that he merited for himselfe his owne body the glory of his Resurrection and to vs not only for our sinnes a full price and satisfaction but also for our good works a vertue by grace both to satisfy in some sort for sinne and to merit a reward of more grace present and glory to come Eightly about his corporall death and passion they shamefully derogate and dishonour him in that they affirme he suffered both in body and soule the paines torments of Hell the death of the soule the separation of the soule from God the same infernall and eternall paines which the very Diuells and damned do suffer for the tyme and which in rigour are due to sinne and all sinners which except he had suffered he had not satisfyed for vs nor sufficiently redeemed vs. In all which we doe so honour his life and death that we attribute to euery action and passion of his euen to the least drop of his bloud that worth and valew arysing of the dignity of his diuine person that it was sufficient to haue satisfyed for an infinit world of sinnes and that the paines he suffered were only in the sensible and inferiour part of the soule and body but did not touch the superiour part of his soule that they were voluntarily sustained and offerred vp to God for vs and accepted by God for vs as being of more dignity then the offence of all our sinnes was of indignity whereby he neither suffered nor needed to suffer nor could in the dignity of his person suffer any paines ot hell but by the paines of the Crosse though by the tendernes of his coplexion more painefull to him then to any other did pay a sufficient price make a full attonement offer a perfect satisfaction and performe the part of a complete Redeemer and Sauiour for all mankind and the sinnes of all men Ninthly in the certainty of his saluation they blasphemously derogate from him and dishonour him more then themselues in that they affirme euery one of themselues to be infallibly certaine of his saluation and more certaine by his speciall faith of it then by his generall faith of the B. Trinity or incarnation of Christ and yet that our B. Sauiour was fearfull doubtfull wauering and vncertaine of his saluation did strugle with the horrour of death feared to be absorpt vp of eternall death was tormented with the anxiety of Gods wrath and indignation and that more then any man euer was or could be in which his horrour and desolation consists the summe of their consolation as their owne words more fully before related do expresse In all which we do so far honour him that we affirme and belieue that the painâ—s he suffered he willingly offered vp to God for vs that he was sure and secure that God his father did alwayes
heare him alwayes loue him alwayes assist him alwayes comfort him that no feare doubt wauering or perturbation did or could euer enter into his will or vnderstanding yea that all that time of his passion his soule had the perfect vision and fruition of God and only his sensible partes endured those paines and torments of the crosse Tenthly As for his descending into hell they derogate from it and dishonour him in that they affirme he descended either only to the graue in body or also to the lower hell in soule to suffer the paines of it either before his death on the crosse or after it in hell but not to haue freed the Patriarchs from Limbus by the presence of his soule there We honour it in belieuing that he descended in soule further then to the graue to which he only descended in body but not so far as to suffer the paines of hell in soule but only to the Limbus patrum where he gaue the Patriarches there detained present liberty fruition of eternall hapinesse afterwards carried them with him to the place of glory and so triumphed ouer hell led aptiuity Ccaptiue Eleuenthly From his resurrection and ascension they derogate and dishonour him both by denying him the subtility or penetration of his body wherby he was able to passe through either the stone of the sepulcher at his resurrection or the dores of the house at his entrance to his disciples or the hardnesse of the heauens at his ascension all which they wil haue either dissolued or opened or diuided We honour attribut more dignity to the same belieuing that by the gift of subtility or penetratioÌ„ his body did pierce passe through the stone the dores and the heauens at his resurrection and ascension as it did also his Mothers wombe at his natiuity with out any diuision dissolution or detriment to the nature of either the one or the other in which also he shewed his subtility and consequently his impassibility or immortality Twefthly From his adoration and inuocation by vs as he is now in heauen they derogate and dishonour him in affirming that as man he is not to be adored or inuocated by vs. We honour him as man so far that we bow downe at the name of Iesus praying to him with the blind man the Cananean saying Sonne of Dauid haue mercy on vs And fall down with the Sages the womeÌ„ adore him In al which and many more as they by their priuate spirit the doctrine of it do derogate take from Christ his honour his power his goodnesse his beatitude his knowledge his sanctity his certainty of saluation his adoration and the vertue and power of his passion redemption resurrection ascension so do we in our Catholike doctrine attribute to same due honour and dignity so both in our doctrine practise giue more honour praise power and glory to God and to Iesus Christ then they do either in doctrine or practise Thirdly For the Saints and blessed soules in heauen they dishonour them and take from them 1. Their state of beatitude affirming as Luther and Caluin do that they yet sleepe and neither know what we do nor yet enioy any present glory and beatitude till the day of Iudgment 2. Their perfection of Sanctity in affirming as Caluin doth both of Angels and Saints that their obedience is imperfect that their iustice is defectiue and doth not satisfy God that their works require pardon and that in them is folly vanity and frailty 3. Their power of doing miracles by the gift of God which Beza Piscator Vrsinus and Perkins â—hould to be a vertue proper only to God not communicated to any creature man or Saint 4. Their difference and degree or honour affirming that all are equall in glory beatitude and reward and that no lawrels or crownes of accidentall beatitude are due to Martyrs Confessours or Virgins 5. Their respect and esteeme with God denying that God doth either apply in any sort their merits to vs or doth help and respect vs for their prayers 6. Their knowledge of vs and our affaires on earth denying that they heare vnderstand or know vs or any thing we do heere on earth 7. Their charity towardes vs affirming they neither at our intercessious sollicite or pray to God for vs nor offer vp any petitions and miseries of ours to God 8. Their honour and inuocation by vs denying it to be lawfull to worship them to honour theÌ„ to inuocate them or so much as saith Luther to imitate and follow their example 9. The custody and â—uition of Angels ouer vs and their hierarchies and orders in heauen denying or at least doubting of the custody of our Angell guardian the difference of al Hierarchies and orders among Angels In al which we and our doctrine on the contrary do attribute to them perfect and present beatitude in their soules complete obedience in their performing the will of God vpright Sanctity in all their actions extraordinary power in working miracles notable difference of degrees of glory eminent knowledge in vnderstanding our prayers excellent charity in making intercession for vs and due honour and veneration in giuing them adoration inuocation and imitation befitting both the Saints for their prayers for vs and the Angels for their custody of vs. Fourthly For the word of God they abuse it take 1. From iâ— one first and principall part of it to wit all the vnwritten word or which is diuine vnwritten tradition 2. From the written word they chop and cut off from the old Testament fourteene peeces or partes and some of them from the new Testament seauen whole bookes from the Canon of scripture 3. For the translation of scripture they reiect the ancient and follow euery nation euery congregation and euery person a new translation which best pleases them therby leaue no certainty of the verity of any 4. For the sense of scripture they contemne that which the spirit of God did inspire to the ancient Fathers Councels Church and follow that which euery mans priuate spirit suggests and therby follow not the meaning of the spirit of God but that of their owne spirit 5. For their faith grounded vpon scripture they belieue only those points which their spirit finds in that part translation and sense which they chose and therby make an vncertaine imperfect mained kind of faith and religion 6. For their Iudge and meanes to try which is scripture and which is true sense of it they admit not any infallible Iudgment either of Church or of CouÌ„cels or of Pastours but leaue to euery man to choose himself what he will belieue to iudge and follow whom he pleases in his beliefe wherby they can haue neither any vnity in faith not any certainty of scripture of scripture sense We in our doctrine do admit for the word of