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
teacheth that Christ praied that S. Peters faith should not faile which vndoubtedly he obtained The same say Catholiks Protestants expressely teach that S. Peter lost his faith erred from faith did not retaine faith did apostotate that his faith failed that infidelitie preuailed against him Which is so open a contradiction of Scripture as diuers Protestants confesse it See l. 2. c. 30. ART V. WHETHER THE APOSTLES were foundations of the Church SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. Apocalip 21. v. 14. And the wall of the cittie hauing twelue The Apostles foundations of the Church foundations and in them twelue names of the twelue Apostles of the lambe Ephes 2. v. 20. You are citizens of the Saintes and the domesticals of God built vpon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Iesus Christ himselfe being the highest corner stone CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME C. Bellarm. l. 1. de Pontif. c. 11. All the Apostles were foundations of the Church PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Whitaker Controu 4. q. 1. c. 2. It is contrarie to the analogie Not foundations of the Church of faith that any man should be a foundation of the Church Moulin in his Bucler p. 380. The Apostles were not the foundations Peter Martyr in locis clas 4. cap. 3. § 4. If we read in the Fathers as we do in the Apocalips that there are twelue foundations here foundation is not put for the route of the building but for great stones which are next to the foundation Beza in Ephes 2. vers 20. The Apostles and Prophets were builders of this temple that is of the Church of God as also now faithfull Ministers are but not the foundation it selfe Herbrandus in Compend Theol. loco de Eccles The Apostles are not the foundation of the Church but by their doctrine of Christ they laied the foundation THE CONFERENCE Scripture expressely saieth that there are twelue foundations of the Church and in them written the names of the twelue Apostles that we are built vpon the foundatiō of the Apostles Christ being the cheefe corner stone where there is manifest distinction made betwene the foundation on which we are built and Christ Catholiks say the same Protestants expressely say that the Apostles were not foundations that they were not foundations of the Church but builders not foundations but great stones next to the foundation that no man can be a foundation of the Church Which are so contrarie to the Scripture as some Protestants confesse it See l. 2. c. 30. ART VI. WHETHER THE APOSTLES were simply to be heard or beleiued without examination of their doctrine SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. Luc. 10. v. 16. He that heareth you heareth me The Apostles were simply to be heard 1. Thessalon 1. v. 12. We giue thankes to God without intermission because that when you had receaued of vs the word of God you receaued it not as the word of men but as it is indeed the word of God The same also is proued by the testimonies cited in the next article CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME D. Stapleton Defens cont Whitak l. 3. sect 5. It is absurd to iudge of the Apostles doctrine Antidot Act. 17. v. 11. Christ hath ioyned his trueth and the Apostles preaching so narrowly as he saied who heareth you heareth me Why then not also who examineth your doctrine examineth my trueth PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Whitaker Controu 2. quaest 5. cap. 11. If the Apostles be not simply to be heard but to be examined according to the rule Not simply to be heard of Scripture and to be receaued so farre forth as they agree with it and to be reiected as they differre much lesse c. And l. 2. cont Dureum sect 2. When Paul preached to the Berheans they examined the Scriptures for to know fully whether those things which Paul tought agreed with Scriptures And this their example is allowed with the highest testimonie of the holie Ghost and proposed to all Christians to be imitated Caluin in Actor 17. vers 11. The Thessalonians did not take vpon to examin whether Gods trueth were to be receaued or no onely they examined Pauls doctrine to the line of Scripture For the Scripture is the true touchstone by which all doctrins are to be examined And seing the Spirit of God praiseth the Thessalonians it prescribeth in their example a rule for vs. It was lawfull for the disciples to examine Paules doctrine And 4. Institut c. 8. § 4. The Apostles in their verie name do shew how farre their commission stretcheth Forsooth if they be Apostles let them not prate what they list but faithfullie deliuer his commandments who sent them Luther Praefat. Assert Artic. to 2. If S. Pauls Ghospell or the new testament must haue beene tried by the ould Scripture whether it were so or no what did we who would haue the Fathers sayings examined by the Scripture Daneus Contr. 4. p. 611. It is most false that he writeth that the doctrine and sentence of the Apostles was not examined of the disciples and auditours Yea Christ himselfe commandeth his owne doctrine to be so examined Io. 5. 39. THE CONFERENCE Scripture expressely saieth that who heareth the Apostles heareth Christ that their word is not the word of men but the word of God and as such receaued of such as are faithfull The same say Catholiks Protestants expressely say that the Apostles are not to be heard simply but first to be examined that all Christians ought to imitate the Betheās in examining S. Pauls doctrine that the Apostles must not prate what they list that the Ghospell must be tryed by the ould testament ART VII WHETHER THE APOSTLES were sufficient witnesses of the trueth SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. Ihon 15. v. 27. The Spirit of trueth shall giue testimone of me The Apostles were sufficiēt witnesses and you also shall giue testimonie because you are with me from the beginning c. 21. v. 24. This is that disciple which giueth testimonie of these things and hath written these things and we know that his testimonie is true c. 1. v. 7. This man came for testimonie to giue testimonie of the light that all might beleiue through him Actes 1. v. 8. You shall receaue the vertue of the Holie Ghost comming vpon you and you shal be witnesses vnto me in Hierusalem and in all Iewrie and Samaria and euen vnto the vtmost of the earth c. 5. v. 32. And we are witnesses of these words and the Holie Ghost whome God hath giuen to all that obey him c. 10. v. 42. Him God raised vp the third day and gaue him to be made manifest not to all the people but to witnesse preordinated of God to vs who did eate and drinke with him after he rose againe from the dead 3. Ihon. v. 12. And we giue testimonie and thou knowest that our testimonie is true Exode 14. v. 31. And they beleiued our Lord and Moises his seruant CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME D. Stapleton Defens Contr. Whitaker l. 1.
sect 8. In all these things the Apostles did alledge their testimonie and themselues also as witnesses of that trueth which they tought And l. 3. sect 3. The Apostles were witnesses of their doctrine and they gaue authoritie to their doctrine See him Cont. 4. l. 8. c. 9. PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Whitaker Controu 1. q. 3. c. 11. God alone is a sufficient witnesse None but God is a sufficient witnesse of himselfe And l. 3. de Scriptura c. 13. sect 3. The people did not beleiue Moises for himselfe but for that diuine and great miracle Beleife was giuen to Moises and Paul not for themselues but for Gods authoritie which appeared in their ministerie And ib. sect 1. The testimonie of the Church as of the Church is but humane And Contr. 1. q. 3. c. 11. cit The iudgment of the Church is humane The same followeth euidently of that which they saied in the former article For if the Apostles doctrine must be examined it is manifest that they are not sufficient witnesses of their doctrine The same Whitaker Contr. 2. q. 4. c. 3. Yea after Christs Not the Apostles ascension and that descent of the Holie Ghost vpon the Apostles manifest it is that the whole Church erred about the vocation of the Gentils and not the vulgar Christians onely but euen the very Apostles and Doctors These were great errours and yet we see that they were in the Apostles euen after the Holie Ghost had descended vpon them THE CONFERENCE Scripture expressely affirmeth that the Apostles had the holie Ghost giuen them to testifie of Christ that they were ioyned with the holie Ghost witnesses of Christ that they were witnesses appointed of God that their testimonie is true that all may beleiue through Saint Ihon that the faithfull beleiued God and Moyses The same say Catholiks Protestants expressely say that none but God is a sufficient witnesse of the trueth that nether Paul nor Moises were to be beleiued for themselues that the testimonie of the Church is but humane That the Apostles erred and that greatly euen after the holie Ghost had descended vpon them ART VIII WHETHER THE APOSTLES learnt anie point of Christian doctrine after Christs ascension SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. Ihon 16. v. 12. Yet manie things I haue to say to you but you The Apostles learnt some thing after Christ cannot beare them now but when he the Spirit of trueth cometh he shall teach you all trueth CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME D. Stapleton in Ioan. 16. v. 12. By this testimonie is clearly proued that Christ tought not all by word of mouth but that both the Apostles and the Church learnt many things of the Holie Ghost PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Whitaker Contr. 1. q. 6. c. 10. The holie Ghost did suggest no They learnt nothing other things then those which Christ had tought Caluin in Ioan. 14. vers 26. Marke what all these things are which he promiseth that he Spirit shall teach He saieth He shall suggest or bring to mind whatsoeuer I haue saied Whence it followeth that he shall not be a coyner of new reuelations And 4. Institut c. 8. § 8. That limitation is carefully to be noted where he appointeth the holie Ghost his office to suggest whatsoeuer he had tought by worde of mouth Beza in Ioan. 14. v. 26. The Apostles nether learnt nor tought any point of Christian and sauing doctrine after the departure of the Lord. THE CONFERENCE Scripture expressely saieth that manie things were tould to the Apostles which they could not beare in Christs time that the holie Ghost was to be sent to teach them all trueth The same say Catholiks Protestants expressely teach that the Apostles learnt no point of Christian doctrine after Christs departure that the Holie Ghost reuealed no new thing to them that he suggested no other thing then Christ had tought ART IX WHETHER IVDAS WAS TRVELY a disciple or in the true Church of Christ SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. Matth. 10. v. 1. seq And hauing called his twelue disciples Iudas was truely a disciple of Christ together he gaue them c. And the names of the twelue Apostles be these The first Simon who is called Peter and Iudas Iscariot who also betrayed him Et c. 20. v. 14. 47. Marc. 14. v. 10. 43. Luc. 22. v. 3. 47. he is called one of the twelue Ihon 12. v. 14. One therefore of his disciples Iudas Iscariot Actes 1. v. 17. Iudas who was the captaine of them that apprehended Iesus who was numbred among vs and obtained the lot of this ministerie v. 25. Shew of these twoe one whome thou hast chosen to take the place of this ministerie and Apostleship from the which Iudas hath preuaricated And the lot fell vpon Mathias and he was numbred with the eleuen Apostles CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME Card. Bellarm. l. 3. de Eccles c. 7. Iudas was once of the true Church for he was an Apostle one of the twelue and called a Bishop of the Prophet Dauid psal 108. Which could not be true vnlesse he had beene of the Church PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Whitaker Controu 2. q. 1. cap. 7. I answere that the reprobate Iudas neuer of the Catholik Church Iudas was neuer of the true Catholik Church He held for a time a principall place in the outward societie of the Church because he was an Apostle but this made him not of the true Catholik Church But how he was one of the Apostles Austin telleth Tract 61. in Ioan. That how he was one in number not in merit Neuer an Apostle indeed Neuer true member of the Church are in shew not in vertue But what is in shew seemeth to be but is not indeed Daneus Controu 4. c. 2. Iudas Iscariot and Simon Magus were neuer true members of the true Church of God Of the same opinion are Protestants commonly who denie that anie reprobate can be in the true Church as we shall see hereafter c. 8. THE CONFERENCE Scripture expressely saieth that Iudas was one of Christs disciples one of the twelue Apostles was numbred amongst them obtained the lot of their ministerie had the place of Apostleship which S. Mathias afterwards had The same say Catholiks Protestants expressely say that Iudas was neuer of the true Catholik Church seemed to be one of the Apostles but was not indeed ART X. WHETHER IVDAS WAS a Bishop SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. Actes 1. v. 20. For it is written in the booke of psalmes Be Iudas was a Bishop their habitation made desert and be there none that dwell in it and his Iudas Bishoprick let an other take CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY DENIE C. Bellarm. cited in the former article Iudas is called a Bishop of the Prophet Dauid PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Whitaker Cont. 2. q. 1. c. 7. Iudas was an Apostle therefore no He was no Bishop Bishop because the Apostles were no Bishops The same say other Protestants who denie that the Apostles were
properly Bishops THE CONFERENCE The Scripture expressely saieth that Iudas had the office of a Bishop which an other Apostle tooke The same say Catholiks The Protestants say that Iudas was no Bishop THE SVMME OF THIS CHAPTER OF SAINT Peter and the Apostles Out of that which hath beene rehearsed in this chapter it clearly appeareth that the Protestāts in an other māner describe S. Peter and the Apostles thē the holie Scripture and Catholiks doe For the Scripture and Catholiks teach that S. Peter was first of the Apostles that he was the rock on which Christ built his Church that he had the keyes of the kingdome of heauen that his faith did not faile All which Protestants denie Besides the Scripture and Catholiks say that the Apostles were foundations of the Church were simply to heard without examining their doctrine were sufficient witnesses of trueth learnt diuers things of the holie Ghost All which are denied by Prorestants Moreouer the Scripture and Catholiks say that Iudas was truely a disciple and Apostle of Christ and also a Bishop which Protestants in like manner denie Wherefore Protestants steale from S. Peter his honour that he is the first of the Apostles his authoritie that he is the rock of the Church and his power of the keyes and stedfastnesse of faith And frō the rest of the Apostles they steale that they were foundations of the Church simply to be hearde sufficient witnesses of truth and that they learnt any thing of the holie Ghost CHAPTER VI. OF PASTORS OF THE CHVRCH ART I. WHETHER THERE BE ALwaies pastors of the Church SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. HIEREMIE 33. v. 21. Thus saieth the Lord If my Pastours alwaies couenant with the day can be made voide and my couenant with the night that there be no day and night in their time also my couenant may be made voide with Dauid my seruant that there be not of him a sonne to reigne in his throne and leuites and preists my ministers Ephes 4. v. 12. And he gaue Pastours and Doctours to the consummation of the saintes vnto the worke of the ministeric vnto the edifying of the bodie of Christ vntill we meete all into the vnitie of faith and knowledge of the Sonne of God CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME D. Stapleton in 1. Cor. 15. v. 15. Impious Caluin doth bouldly and often times say that Pastours Doctours Prelats Bishops Maisters of Churches all vniuersally for manie ages haue wholy straied from the Christian trueth and beene seducers PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Luther in psal 129. to 3. The Church vnder Antichrist had no true ministerie Caluin de vera reform p. 322. Not without cause we auouch Not alwaies that for some ages the Church was so torne and scattered that it was destitute of true Pastours And p. 322. I graunt indeed that it can neuer come to passe that the Church perish but when they referre that to Pastours which is promised of the perpetuall continuance of the Church therein they are much deceaued Beza de notis Eccles vol. 3. Forsooth it fell out that the lawfull order was then wholy abolished in the Church as it is manifest that it hath beene now for some ages not so much being left as the smalleste shadow of the cheifest partes of ecclesiasticall vocation Sadeel ad Art abiurat pag. 533. It is false that the externall ministerie must be perpetuall Daneus Controu 3. p. 426. The Church eftsones hath no man Postour And Controu 4. p. 757. The true Church hath ofte wanted Prelats Lukbertus l. 5 de Eccles cap. 5. We say that for some short time the Church may be depriued of Pastours CONFERENCE OF THE FORESAIED WORDS Scripture expressely saieth that there shal be Pastours as long as there shal be day and night that Pastours are giuen vntill we meete all in one faith The same say Catholiks Protestants expressely say that the Church may be depriued of Pastours that Pastours may perish that the ministerie must not be perpetuall that the Church sometime had no true ministerie was for some ages destitute of true Pastors that lawfull order was for some ages quite abolished in the Church not so much as the slēderest shadow of the chiefest partes of ecclesiasticall vocation being left Which are so plaine against Scripture as sometimes Protestants confesse it See l. 2. c. 30. ART II. WHETHER AVTHORITIE of gouerning the Church be in the Pastours them selues SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. Matth. 16. v. 18. seq Thou art Peter c. And to thee I will giue Pastours haue authoritie to gouerne the keyes of the kingdome of heauen Actes 20. v. 28. The Holie Ghost hath placed you Bishops to rule the Church of God 1. Cor. 4. v. 21. What will you In a rodde that I come to you or in charitie and the spirit of mildnesse 2. Cor. 13. v. 10. These things I write absente that being present I may not deale hardly according to the power which the Lord hath giuen me And c. 10. v. 6. Hauing in readinesse to reuenge all disobedience 2. Tim. 1. v. 11. I am appointed a preacher and Apostle and Maister of the Gentils Hebrews 13. vers 17. Obey your Prelats and be subiect to them CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME D. Stapleton in Triplicat cont Whitaker c. 13. We see that Paul putteth the authoritie in the Prelats PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Whitaker l. 1. de Script c. 13. sect 12. The authoritie is not Authoritie is not in the Pastours in the Prelats but in the worde for whose administration the Prelats do serue Againe I acknowledge no ruling which the Church hath All the authoritie is in God and in his word the Church hath nothing but mere ministerie Spalatensis l. 5. de Repub c. 2. n. 40. Church gouernours are most like to Phisitiās The Phisitian appointeth holesome things and forbiddeth vnholesome prescribeth diete c. but hath no They haue no iurisdiction iurisdiction or cōmand ouer the sick As it is the Phisitians office to gouerne the sick that is without iurisdiction So it is the office of the ecclesiasticall rectors to gouerne the Church that is the faithfull Caluin 4. Instit c. 8. § 2. We must remember that what authoritie or dignitie the Holie Ghost in the Scripture doth giue to Preists or Prophets or Apostles or Successours of Apostles all that is giuen not properly to the men themselues but to the ministerie whereof they are officers or to speake brefly to the word whose ministerie is committed to them The same he hath in Ioan. 16. v. 8. in Math. 20. v. 25. and in Iacob 4. v. 12. Beza in Math. 20. v. 25. What then will you say Haue the No power at all ouer consciences Ministers of the word of God no power at all None truely they no not ouer cōsciences for instructiō whereof they are appointed But they are legats of Christ to say and doe in his name sacred not ciuill matters who alone hath all right of commanding and
almost extinguished in the Church Liber Concordiae Luther in Declar. art c. 4. Those propositions of necessitie of good workes to saluation take away comfort Not necessarie to saluation from troubled and afflicted consciences giue occasion of doubting of the grace of God and are manie wayes dangerous Againe Those propositions of the necessitie of good workes to saluation are not to be taught defended painted but rather to be hissed out cast out of our Churches as false and not sincere Luther in Gal. 1. to 5. f. 286. The false Apostles did teach that Doctrine of false Apostles beside faith in Christ the workes of Gods law are necessarie to saluatioÌ„ l. de votis to 2. f. 281. Thou now vnderstaÌ„dest why I saied so oftentimes that nether vowes nor our workes are necessarie to iustice and saluation And as Schlusselburg to 7. Catal. Haer. pag. 312. reporteth This forme of speech God workes are necessarie Cast out of Luthers Churches to saluation he caused to be blotted and taken out of same mens writings and made a publike disputation of the same and therein cast it out of his Churches and sent it back againe to the Popes market or as Illyricus and Gallus ibid. pag. 567. write In publick disputation held at Wittemberg 1536. he more then fiue times iterated this speech That proposition good workes be Condemned necessarie to saluation we will haue to be condemned abrogated and quite shut out of our Churches and scholes The like saieth Scheptius cited in Colloq Aldeburg p. 153. 349. The Ministers of Saxonie in Colloq Aldeburg p. 6. and 7. condemne this proposition Good workes are necessarie to Popish and impious doctrine saluation and p. 129. say that it is Popish scandalous dangerous and impious contrarie to the word of God the Confâ—ssion of Auspurg and writings of Luther to which purpose they cite manie of Luthers sayings p. 134. they say it breedeth desperation Popish paradox p. 151. is the onely foundation of the Popes kingdome p. 349. a Popish paradox Schlusselburg tom 7. Catal. Haeret. pag. 69. Good workes Popish speech are necessarie to saluation is especially the speech and phrase of Papists and the foundation of all Popish and Antichrists workes This foundation standing all Poperie standeth If therefore we Foundation of Poperie shal be so madde as to admit this proposition we shall take away all distinction betwene vs and Poperie all our religion wil be condemned we iustly accounted Schismatiks accursed and ether compelled to recant our doctrine or to be damned for euer And to the same purpose he citeth manie famous Lutherans Morlinus in Schlusselburg to 4. Catal. Haeret. pag. 229. I am assured that it is the doctrine of SathaÌ„ if any say or thinke Doctrine of Sathan that to a sinner as he is now after his fall workes are any way necessarie to saluation To which Poach addeth p. 266. that it is doctrine of Sathan to say that good workes are necessarie to saluation ether in the law or in the Ghospell or in anie parte whatsoeuer of Christian doctrine Illyricus Praefat. in Epistol ad Rom. Workes are not any Not any way necessarie way necessarie to saluation Hunnius de Iustif p. 187. This proposition wherewith it is saied that workes are necessarie to saluation I iudge to be cast out of the Church howsoeuer it be painted or coloured Herbrandus in Compendio Theol. loco de bonis operibus Let this proposition God workes be necessarie to saluation be cast away The same say manie other Lutherans whome I name in my Latin booke c. 13. art 13. Confessio Heluet. cap. 16. We do not thinke that good God workes not necessarie workes are so necessarie to saluation that without them no man is euer saued And to this Confession subscribed the Protestant Churches of England Scotland France and Flanders as is reported in Syntagmate Confessionum Caluin in Antidoto Concilij Sess 6. Can. 20. In that the Ghospell differeth from the law that it promiseth life not vpon condition of workes as that doth but for faith Preus l. 3. de Iustif c. 12. Whence we vnderstand that workes Not absolutely necessarie are not absolutely necessarie to saluation l. 4. c. 1. We thinke euen the thiefe who in all his life hadde done no good when in his agonie he fled to Christ being preuented by death to haue beene saued with out workes Et. c. 2. Without new obedieÌ„ce the promise of life may be sure to the beleiuers And in Gal. 6. lect 73. They Contrarie to the Ghospell Interimists did hould no few points of doctrine contrarie to the Ghospell of seuen Sacraments of workes necessarie to saluation c. THE CONFERENCE Scripture expressely saieth that patience is necessarie to attaine the promises that without holines none shall see God that vnlesse our iustice be greater then that of the Pharises we shall not enter into the kingdome of heauen that if we will haue life we must keepe the commandments The same say Catholiks Protestants expressely say that workes are not necssarie to saluation not absolutely necessarie that the thiefe was saued without workes that the Ghospell promiseth saluation without condition of workes that doctrine of necessitie of workes to saluation is Popish is the foundation of all Poperie the doctrine of Antichrist and Sathan Which are so opposite to Scripture as sometimes Protestants confesse it See l. 2. c. 30. ART XIV WHETHER GOOD WORKES be profitable or auaile any thing to iustification and saluation SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. 1. Tim. 4. v. 8. Pietie is profitable to all things hauing promise Good workes profitable of the life that now is and of that to come The same teach other places cited in the former article and others to be cited in the next article CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME Catechismus ad Parochos cap. de Oratione By deuout praiers we appease God by almes we redeeme the offenses of men by fasting we wash away the filth of our owne life And albeit euerie one be profitable against all kinde of sinnes yet c. PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Apologie of the English Church We say we haue no meed No meed in workes in Latin praesidium at all by our owne workes and deeds but appoint all the means of our saluation to be in Christ alone Confessio Argentinensis c. 3. It is cleare that our workes Workes helpe nothing to iustice Of no momeÌ„t helpe nothing to this that of iniust we become iust Confessio Belgica art 24. Workes proceding from the true roote of faith are of no moment of all for to iustifie vs. Whitaker ad Ration 8. Campiani God in iustifying vs Of no reckoning makes no reckoning at all of our workes Tindal in Fox his actes p. 1143. All that thinke that good Profit nothing workes helpe or profit any thing to get the guift of saluatioÌ„ they blaspheme against God and robbe God of honour Which Fox also
all men because it is saied 1. Tim. 2. v. 6. One Mediator of God and men the man Iesus Christ they limite this to the elect faithfull Beza Epist 28. It is false that Christ is mediator also of the infidels In like sorte Hunnius de Iustif pag. 179. restraineth that saying Hebr. 5. ver 9. He was made to all that obey him cause of eternall saluation to obedience in faith If we proue that vnwritten traditions of faith are to be Touching Traditions beleiued because S. Paul saieth without limitation 2. Thessal 2. ver 15. Stand and hould the traditions which you haue learned whether it be by word or by our epistle they limite this to onely traditions of rites or ceremonies Whitaker Contr. 1. q. 6. cap. 10. Other Protestantes thinke that Paul speaketh of certaine externall matters and rites of no great moment Academia Nemaus Resp ad Tournon pag. 554. By the word Tradition in the Apostles writings is meant ether the application and right handling of doctrine or the appointing of rites and discipline If we proue that Christ committed all his sheepe to S. Touching S. Peter Peter because without anie limitation he saieth to him Ioan. 21. v. 17. Feed my sheepe Whitaker Cont. 1. q. 5. cap. 5. answereth Christ doth not say to Peter Feed all my sheepe but speaketh indefinitely And Beza ib. in vers 15. Must Gods word be thus profaned Surely Christ did not adde All and the difference betwixt vniuersall and indefinite propositions is well knowne As if Protestants did not as well limitate vniuersall propositions as indefinite as appeared in the former chapter Besides Daneus Contr. 3. p. 127. faithfull An indefinite What Protest say of an indefinite proposition proposition is equiualent to an vniuersall And Caluin in 1. Ioan. 3. v. 3. An indefinite speach is as much as an vniuâ—â—sall And 4. Instit c. 17. § 29. It is our parte whatsoeuer is absolutely spoake of Christ so to embrace as without exception that take place with vs which he would say If we proue that the Church is alwaies famous and visible Touching the Church because Isaie c. 2. v. 2. saieth without limitation of time And in the latter dayes the mountaine of the house of our Lord shall be prepared in the top of mountaines and shal be eleuated aboue the litle hilles and all nations shall flow vnto it Et c. 61. ver 9. And they shall know their seed in the Gentils and their budde in the middest of peoples And Miche 4. v. 8. And the remanent of Iacob shall be in the Gentils in the middest of manie peoples as a Lion amoÌ„g the beasts of the forest Whitaker Contr. 2. q. 2. c. 2. answereth The Prophets foretell that no kingdome shal be so glorious no cittie so ample no Empire so large as the Church shal be in the times of the Messias But we neuer read that the Lord hath promised that this maiestie and glorie of the Church shal be constant and perpetuall Et Morton in Apolog. part 1. l. 1. c. 13. The league is indeed perpetuall but this so admirable successe is not alwaies so vniuersall but in a manner peculiar to the age of the Apostles If we proue that the Pastors of the Church be alwaies visible because Christ saieth of them Math. 5. v. 15. A cittie cannot be hid situated vpon a mountaine Whitaker loc cit answereth Albeit Christ say that godlie Doctors and Pastors shall not be obscure nor escape the sight of men yet he saieth not that there shal be alwaies such Doctors which may be as visible as mountaines If we proue that the Church is the pillar of all trueth of faith because S. Paul 1. Timoth. 3. ver 15. without anie limitation calleth her the pillar and strength of trueth Whitake Contr. 2. q. 4. c. 2. answereth In this place is meant not simply all trueth but onely necessarie trueth And Vorstius in Antibel p. 143. The Apostle speaketh not of euerie trueth that howsoeuer pertaineth to religion but onely of holesome trueth or which is necessarie to saluation and that conditionally also to wit so long as she shall remayne the true Church of Christ If we proue that the Church is alwaies infallible in faith because without limitation to anie time she is called loc cit The pillar and strength of trueth P. Martyr in locis clas 4. c. 4. § 21. saieth I graunt She is indeed the pillar of trueth but not alwaies but when she relieth vpon the word of God Confessio Heluet. c. 17. She erreth not as long as she relieth vpon the rock Christ and the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles Daneus Contr. 4. p. 717. The place of Paul speaketh of the visible Church which on earth is the keeper of heauenlie doctrine so long as she is true Bullinger Dec 4. Serm. 5. The Church erreth not so long as she heareth the voice of her Spouse and Pastor Herbrandus in Compend loc de Eccles She erreth not so long as she houldeth and followeth the word of God Of we proue that the Church is to be heard simply in all things because our Sauiour without anielimitation saieth Math. 18. v. 19. If he will not heare the Church let him be to thee as an Ethnik and Publican Whitaker lib. 1. de Scriptura c. 13. sect 1. answereth The Sonne of God himselfe commanded to heare the voice of the Church but not preaching anie thing but Scripture Herbrand loc cit saieth the Church is to be heard as long as she preacheth heauenlie and incorrupt doctrine Moulins in his Buckler p. 84. limitateth this speach of Christ to quarrels betwixt particular men and not to questions of religion The like saied Feild l. 4. de Eccles c. 4. and others If we proue that the Church in teaching cannot erre because Isaias saieth c. 59. v. 21. This is my couenant with them saieth our Lord My spirit is in thee and my words which I haue put in thy mouth shall not departe out of thy mouth and out of the mouth of thy seed and out of the mouth of thy seeds seed saieth our Lord from this present for euer Whitaker libr. 1. de Scriptura cap. 11. sect vlt. answereth This promise is not made to the teaching Church but to the whole Church that is to the elect If we proue that the militant Church is perpetuall because the Scripture saieth that Christs kingdome shal be perpetuall Daneus Contr. 4. p. 718. answereth All these places and the like properly pertaine to that Church which God shall gather in heauen not on earth If we proue that the visible Church is alwaies the true Church because she is called 1. Timoth 3. the pillar of trueth Daneus loc cit pag. 721. answereth Let him know that the visible Church then and so long is saied to be the true Church as long as the voice of heauenlie and Euangelicall trueth soundeth in her If we proue that the visible Church cannot
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
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
Church to the den of theues from the assured path of saluation to the open way of damnation Finally I aduertise the Reader that if at anie time I vse anie sharp words against Protestants I intend them onely against their teachers and leaders yet vse I the common name of Protestants that the rest may know that the crimes which I obiect vnto them proceed of their doctrin and thereby flie and reiect it lest they become partakers of the crimes I shew them the gulfe of impietie into which their guides doe lead them let them not be offended with me that I set before their eyes the impietie of the doctrin which they are tought but let them be angrie with their teachers who vnder the most false pretense of Scripture and Gods word haue thaught them such impious doctrin and so contrarie to Gods words And I hartely pray God and euer shal that he open their eyes that they may see the most imminent and greiuous danger wherein they stand and auoide it lighten with his true light that zeale which they haue to his word Rom. 10. lest they perish for euer with them who had zeale but not according to knowledge Whether Catholiks or Protestants be the true owners of the holie Scripture FIRST CHAPTER BECAVSE this question of the true owners How important this question is of the holie Scripture is of such moment as by it may be decided all controuersies as shall hereafter appeare and withall the decision thereof is so easie and cleare as euerie one may perceaue it and notwithstanding hath not as yet to my knowledge beene particularly handled of anie albeit as we shall see out of Tertullian it should haue beene handled before anie question of Scripture I will begin first with it And because Protestants auouch them selues to be the true owners of the Scripture I need not proue to them that ether Catholiks or they are the true owners thereof which the very question doth suppose but it will suffice against them that I shew that according to all reason Catholiks are to be iudged the true owners of Scripture rather then they The first proofe hereof I will take from the actuall The first title for Cathol actual possession possession of the Scripture in which Catholiks peacably were when Luther and the Protestants first began to chalenge the Scripture for theirs For reason teacheth vs to iudge the Possessor of anie thing to be the true owner of the same and possession to be a sufficient title of houlding it vnles the contrarie be manifestly proued and conuinced as we see dayly in lands and temporall goods and otherewise the dominion of things would be vncertaine amongst men Wherevpon the law teacheth the Possessor to plead possession as a sufficient title and to say possideo quia possideo I possesse because I possesse But Protestants can not manifestly disproue no nor yet colourably impugne the right of the Catholiks possession of the holie Scripture as shall hereafter appeare Therefore according to all reason Catholiks vpon this title of their possession are to be iudged true owners of the Scripture The second proof I will take from the Catholiks vndoubted Second title peacable possession possession thereof and vnquestioned by Protestants for manie ages That Protestants did not for manie ages call the Catholiks possessions of the Scripture into question is manifest by the manie and plaine confessions of Protestants that their Church was inuisible before Luther for manie ages which I haue related in my second booke of the Author of the Protestant Church c. 4. And reason teacheth vs to accounte him the true owner of a thing who without all question or clame of anie hath hould it peacably for manie ages together Wherevpon the law alloweth prescription of certaine yeares after which time expired it permitteth not the possession to be called in question Besides it is no way likelie that the true Church of God would suffer her self to be bereaued of so heauenlie a treasure as is the holie Scripture and yet not once in anie corner of the world for manie ages crie after the theefe or chalenge her treasure which she did see was held of others Will men euerie day venture their liues for sauing or recouering a little land or goods and would not the Church of God the onely true owner of the Scripture for manie ages once open her mouth to chalenge so heauenlie a treasure especially the Scripture being as Protestants teach the onely Martyr in disput oxon p. 143. Pareus Coll. Theol. 3. disp 2. externall infallible meane to attayne faith and as necessarie to the saluation of the Church as meate is to the life of man what care had the Church offo great a treasure left vnto here by Christ what account made she of faith and saluation if for manie ages she would not so much as chalenge the onely externall infallible and necessarie means to obtayne them Would the primitiue Church suffer so manie torments and cruell death as we read in the Ecclesiastical Historie rather then loose the holie Scriptures which the Heathens would haue taken from her and would she afterward suffer Papists to take it from her without muttering one word or laying clame to it for manie ages together Moreouer how had she faith how obtained she saluation if for maine ages she lost the onely externall infallible and necessarie meanes to obtayne them The third proof is that the Catholiks possession of the Scripture is farre more ancient then the Protestāts possession Third title ancientest possession thereof For euident it is that that Christian Church which is the first and ancientest possessor of the holie Scripture is the onely true owner of the same because the Apostles and Euangelists left their writings first and Qui prior est tempore potior est iure Reg. iuris onely to the true Church and gaue her the testament and last will of Christ her sponse so that the true Christrian Church had the Scripture before anie false Christian Church had it and likewise certaine it is that she neuer lost it since it was deliuered vnto her but as she is the pillar of truth so she hath faithfully kept this heauenly truth deliuered vnto her in writing and consequently is ancienter possessor of the Scripture then anie false Christian Church can be And this reason the ancient Christians vsed against Heretiks as appeareth by these words of Tertullian lib. de Praescript c. 37. It is my possession I possesse it of ould I possesse it first I am the herie of the Apostles And lib. 4. cont Mart. c. 4. I say my Bible is true Marcion saieth His. I say Marcions Bible is corrupted Marcion saieth Mine is corrupted what shall end our controuersie but order of time giuing authoritie to that which is found to be ancienter and reiecting that which is later For in that falsitie is a corruption of trueth trueth must needs be before falsitie
for true doctrin Page 529. It is manifest that God giueth power of working these kinde of miracles to false teachers that he may tempt them to whome they are sent Which he repeateth againe page 530. and addeth Miracles may be wrought to confirme false doctrin And Controu 4. quaest 5. c. 3. pag. 688. I answere that though they Papists did worke true miracles such as the Diuel cannot imitate they were not therefore to be beleiued Daneus Controu 4. lib. 4. cap. 14. pag. 784. We denie True miracles not sufficient that true miracles are a sufficient testimonie of true doctrin Hospinian l. de Origine Templorum pag. 140. God permitteth the Diuels some times to worke true miracles God doth this partely to tempt the elect partely for the greater blindnesse of the reprobate Luther in capit 7. Matth. tom 7. fol. 92. I am nothing moued with miracles albeit in my sight they should raise the dead to life For all these may deceaue God also permitteth true miracles to be wrought for punishment of them who care not for truth THE CONFERENCE Scripture expressely saieth that true miracles are a greater testimonie then S. Ihon that though we did not beleiue Christ yet we should beleiue his miracles that they are Gods confirmation of trueth that if one in the finger of God cast out Diuels certainly he preacheth the kingdome of God The same say Catholiks Protestants expressely say that euen true miracles are no sufficient testimonie or argument of true doctrin that though we could do true miracles such as the Diuel cannot imitate yet we were not to be beleiued that miracles may be done to confirme false doctrin that God giueth to false teachers power to worke true miracles for to tempt men that they are nothing moued with miracles no though they should see the dead raised to life THE SVMME OF THIS CHAPTER OF GOD. I did thinke that it would not be vngratefull or vnprofitable to the Reader if at the end of euerie chapter I set downe the summe thereof that thereby he might as once perceaue in how manie and how great matters which haue beene handled in eche Chapter Protestants contradict the pure word of God and also how like verie false Prophets they plaie the theeues in euerie chapter and steal some thing Caluin in Actor 22. v. 14. Writeth thus of Catholiks Papists haue made a new God They haue coyned for themselues a Whether Catholiks or Protestants make a false God young God The same he saieth otherwhere and manie Protestants which whether it agree to Catholiks or to them will easily appeare out of that which hath beene saied in this Chapter For as touching iniquitie or sinne the God of the holie Scripture and of Catholiks willeth it not worketh it not doth not predestinate nor tempt men vnto it doth not command necessitate or compell to sinne But the God of Protestants doth all these as appeareth out of the. 1. 4. 5. 6. 7. and 8. Article As concerning sinners the God of Scripture and Catholiks hateth all that worke iniquitie is angrie with the faithfull when they sinne and punisheth them for sinnes committed The Protestants God doth none of these as appeareth by the 9. 11. and 12. Article As for good workes the God of Scripture and of Catholiks is delighted with them is worshipped with them accepteth good works not commanded is appeased with good works will haue his commandments kept The Protestants God doth all the contrarie as is seene by the 13. 14. 15. 16. and 17. Arâ—icle As touching men or mankind the Scripture and Catholiks God loueth all would haue all saued would as a hen her chickins gather euen theÌ„ which will not come will not the death of a sinner nor damneth men but for sinne The Protestants God is quite contrarie as is euident by the 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. Article And finally concerning power the Scriptures and Catholiks God is omnipoteÌ„t can do those things which shall neuer be can make a Camell passe through a needls eye Such is not the Protestants God as is to be seene by the 23. and 24. Article Seing therefore so manie and so great properties agree to the Protestants God quite contrarie to those which the God proposed vnto vs by the holie Scripture and Catholiks hath it is euident that it is an other and a new God different from the God which the Scripture teacheth yea that it is as Caluin speaketh of the Libertins God an idol Cont. libert c. 14. which ought to be more detestable to vs theÌ„ all the PagaÌ„s idols or rather that it is the verie Diuel him selfe For what other can he be who willeth iniquitie will haue men to sinne worketh sinne procureth sinne is author of obduration is in like sorte author of crueltie as of loue predestinateth to sinne preordaineth sinne euen as it is sinne decreeth by a speciall decree that sinne be done pusheth to euill by him selfe immediatly and by a peculiar action necessitateth coÌ„pelleth to sinne coÌ„mandeth to lie and is author of temptation to euill and consequently is the Tempter and Father of lying which names the Scripture appropriateth to the Diuel who careth not for good workes is not delighted nor worshipped with them will not haue Gods commandments kept who commandeth that which he would not haue done and promiseth that which he will not performe who made death and is the Author of death and damnation the fontaine of perdition finally who damneth them that deserue it not and that for his mere pleasure These diuers other qualities before shewed do plainly declare who and what one he is whom Protestants teachers haue proposed to the world to adore as God who in trueth can be no other then the very Diuel It appeareth also out of that which hath beene rehearsed How manie and great attributes Protestants take from God Goodnesse in his Chapter that those coyners of a new God do plaie the theeues and steale from the true God manie of his principall properties For they steall away his goodnesse in saying that he willeth worketh decreeth sinne tempteth necessitateth compelleth to sinne careth not for good works nor is worshipped with them They take away his iustice in teaching that he hateth not all that worke iniquitie is not angrie with the faithfull when Iustice they sinne imputeth not their sinne to them will not haue his commandments kept commandeth that which he will not haue done and promiseth that which he will not performe They robbe him of his omnipotencie OmnipoteÌ„cie whiles they affirme that there are manie things which he cannot doe And in place of these admirable vertues they giue to him the contrarie vices For in steed of goodnesse they attribute vnto him malice wherewith he willeth worketh decreeth iniquitie and predestinateth necessitateth and compelleth men vnto it For Iustice they giue him Iniustice wherewith he iustifieth the impious remaining impious and damneth those that deserue it not And for
Perkins in reform Cathol cap. 8. p. 166. The second is the vow of pouertie and monasticall life in which men bestow all Against Gods will they haue on the pore and giue themselues wholy and onely to praier and fasting This vow is against the will of God The like he hath in Casibus Conscient col 1125. Morton l. 1. Apologiae c 40. Your doctrine of giuing all Sauoureth heresie sauoureth rather heresie then religion Whitaker Contr. 2. q. 5 c. 7. Monks and Iesuits nether marrie Is Anabaptisticall wiues nor haue anie thing proper but haue all things cōmon But this to haue all things common is Anabaptisticall Melancthon in locis tit de Paupertate The Ghospell nether counsaileth nor commandeth to leaue our goods vnlesse they be taken from vs nether counsaileth it nor commandeth to make things common THE CONFERENCE Scripture expressely saieth that to giue all to the pore is a meane of perfection that the Apostles forsake all and that the first Christians had all things commō The same say Catholiks Protestants expressely say that the Scripture counsaileth not to forsake our goods that it is a mere humane tradition that it agreeth not with true Catholik doctrine that it rather sauoureth heresie then religion that to haue all things common is Anabaptisticall ART XVII WHETHER PENNANCE BE commanded to all SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. Act. 17. v. 30. God now denounceth vnto men that all euery Pennance cōmanded to all where doe pennance c. 20. v. 21. Testifying vnto Iews and Gentils pennance towards God and faith in our Lord Iesus Christ And To Iewes and Gentils c. 8. v. 22 it is saied to Simon Magus Do pennance from this thy wickednesse Luc. 24. v. 27. It behoued Christ to suffer and to rise againe To all natiōs from the dead the third day and pennance to be preached in his name and remission of sinnes vnto all nations CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME C. Bellarm. l. 3. de Paenitent cap. 2. Who haue committed a mortall sinne are bound by Gods law to doe pennance PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Perkins in Apoc. 2. to 2. This precept of repentance is not giuē Pennance not commanded to euerie one seuerally to euerie one but onely to the Church of God or to that people which at last shal be the Church Caluin de Praedest pag. 706. God is saied to will life as he God willeth not pennance to all but by word willeth pennance But this he willeth because by his words he inuiteth all to it And of the same mynd are others who say that God willeth not the saluation of any but of the elect onely otherwise then by his word For if indeed he will not haue the reprobate do pennance but onely in word or shew surely nether doth he command them to do pēnance otherwise then in word and in outward shew THE CONFERENCE Scripture plainely saieth that God denounceth pennāce to all men euerie where to Iews and Gentils to all Nations to Simon Magus The same say Catholiks Protestants plainely say that God commandeth not pennance to euerie one but onely to his Church or to these who at last shal be his Church that he doth not will pennance to all but onely in word ART XVIII WHETHER CHASTISMENT of the bodie be a parte of pennance SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. Math. 11. v. 21. Woe be to the Corozain woe be to thee Bethsaida For if in Tire and Sidon had beene wrought the miracles that haue beene wrought in you they had done pennance in Bodily chastizment a parte of pennance hairecloth and ashes long agoe Iob. 42. v. 6. I reprehend my selfe and do pennance in imbers and ashes Ionas 3. v. 6. And he rose vp out of his throne and cast away his garment from him and was clothed in sackcloth and sate in ashes And he cried and saied in Niniue from the mouth of the King and his Princes saying Men and beasts and oxen and cattell let them not taste any thing nor feed and let them not drinke water And let men and beasts be couered with sackclothes Ioel. 2. v. 12. Conuert to me in all your harte in fasting and in weeping and in mourning CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME D. Stapleton in Math. 11. erv 21. It is conuinced out of this place that pennance properly consisteth not onely in change of life and repentance but also in penall workes PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Willet Contr. 14. q. 1. p. 711. Ashes sackoth was no parte of No parte of pennance repentance but an outward testification of their inward griefe Whitaker Praefat. ad Demonstrat Sanderi I saied that pennance did not consist in certaine externall punishments but in inward griefe conceaued of the remembrance of sinne and in amendment of life Caluin in Math. 11. ver 21. Pennance is here described by externall Christ regardeth notmuch corporall pennance signes whereof then there was solemne vse in the Church of God not that Christ insisteth much vpon this vpon this point but he accomodateth himselfe to the capacitie of the common people Et Concione 158. in Iob Sackcloth and ashes are onely an externall signe of pennance Beza in Math. 11. v. 21. cit Which custome of casting ashes vpon themselues was after word trāslated to those whome they called Penitents I wish it had beene done with more iudgment and better successe Vorstius in Antibellarm p. 439. Painfull workes are onely outward and oftentimes deceitfull and feigned signes of pennāce Wherefore they are not partes of true pennance THE CONFERENCE Scripture plainely saieth that pennance in sackcloth and ashes is good that God biddeth vs to conuert to him in fasting weeping and mourning that the Niniuits did pennance in sackcloth and ashes and Iob in embers and ashes The same say Catholiks Protestants plainely say that Christ did not much insist vpon sackcloth and ashes that they are no partes of pennance but onely an outward signe thereof that pennance consisteth not in outward punishment that the custome of casting ashes vpon penitents was done without good iudgment ART XIX WHETHER THE PENNANCE of the Niniuites were true SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. Ionas 3. v. 10. And God saw their Niniuites workes that they were conuerted from their euill way and God had mercie on Pennance of Niniuites was true the euill which he had spoaken that he would do to them and he did it not Et ver 5. And the men of Niniue beleiued in God and they proclaimed a fast c. Math. 12. v. 41. The men of Niniue shall rise in iudgment with this generation and shall condemne it because they did pennance at the preaching of Ionas CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME Catechismus ad Parochos cap. de Paenitentia There are most cleare examples of the Niniuits of Dauid of the Penitent woman of the Apostles all which imploring the mercie of God with manie teares obtained pardon of their sinnes PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Beza lib. quaestion vol. 1. Theol. pag. 674. God
he loueth he dishonoureth Christ c. de votis It is an impious opinion that we obtaine remission of sinnes for our workes Confessio Bohemica art 7. Good workes are to be done not Iustification not by workes that we thinke that we obtaine remission of sinnes for them Gallica artic 22. We are not iustified by workes Belgica artic 24. Good workes are of no moment at all for to iustifie vs. Argentinensis Workes helpe not to iustification cap. 3. Good workes helpe nothing for to make vs iust of vniust Heluetica cap. 15. We receaue this iustification not by any workes Whitaker ad Ration 8. Campiani In iustifying vs God maketh no reckoning of our workes For the iust liueth not of workes Perkins in Serie Causarum cap. 51. To be iustified by good Abraham not iustified by workes workes is both false and ridiculous In Gal. 3. Abraham was not iustified by his good workes In c. 4. That doctrine which dreameth of Iustification by workes bringeth in idolatrie Et in c. 5. it ouerturneth the foundation of religion Luther de libertate tom 2. fol. 4. A soule is iustified by no workes In Gal. 1. to 5. Sinne is taken away by no workes In c. 3. Abraham was iustified by no other thing at all but faith Epist Abrahā not iustified by workes ad Liuones to 7. All doctrine of iustifying and sauing vs by workes is impious diuelish and high blasphemie against God Et to 1. fol. 393. We must firmely beleiue against the Diuel that the woman was saued by onely faith before she loued Caluin 3. Instit c. 11. § 6. In iustification there is no place for workes c. 14. § 5. Workes helpe nothing to iustifie vs. cap. 16. § 1. Men are not iustified by workes We say they are not iustified by workes In Gal. 2. v. 15. We cannot be iustified by workes Beza in Confess cap. 4. sect 17. How can we be iustified by Workes do not iustifie workes l. Quaest p. 689. Good workes do not iustifie Peter Martyr in locis classe 3. c. 4. § 8. Iustification is not had of workes Bullinger de Iustif fidei Serm. 6. Abraham was not iustified by his workes Aretius in locis part 2. f. 78. We are not iustified of workes Zanchius in Confess c. 21. art 4. We constantly confesse that a man is not iustified of workes Man is not iustified by workes Polanus in Disp priuat perio do 1. disput 36. Not because the woman loued much therefore her sinnes were remitted her Pareus in Gal. 2. lect 24. The Apostle denieth that workes ether alone or with faith do iustifie Rogers artic 11. Workes haue no place or portion in the Workes with faith do not iustifie matter of our iustification CONFERENCE OF THE FORESAIED WORDS Scripture expressely saieth that Abraham was iustified by workes that Rahab was iustified by workes that the womans sinnes were forgiuen because she loued that men must repent for to haue their sinnes forgiuen The same say Catholiks Protestants expressely say that Abrahā was iustified by workes by nothing els at all but by faith that the womās sinnes were not forgiuen because she loued that sinne is not taken away by any workes that we are not iustified by any workes that workes haue no place are of no moment or reckoning in iustification that it is impious diuelish ridiculous and most blasphemous against God to dreame of Iustification by workes ART II. WHETHER IVSTIFICATION be by faith onely SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY DENIETH. Iames 2. v. 24. Do you see that by workes a man is iustified Iustification not by faith alone and not by faith onely CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY DENIE Councel of Trent Session 6. can 9. If anie shall say that the impious is iustified by faith alone so as he vnderstandeth that nothing els is required to cooperate to the grace of iustification and that it is no way necessarie that he be prepared and disposed by motion of his owne will be he accursed PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME Confessio Saxonica c. de Remiss Peccat Wittenbergica c. de Iustif Articuli Smalcaldici part 2. c. 1. liber Concordiae c. 3. Confessio Anglica art 11. Heluetica cap. 15. Belgica art By onely faith 22. Bohemica art 6. teach in expresse termes that we are iustified by onelie faith And the same in other words teach Confessio Augustana c. de fide Argentinensis c. 3. Gallica art 20. Apologia Confess Augustanae c. de Iustif We are iustified By faith alone by faith alone if by iustification we meane to be iust of vniust or to be regenerated Againe Faith alone doth iustifie alone maketh iust of vniust By faith onely we receaue remission for Christ Et c. de Resp ad Argumenta Remission of sinnes and Onely by faith iustification is receaued onely by faith These things we obtaine onely by faith Luther de libertate to 2. fol. 4. A soule is iustified by faith By nothing els alone In Gal. 2. to 5. Faith iustifieth and nothing els Vrbanus Regius in Catachesi fol. 136. We are Iustified by faith onely Schusselburg l. 1. Theol. Caluin art 15. Paul teacheth that By faith alone a man is iustified by faith onely by faith alone Zuinglius ad Matthaeum Rutling to 2. f. 151. We are iustified by faith alone Caluin in Galat. 2. v. 16. We are iustified by faith alone Beza in Rom. 3 vers 20. What was the Apostles intent To teach that no man is iustified by anie other means then by faith We are iustified by onely faith Peter Martyr in 1. Cor. 1. It belongeth to faith onely that we be iustified by it Whitaker ad Ration 1. Campiani That is our doctrine most true and most holie That a man is iustified by faith alone Perkins in Catechesi tom 1. col 487. How canst thou be Onely by faith made partaker of Christ and of all his benefits and fruitfully enioye them Onely by faith Rogers artic 11. Onely by faith we are accounted righteous before God THE CONFERENCE Scripture expressely saieth that a man is not iustified by faith onely The same say Catholiks Protestants expressely say that a man is iustified by faith onely by faith alone and no other way then by faith that nothing iustifieth but faith ART III. WHETHER THE IVSTIFIED be indeed and in the sight of God iust SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. Gen. 7. ver 1. God thus speaketh to Noë I haue seene thee Noē iust in Gods sight iust in my sight c. 6. v. 9. Noë was a iust and perfect man Iob 32. v. 2. And Eliu was angrie and tooke indignation and he was angrie against Iob for that he saied himselfe to be iust before God Luc. 1. v. 6. And they were both iust before God Iust before God 1. Cor. 5. v. 21. Him that knew no sinne for vs he made sinne that we might be made the iustice of God in him Ephes 1. ver 4. He chose vs in him before
be in it selfe cleare So Pareus in Gal. 2. lect 25. The Ghospell teacheth good works not of it selfe but borroweth the doctrine of workes from the law So the some Pareus Colleg. Theol. 9. disput 39. The Thessalonians tooke not vpon them to iudge or to debate whether Gods trueth were to be admitted but onely examined Pauls doctrine according to the touchestone of Scripture So Caluin act 17. vers 13. As if Paules doctrine and Gods trueth were not all one The Ghospell in a most large sense is taken for the whole doctrine of Christ and the Apostles Largely for the doctrine both of grace and faith and of repentance and new obedience but straitely and properly for the doctrine of grace by faith So Pareus l. 4. de Iustif c. 3. Finally the Scripture speaketh as the law not as the Ghospell by which distinction they delude manie places of Scripture as is to be seene in Luther de seru arbit to 2. f. 449. Caluin in Math. 19. vers 17. Pareus l. 4. de Iustif cap. 2. Schlusselb to 8. Catal. p. 441. to 2. p. 270. Of S. Peter and the Apostles they haue inuented these Of the Apostles new distinctions S. Peter is first of the Apostles in order not in iurisdiction The Apostles are foundations of the Church as those that found the Church not as those on which it is founded or as Iunius spaketh Cont. 3. l. 1. c. 10. The Church is founded vpon Peter as vpon a pillar not as on a foundation Of Pastors they distinguish That authoritie is in the Of Pastors word which they preach not in themselues That they gouerne the visible Church but not the Catholike That in case of necessitie they are made without mission but not otherwise See l. 1. c. 7. Of the Church they haue brought in these new distinctions Of the Church That for professiō of faith there is one Church visible an other inuisible That she is infallible in fundamentall points but not in others That she is to be heard when she preacheth Scripture but not otherwise That she is the pillar to which trueth is fastened not on which it relieth So saieth Riuet Tractat. 1. sec 39. Or as Andrews writeth in Resp ad Apol. Bellar. c. 14. She is so the pillar of trueth as that she relieth vpon trueth not trueth vpon her That the Church is necessarie to beleiue the Scriptures not to know them So whitaker lib. 3. de Script 396. That the Church is the staye and pillar of trueth not the foundation of trueth Heilbruner in Colloq Ratisb sess 7. Of the Sacraments they distinguish in this sorte They iustifie as signes or seales not as causes They are receiued Of Sacramēts whole and intire of the good but not of the badde that baptisme is the lauer of regeneration passiuely not actiuely So Daneus Contr. 2. c. 12. That baptisme is but one taken wholy but is twoe taken by partes So Beza part Resp ad Acta p. 44. That the Church is cleansed significatiuely by the baptisme of water but really by the baptisme of the spirit So Beza ib. p. 115. or as Polanus saieth in Disp priu p. 37. Sinnes are saied to be blotted out by baptisme not properly but in a figuratiue sense The same Beza in Hutter in Analysi p. 54. saieth I neuer simply saied that baptisme was the obsignation of regeneration in children but of adoption Perkins in Galat. 3. By baptisme actuall guilt is taken away but not potentiall Pareus in Gal. 2. lect 23. Absolutely we are all borne sinners but in regard of the couenant we are borne Christians or Gods confederats Of the Eucharist they haue these distinctions That it Of the Eucharist is the symbolicall bodie of Christ but not his true bodie That Christ his flesh killed doth profit vs but not eaten That it is exhibited in the Supper according to the vertue thereof not according to the substance That when S. Paul saieth 1. Cor. 11. He eateth iudgement to himselfe he meaneth not of damnation but of correction So wolfius in Schusselb l. 1. Theol. art 25. In like sorte they say that Preists forgiue sinne indirectly not directly directly as it is an offense of the Church indirectly as it an offense of God So Spalata l. 5. de Repub. c. 12. Of faith they make these distinctions That one is Catholike Of Faith or vniuersall or historicall an other speciall Againe that one is abstract naked simple an other concrete compounded incarnate So Luther in Gal. 3. to 5. That there is one habituall and actuall of men an other potentiall and inclinatiue of infants So Pareus l. 3. de Iustif c. 14. or as Polanus saieth part 2. thes p. 651. Infants haue not altogether the same faith that men haue yet they haue some thing proportionable Piscator in Thesibus l. 2. pag. 252. Adam before his fall had not iustifying faith or as Pareus writeth l. 1. de Amiss Grat. c. 7. Adam lost faith of the commandement but not faith of the promise Bullinger dec 5. serm 7. Infants are faithfull by the imputation of God Agayne They are baptized in their owne faith to wit which God imputeth to them Zanchius in Supplicat to 7. Manie reprobates are endued with a certaine faith much like to the faith of the elect but not with the same Perkins in Cathol 4. c. 5. There is one generall and Catholike faith wherewith a man beleiueth the articles of faith to be true and an other iustifying or particular faith Thus they distinguish of faith And in like sorte they distinguish of the iustification of faith to wit that it iustifieth relatiuely or correlatiuely not absolutely and as an instrument not as it is a worke Bucanus in Institit loc 3. Faith is saied to be imputed to iustice not properly but relatiuely Polan part 2. thes pag. 197. We are iustefied by faith not properly but relatiuely Reineccius tom 4. Armat cap. 21. Faith iustifieth as well absolutely as considered relatiuely Pareus in Galat. 3. lection 32. Faith is imputed to iustice relatiuely Agayne Faith iustifieth organically And in Colleg. Theol. 2. disp 10. We are saied to be iustified by faith but not formerly nor meritoriously but organically Touching the losse of faith they thus distinguish Zanchius in Supplication citat The elect loose faith in parte but not wholy Beza in Prefat 2. part respons ad Acta Faith sometimes sleepeth sometimes seemeth to be quite lost but yet is not lost Agayne There is a lethargie of faith but no losse The feeling or vse of faith is lost for a time but not faith it selfe Some reprobates do beleiue with a generall and historicall faith common to the Diuels themselues Tilenus in Syntagm capit 43. The faithfull become sometimes outliers but not runawaies or forsakers In like sorte they say that faith without works at the time of iustification is not dead but at other times if it be without workes it is dead Likewise Reineccius
them and neglect and condemne it THE 23. argument wherewith we will proue the opposition of Protestants with the Scripture shal be because sometimes they be forced to acknowledge that they contradict the vniforme consent of the Fathers Councels and Church yea neglect and contemne it That sometimes they confesse the vniforme consent Protest confesse that â—hey are against Fathers How manie soeuer of the Fathers Councels and Church is against them is manifest For thus writeth Luther in 2. Petri to 5. fol. 490. Here stumbled how manie soeuer ether Fathers are Doctors haue heretofore expounded the Scripture as when that Math. 16. Thou art Peter c. they interpreted of the Pope Tom. 2. l. de lib. arbit fol 480. What auaileth it if one shall relie vpon the ancient Fathers approued by the course of so manie ages Were All of them they not all of them together blind Et to 6. in Gen. c. 42. Here surely all the Fathers Austin Ambrose c. were deceaued nor vnderstood any thing Kemnice in loc part 1. p. 166. All antiquitie with one mouth reiect those propositions That all things that are done are done necessarilie That men sinne of necessitie And yet Protestants teach so as appeareth l. 1. c. 2. art 8. c. 21. art 1. 2. Schlusselburg to 8. Catal. p. 379. We deny that The ancient Doctors the ancient Doctors of the Church were Catholiks euery where for they were deceaued sometimes and peruerted some articles of faith Zuingle in Respons ad Epist Constant to 1. speaking of the exposition of Malachias touching sacrifice in the Church saieth The exposition of the Ancient is reiected And l. de Baptism to 2. We must say that almost all whosoeuer haue Almost all from the Apostles Ould and new All Diuines written vpon baptisme euen from the very Apostles time haue erred from the marke and that not in few points Wherefore we will see what thing baptisme is after a farre other manner then ether the ancient or the new writers yea then those of our dayes haue done Ib. fol. 74. Nether they onely say that Saint Ihons baptisme is different from Christs but also all Diuines whome I remember euer to haue read doe follow this their sentence most constantly Ib. in Paraen fol. 603. They were Fathers begot the Popedome the most wicked brood of Antichrist Bullinger dec 4. serm 10. It is true which they say that the ancieÌ„ts prated for the dead Gualter in Actor 19. hom 125. It is euident that the Fathers abused this place It deceaued them that they thought Ihons baptisme of water and Christs to be differeÌ„t P. Martyr l. de votis Surely that I may confesse that which is true we haue them Fathers harder against vs in this cause In 1. Cor. 15. All the Fathers make for this opinion Againe We All the Fathers confesse freely that the Fathers make differences of rewards Zanchius de Eccles cap. 9. tom 8. The Fathers exposition is not admitted in this place Agayne The Fathers exposition is The Fathers not admitted in this place Vpon this rock that is vpon Peter Musculus in locis tit de signis The Fathers doe attribute more efficacie to our Sacraments then to those of the ould testament in so much as they say they be effectuall signes of grace This error is to be beaten out of the heads of all the faithfull Ib. tit de bapt The Fathers did denie saluation to the children of ChristiaÌ„s takeÌ„ away by death before they were baptized Caluin in 1. Cor. 7. v. 5. The Fathers Let no man meruaile that in this matter we freely dissent froÌ„ the Fathers Againe Fathers erred in approuing inconsiderately the vow of chastitie Ib. v. 7. The Fathers will haue virginitie to be a worshippe of God Now therein is a pernitious error In Act 19. v. 9. With the Fathers that opinioÌ„ had force that Ihons and Christs baptismes were different And for breuities sake to omit his In how manie points Caluin is against the Fathers words 2. Inst c. 2. § 4. he confesseth that the Fathers be against him touching free will c. 4. § 3. touching permissioÌ„ of sinne c. 14. § 3. touching Christ mediator as he is God c. 16. § 9. touching the desceÌ„t of Christ to hell Et l. 3. c. 4. § 38 39. touching satisfactioÌ„ c. 5. § 10. touching praier for the dead Et l. 4. c. 15. § 7. touching the differeÌ„ce betwixt S. Ihons and Christs Baptisme § 20. touchings laicks baptizing in case of necessitie c. 17. § 39. touching the carying of the Eucharist to the sick c. 18. § 10. touching Sacrifice Et § 43. touching exufflation and chrisme in baptisme The like he acknowledgeth Luc. 7. v. 13. Math. 19. v. 9. 17. 1. Cor. 15. v. 10. Hebr. 7. v. 9. other where ofteÌ„ Beza in resp ad Cast vo 1. Theol. We see that this place especially was wrested by the Fathers for to proue their limbus And the Fathers from hence also deuised that descent of Christs soule into hell Besides in Marc. 1. v. 4. In act 2. v. 27. In c. 19. v. 2. In Rom. 4. v. 11. and otherwhere ofteÌ„times he professeth to disagree froÌ„ the Fathers Dan. CoÌ„tr. 3. p. 277. saieth that the Fathers haue most naughtily expouÌ„ded that saying of Christ Math. 16. Thou art Peter of the person of Peter Et. p. 281. They haue most naughtily expounded the place Sadeel ad art abiur 26. We hould this article of Christs desceÌ„t but we vnderstaÌ„d it otherwise theÌ„ the Fathers did Whitaker Contr. 2. q. 5. c. 7. We confesse indeed that some Popish errors are ancient and held and defended of the Fathers which truely we doe freely and openly professe Lib. 6. cont Dur. sect 7. Your Poperie is errors of the Fathers mingle mangle of Popish religion is pached vp of the errors of the Fathers lib. 8. sect 7. Both of them iustly exclude that fictitious limbus of the Fathers l. 2. de Script p. 280. Luther durst dissent from the Fathers whome he perceaued plainely to dissent from the Scriptures Perkins in Gal. 1. vers 8 Manie doctrines From the time of the Apoles haue beene receaued and beleiued euen from the time of the Apostles of the intercession of Saints of the praier to the dead and for the dead in purgatorie and the the like and these doctrines haue beene confirmed by diuers reuelations Spalata l. 5. de Repub c. 11. n. 41. That Preists doe truely and properly forgiue sinnes Common consent of Fathers Vniuersally receaued by the keyes is the most common consent of the Fathers cap. 8. numero 37. It was a most ancient custome and most vniuersally receaued in the Church that praiers and oblatioÌ„s should be made for the dead Sutclif l. 1. de Eccles Bellarmin meaneth any consent whatsoeuer with the Fathers in doctrine of free will of mens satisfactions for sinnes of limbus of purgatorie of praier for the
conceaue how God in different manner willeth and willeth the same thing Againe Where we conceiue not how God will haue that to be done which he forbiddeth to doe let vs remember our weaknesse Et 3. Instit c. 24. § 17. When he had saied that God willeth that which he professeth that he will not he addeth Albeit according to our vnderstanding Gods will be manifould yet in himselfe he willeth not this and that but by his manifould wisdome maketh our vnderstanding astonished till it shal be graunted to vs to know that wonderfully he willeth that which now seemeth contrarie to his will And cap. 11. § 11. This is a meruailous manner of iustifying that they that are couered with Christ iustice feare not the iudgement which they deserue and whilest iustly they condemne themselues they are iudged iust out of themselues De Praedest pag. 704. Let our faith adore a farre of with decent sobrietie the hidden counsail of God wherewith the fall of man was preordained And pag. 711. How it was appointed by the foresight and decree of God what was to become of man and yet God is not to be madde partaker of the sinne as if he were ether author or allower thereof seing it is clearely a secret farre beyond the reach of mans wit let vs not be ashamed to confesse our ignorance In Ioan. 12. ver 27. But it seemeth that this doth not become the Sonne of God that an inconsiderate desire escapeth him which he must streight renounce for to obey his Father I confesse saieth he that truely this is the follie of the crosse which is a scandall to proud men Nay it is not the follie of the crosse but the impietie of Caluin to attribute an in cōsiderate desire to Christ And in Math. 26. vers 39. If anie obiect that the first motion which should haue beene bridled before it went further was not temperate as it beseemed I answere saieth he that in this corruption of our nature there cannot be seene the feruor of passions with that temper which was in Christ but we must yeeld this honor to the Sonne of God that we iudge not of him by our selues Forsooth the impostures of Caluin not onelie wāting all word of God but also quite cōtrarie thereto must be beleiued though they cannot be vnderstood and the Catholik doctrine of the Eucharist and the like must not be beleiued because it cannot be vnderstood Beza in Explicat Christianismi c. 3. After a wonderfull and incomprehēsible manner it pleaseth God that euen that which as it is sinne he alloweth not yet is not done without his will De Praedest cont Cast p. 340. When he had saied that God decreeth the causes of damnation and that none can resist his decree he asketh Is not then all the falut in God and answereth This difficultie is vnexplicable for men Agayne How God is not in fault if he ordayne the causes of dānation we thinke with the Apostle that it is a question vnexplicable for mans wit Et in Colloq Montisb p. 427. There is no parte of Christian doctrine from which sense and humane reason doth more abhorre Pareus l. 2. de Amiss Grat. c. 13. after he had saied p. 358. that God doth enforce mē to sinnes as they are his secret iudgements addeth p. 363. that this manner is vnexplicable Indeed this their excuse of the inexplicabilitie of the thing were tolerable if the Scripture did clearely teach what they say but seing it doth not clearelie teach so as appeareth by the answers of Catholiks yea so clearely teach the contrarie as Protestants are forced to confesse that they know not how to reconcile so manie of their positions with the Scripture it is a verie great proofe that in verie deed their doctrine is repugnant to Scripture An other manner whereby implicitlie they cōfesse that Protest confesse that the words of Scripture seeme against them their doctrine is repugnāt to Scripture is because in manie and great matters they acknowledge that the words of Scripture and such as are of purpose spoakē for to declare vnto vs what we ought to beleiue of such matters seeme to fauour vs more then them are hard to them and torment them shrewdly Luther in Postill Dom. 9. post Trin. This dayes Ghospell if it be nakedly looked into without the Protestant spirit is plainely Papisticall Zuinglius l. de Rel. c. de Merito None denieth but that in Scripture there are almost more places which attribute merit to our works then denie it And in Explanat art 20. The places of Scripture at first sight seeme to attribute some what to Merit Bullinger Dec. 3. Serm. 9. We acknowledge that the Scripture euerie were doth seeme to attribut life and iustice to good works Rainolds in Confer c. sect 1. What if in that other place the Scripture in shew do fauour you more then vs. And he addeth that he easilie graunteth that the shew of the words of Scripture maketh more for vs then for them Agayne I will graunt 〈◊〉 the words of Christ This is my bodie in shew do fauour more your reall presence then that sacramentall which we mantaine And in an other place In shew of words our Sauiour seemeth to haue promised the keys to Peter onely Herbrand in Compendio Theol. pag. 340. saieth If the letter be vrged in those The letter against Protestants words of Daniel Redeeme thy sinnes by almes they be contrarie to their doctrine The same confesseth Hunnius l. de Iustif of those words of Tobie Almes deliuereth from all sinne and from death And the same is euident by infinit places of Scripture which Protestants are forced to expound figuratiuelie because the proprietie of the word is for vs. Zuinglius Epist ad Matthaeum Rutling to 2. thus speaketh Now remaineth that which in this matter is the hardest A hard matter for Protest to wrest the words of all to wit how we may wrest the words of Christ which they terme words of consecration Here verily we must stretch all the veyns of faith Et in Resp ad Billican he saieth that he vseth pulleis and presses to wring out the sense of the words of consecration and addeth We denie that anie one They need pullies and presses litle droppe at least sincere and pure will come from them vn-vnlesse they be prest with the weight of other places And againe How manie had we some years agoe who could acquit themselues handsomely of those words of Christ Thou art Peter c. and shew the figure of the speach And yet it was no hindrance that we could not handsomely dispatch our selues of the word Caluin 3. Instit c. 2. § 11. I know it seemeth hard to some where faith is attributed to the reprobates In Luc. 3. vers 9. As for Merit that knot is to be loosed which hindreth manie For the Scripture so often promising reward to works seemeth to attribute some merit to them Peter Martyr in Dom. 4. Hom.