at all For what need she help of others to declare her meaning who clearly declareth it her self And vndoubtedly if in any place she clearly declareth her meaning she doth it in those places in which she speaketh both clearly and of set purpose for to expresse her meaning But if by her self she doe not clearly declare her meaning in matters in controuersie without some help of man especially without the help of one of the opposite parties who contend about her meaning certainly she is A iudge must be able by himself to declare his mynd not fitt to be the onely iudge of controuersies as Protestants would haue her For who will saye that she alone is fitt to be iudge who alone and by her self is not able to vtter clearly her mynd Besids if the pure word of God may not iudge according to the pure sense which of it self it clearly yeeldeth but according to a different nay quite opposite sense which being conferred expounded wrested by man it is forced to yeeld who shall assure vs that Gods sense and not the sense of man whose and not Gods that conference inference and wresting is is made Serm. 14. de verb. Apost Tractat. 2. de Cant. c. 17. L. 6. cont Iulian c. 5. L. 2. de Baptismo c. 6. iudge of controuersies Let mens ghesses saieth S. Austin giue place for a time let vs take in hand diuine weapons Againe This is humane inference not dinine authoritie The arguments which you bring are humane these are diuine munitions And otherwhere let vs not bring false scales with which we may weigh what we will and how we will and saye as we please This is heauie This is leight But let vs bring the diuine scale of the holie Scripture and in that let vs weigh which is heauiest or rather let not vs wheigh it but let vs aknowledg it weighed of God Let vs set aside a while mens ghesses or imaginations of the conference or exposition of this or that place of Scripture let vs not bring deceitfull scales of mans conference inference or exposition of Scripture with which we may weigh what we will and how we will saying according as we please This is the meaning That is not the meaning This followeth That followeth not This is true that is false againe all which we may oppose those words of S. Austin This is mans inference mans conference mans exposition mans ghesse not diuine authoritie and let vs bring the diuine and sure scale of the pure meaning of Gods pure word and in that let vs weigh the doctrin of both partes or rather let vs acknowledge that which is weighed and allowed by God him self in this his scale Moreouer if mans help be necessarie to Scripture for the conference and expositiō of the places therof or inference of that which is to be inferred out of them so that without mans help it can not sufficiently decide questions of faith I aske of Protestants what men these must be whether we or they or some third who nether are Catholiks nor Protestants Sure I am they will nether admit ours nor other mens expositions of Scripture for their iudge and I think they wil be ashamed to exact of vs that we should admit their interpretatiō especially sith they refuse the conference inference and exposition of the holy Councells and Fathers Wherfore vnles they will stand to Protestants must be tried by the natiue and vsual sense of he words or thy no sense that sense of Scripture which is no way partial to wit which the Scripture it self by it self without any conference or exposition of man giueth they can name no sense of Scripture which both parties may admit for their iudge and to refuse all sense of Scripture whervpon both parties may reasonably agree is plainly to refuse all reasonable triall by scripture For seing the soule and kernel of the Scripture is the sense therof and that the letter or words is but the shell or bark of it as is euident and both holie Fathers and Protestants agree manifest it is that whosoeuer will not reasonably agree vpon any sense of the Church Councells or Fathers where it is spoken of set purpose to declare Gods meaning of it self without any mans exposition and according to the vsual vnderstanding of men it doth afford rather then the quite contrarie sense which by the wresting of Protestants it is compelled to carrie Let but this right reason and true prudence lift vp this Balance wherein I weigh the Doctrin of Catholiks and Protestants according to holie Scripture in more then 260. points and I nothing doubt but it will clearly see and iudge the Catholik doctrin agreable to Scripture and the Protestant quite opposite and contrarie And this is my purpose Scope and butte in this 1. The Scope of the first booke And of the second booke to which I adde a second wherin I manifestly shewe that Protestants Doctrin is not onely quite opposite in more then 260. points both in words and meaning to the holie Scripture but also that they are forced to reiect many and great partes of the Scripture to alter that parte which they admit to weaken all force of Scripture to say that much of the Scripture was not spoken of certaine knowledge or not according to the meaning of the speaker to teach that most weightie sentences of the Scripture were spoken ironically mimetically and hyperbolically to change the most vniuersall propositions of the Scripture into particulers to limitate speeches not limited by the Scripture to alter absolute speeches into conditionall to make causall propositions not causall to expound words in some sorte which were spake simply The contents of the second booke which were spaken of one time to interprete them of an other to make one saying of many to vnderstand words that signifie the doing of a thing of an endeauour to doe it which signifie working a thing of the way or meane therto which signifie that a thing is to expound that it ought to be words which signifie a true thing to expound them of a shew or apparent thing to expound the words of Scripture of different yea wholy diuerse contrarie matters to deuise improprietes and all figures of speeches to feigne friuolous and neuer before heard of distinctions to reiect the exposition of the Fathers Councells and Church to confesse that they teach Doctrin damned in ould time for heresie to frustate the ends of the incarnation and passion of Christ to take out of the world all vertue and giue free scope to all vice and finally to confesse that much of the Protestant doctrin is contrarie to holie Scripture All which clearly shewe that Protestant leaders doe not onely teach doctrin contrarie to the Scripture but also do in very deed mock and contemne it 8. The manner of my proceeding is this First I deuide Manner of proceeding in this booke the matters which are in controuersie
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
maintainers of the trueth These are such things as that now it may onely seeme to be wanting to set the Diuel himselfe in the throne of God and of trueth And Epist 16. What I Good counsell of Beza admonished before I admonish now in the Lord agayne and agayne to wit that at lest they would consider with themselues from whome and to whome are they gone For that I may imitate the words of S. Austin l. 2. cont Iulian. c. 10. Hath long time so confounded the highest with the lowest Shall light so be termed darkenesse and darkenesse light that Aërius Iouinian Vigilantius become to see and Austin Hierome Epiphanius be blinde But in some I thus argue in the 24. place whose doctrine in manie and greatest points is opposite to the expresse words of Scripture and besides as themselues confesse was condemned of the ancient Church and holie Fathers for heresie that is repugnant to the true sense of Scripture But such is the doctrine of Protestants Therefore c. CHAPTER XXV THAT PROTESTANTS THEMSELVES sometimes confesse that diuers of their opinions be blasphemous THE 25. argument wherewith we will proue that Protestants contradict the true sense of the Scripture shal be because it is so manifest that diuers of their doctrines which in the former booke I shewed to be opposite to the expresse words of Scripture are blasphemous as partely the very Authors of them partely other learned Protestants being compelled by their conscience and the euidencie of the matter doe confesse it Concerning God Protestāts teach that he willeth sinne Blasphemie that God willeth sinne as hath beene seene l. 1. c. 2. art 1. Which doctrine to be blasphemous thus confesseth Caluin in Resp ad Nebulon. p. 732. Was it a doubtfull blasphemie to make God the author of of sinne to will sinne to thrust to sinne Beza de Praed cōt Castel vol. 1. Theol. p. 372. Out of these things none of these blasphemies followeth to wit ether that God is the author of sinne or is delighted with sinne or also willeth sinne Et p. 397. It cānot be saied without blasphemie that God willeth iniustice Ib. l. Quest Resp p. 681. What then Shall we say that God willeth iniquitie God forbidde For this is the most horrible blasphemie of all Zanchius l. 3. de Nat. Dei c. 4. We should surely say that God is the cause and author of sinne if we should say that properly speaking he willeth sinne or would haue sinne to be done Hutterus in Analysi Cōf. Aug. p. 625. The blasphemie of Sacramentaries is execrable who are not ashamed to referre the most dolefull fall of our first parents and all that world of euils which thereō insued not in regard of the punishmēt but of the sinne vnto an absolute and eternall decree of God and to his effectuall working and immutable will Et p. seq But let heauē be astonished the elements amazed at such mostrous blasphemies whereof no pious man should suffer to heare the onely outward noise without shaking much lesse should assent vnto them in his heart And Ioannes Andrae in Colloquio Montisb p. 422. This assertion that man fell by Gods will is impious and horrible to heare and so contrarie to the expresse and reuealed word of God They teach also that God willeth sinne euen as it is That God willeth sinne as sinne sinne as hath beene shewed lib. 1. cap. art 2. But that this is blasphemous is acknowledged by Beza l. de Praedest p. 410. in the words If euer we had thought to speake or write that sinnes as sinnes proceed from the will of God we would confesse that we were worthie of all punishment Lobechius also Disp 21. This principle of Diuinitie is firmely to be held and to be beleiued with all our heart that God nether willeth nor commandeth ill deeds as they are such much lesse worketh or helpeth them or by an eternall decree doth destinate or secretly driue men to commit them They teach also that God worketh sinne and is the That God is cause of sinne cause and author of it as is to be seene l. 1. c. 2. art 4. And yet Caluin l. de Prouident p. 742. aliâs 736. confesseth that it is a monstrous blasphemie that wickednesse is done not onely by the will of God but also he being the author thereof And pag. 471. Thou wranglest with me as if I had saied that sinne is the iust worke of God which in all my writings I euer more detest Instruct contr Libertin cap. 14. God must denie himselfe and become a Deuil if he did worke euill which these men doe attribute vnto him The like he hath libr. de Praedestin pag. 711. And in Actor 2. ver 23. saieth I denie that God is the author of euill because in this word an euill affection is insinuated Beza in Absters Calumn Heshus pag. 316. calleth it blasphemie That God worketh the wickednesse of the wicked And de Praedest cont Castel p. 401. God forbidde that anie of ours should haue saied or written as thou auonchest that God ether giue or permit or worke an euill will or anie wicked or filthie desires when as euen our thoughts doe altogether abhorre from these kinde of blasphemies P. Mart. in locis classe 1. c. 14. If God wrought sinne he were a sinner Kemnice in locis part 1. tit de Causa Peccati All mens mynds and eares do so abhorre from that speach God is the cause of sinne that therefore the Maniches did feigne an other God Vrsin in Miscellan p. 72. Thou saiest that these are the speaches of manie of men God doth effectually worke in the reprobate that they sinne With all our heart we accurse this speach and doctrine Whitaker ad Rat. 9. Campia That is horrible Campian and not to be spoaken which thou saiest that anie should make God the Author of sinne He deserueth that God should streigth with a thunder boult cast him into the bottomlesse pit of hell Pareus in Colleg. Theol. 1. disput 2. The Fathers iustly condemned that impious doctrine of the Maniches and Libertins ascribing the cause of fall and sinne to God the Creator And Disput 3. God was not nor is not the efficient cause of sinne which heretofore was the blasphemie of the Maniches and now is of some Libertines They teach that God doth predestinate and ordaine That he predestinated men to sinne mē to sinne as is related l. 1. c. 2. art 5. Which to be blasphemous confesseth Vorstius in Amica Collat. sect 89. in the words which doctrine that God doth destinate men to sinne I scarce beleiue that thy selfe wilt thinke to be voide of blasphemie if thou doest well consider it Hutter in Anal. Confes August c. 9. The troupe of Sacramentaries Beza Caluin Renecher doth not feare to write with a most execrable and most wonderfull blasphemie that some are fatally and absolutely destinated not onely to their last end to wit damnation but also to the
A CONFERENCE OF THE CATHOLIKE AND PROTESTANTE DOCTRINE WITH THE EXPRESSE WORDS OF HOLIE SCRIPTVRE WHICH IS THE SECOND PARTE OF THE Prudentiall Balance of Religion VVHEREIN IS CLEARELY SHEWED THAT IN MORE then 260. points of controuersie Catholiks agree with the holie Scripture both in words and sense and Protestants disagree in both and depraue both the sayings words and sense of Scripture WRITTEN FIRST IN LATIN BVT NOW AVGmented and translated into English ACTS IV. VERSE XVII IF IT BE IVST IN THE SIGHT OF GOD TO heare you rather then God iudge yee S. Athanasius Apol. de Fuga WHAT MVST WE STICK TO TO GODS words or these mens Fables AT DOWAY By the widdowe of MARKE WYON at the signe of the Phenix M.DC.XXXI The argument of the first booke VVHo in more then 260. points of controuersie speake with the holie Scripture in the very selfe same or equiualeÌ„t words when it speaketh of those matters expressely and of purpose and in that sense also which the words of Scripture of themselues without anie exposition of man do afforde and in which sense such words vse to be spoken and vnderstood of men they touching those points agree both in words and meaning with the holie Scripture And who speake of those points both in such words and sense as are contrarie to the foresaied words and sense they in those points disagree both in words and sense from the holie Scripture But Catholiks doe that and Protestants this Therefore c. The Maior semeth to be manifest by it selfe and is largely proued in the second booke Cap. 1. The Minor is shewed to the eye in all the first booke The argument of the second Booke VVHo not onely in more then 260. points of controuersie disagree from the foresaied words and sense of Scripture but also are forced openly to reiect some of the words thereof to blot out some to call others in question to change the order of others to change almost all kinds of the Scriptures speaches to expound her words by quite different and plaine contraries to reiect the vnanimous exposition of holie Fathers to confesse that some of their opinions were long since condemned for heresies that some are blasphemous and playne contrarie to Scripture such contradict not onely the words but also the true sense of Scripture But Protestants doe thus Therefore c. The Maior is manifest by it selfe and the Minor shewed to the eye in the second Booke APPROBATIO HOc opus cui titulus Collatio doctrinae Catholicorum ac Protestantium cum expressis sacrae scripturae verbis duobus libris comprehensa Latino serm one olim editum à duobus S. Theol. Doctoribus Parisiensibus approbatum nunc verò auctum in Anglicum sermonem fideliter conuersum nihil habet fidei Catholicae aduersum aut bonis moribus sed plurimum valet ad confutationem doctrinae haereticorum praesentis temporis proinde rectè praeli beneficio in lucem edetur Datum Duaci die 2. Ianuarij 1631. GEORGIVS COLVENERIVS S. Theol. Doctor eiusdem Regius ordinarius ac primarius Professor insignis Ecclâ—siae Collegiatae S. Petri Praepositus Canonicus Duacen sis Academiae Cancellarius librorum Censor THE PREFACE TO THE READER WHEREIN THE SCOPE MANNER OF PROCEDING AND PROFIT OF THIS BOOKE IS DECLARED REQVISITE TO BE READ BEFORE THE BOOKE THERE are now diuers years Gentle Reader since I published the first parte of the Prudential Balance of Religion in which by the weights of Prudence and Right Reason I weighed together the Catholik and Protestant religion according to their first Founders in our English nation to wit S. Austin and Martin Luther which booke hath neuer since bene answered by anie Protestant albeit diuers ministers and superintendents haue carped at it both in Pulpits and printed books shewing thereby that they wanted no will to answere it if they could haue performed it In the preface thereof I promised a second parte in which I would after the same manner weigh the forsaied religions according to their claimes to the holie Scripture and the expresse words thereof which here now I offer vnto thee The causes why I haue so long differred the publishing of this second parte are well enough knowne to them who know me and not needfull to be known of them who know me not And therfore I will not trouble thee with the rehearshall of them but here propose vnto thee the scope manner of Proceding and Profits of this second parte 2. As a man consisteth essentially of a Soule and Bodie and can neither be nor be imagined without them both So the true Church of Christ essentially consisteth Two things wholy necessarieto Christs Church of his true Doctrine which is the forme and as it were the soule of his Church and of lawfull Pastors and People who teach and embrace his Doctrine which Pastors and People make as it were the bodie of Christes Church And without both these partes to wit Christs true Doctrine and true Pastors teaching and People embracing it Christs true Church can no more be or imagined to be then a true man can either be or imagined to be without both the true bodie and true soule of a man And albeit the manifest need of both these partes to the true Church of Christ doth enforce Protestants to make some clame to them both and to pretend that they haue alvaies had both true Pastors who taught and People who beleiued their Doctrine yet their pretense to this parte of the Church is so weake and slender as but seldome and vpon mere necessitie they insist thereon But their greatest pretense and claime is to the true Doctrine of Christ and think thereby to proue that they haue alwaies had true Pastors and People who taught and beleiued their Doctrin as I haue shewed in a Booke of the Author of the Protestant Church and Religion wherein also I haue conuinced by ten Demonstrations all taken out of the open Confessions of the best learned Protestants both of England and other Countries that they neuer had anie one Pastor who taught or man who beleived the very fundamentall and most substantiall points of their religion before Luther arose but that he was first Author Inuentor and Father therof as some of them in plaine termes do call him 3. And although this Booke haue bene now these manie years published both in Latin and English and doth by the open confessions of the best learned Protestants ouerthrow the very foundation of their Church or rather shew that it hath no foundation at all besides their owne imagination yet hitherto no Protestant hath made anie shew of a solid answere vnto it I saie no shew of a why D. Prideaux lecture is no answer to the Author of Protest religion solid answere because that florish which Doctor Prideaux the Kinges diuinitie Reader in Oxford hath made in a lecture deserueth not the name of shew or shadow of an answer First because
he nether mentioneth the lawes of answering my saied booke which I set downe and proue by reason testimonie of holie Fathers and confession of Protestants ought to be kept in answering such a booke And which lawes I tell him before hand that vnles he ether keepe or refute I would accounte his answer no solid or lawfull answere but the babling of one who could neither sufficiently answere nor yet hould his peace Secondly because he maketh no other answere to the manifold and manifest depositions of the best learned Protestants which I haue my self brought and clearly confuted by the depositions or testimonies them selues against which confutation of myne he replieth nothing but standeth mute Thirdly because he so miserably mangleth the answere which I make to their Sophisme wherewith they by pretense of true Doctrin would proue that they haue alwaies had true Pastors and People who taught and beleiued it and so pittifully replieth to the saied answere as he plainly sheweth him self to be a true Heretike that is conuicted in his owne iudgement as I think euerie one that compareth his lecture with my Booke will clearly perceiue 4. But sith the Protestants cheife and almost whole pretense of the truth and euer being of their Church is the pretense of the truth of their doctrin by the Scripture I will euidently shew euen by the light of Reason and Prudence that they haue no reasonable or colourable pretense of Scripture but that it maketh expresly clearly and directly against theÌ„ and for Catholiks almost in all points of coÌ„trouersie For whereas there be twoe waies to shew Twoe waies to proue that the Scripture is against Protest that the holie Scripture is plainely against Protestants the one by conferring of diuers places together by bringing the exposition of the holie Fathers decrees of Councels and tradition of the Church the other by onely comparinge the expresse words of Catholiks and ProtestaÌ„ts with Protest Doctrin as clearly contrarie to Scripture as yea is to no. expresse words of holie Scripture touching the same matter I take not the first way which hithertoe Catholike writers haue followed because it is not so fit to the capacitie of commun people for whome especially I compose this worke but the second which is as cleare for euerie one that hath reason to see as it is cleare to see that Yea and Yea of the same matter agree and that Yea and Nay do disagree 4. This perhaps may seeme strange nay impossible to simple Protestants whose eares haue bene still accustomed to heare their ministers vaunt and brag of the word of God of the Scripture and Bible and to auouch that Catholiks haue nothing to alleadge for theÌ„ selues but traditions and word of men But I beseech such to suspend a while their iudgment and sith they wil haue the Protestants doctrin to be tried or iudged by nothing but by Scripture onely let them grant me these two conditions Two conditions to proue the Scripture to be against Protest 1. Touching the letter 2. Touching the sense of trying their doctrin by the Scripture which the very light of reason the authoritie of holie Fathers and the Confession of the best learned Protestants will enforce them to graunt The first condition is touching the words or letter of the holie Scripture The second is touching the sense or meaning of the saied words or letter For as the holie Scripture consisteth of two partes whereof the one is the word or letter the other is the sense therof so I require one condition for the word and an other for the sense 5. The condition touching the word or letter is that the words of holie Scripture be taken as they be in the The 1. coÌ„ditioÌ„ toâ—ching the letter proued Bible or booke of God without anie addition subtraction or transposition breefly without anie chopping or changing whatsoeuer This condition is so iust and reasonable as I think no reasonable man will denie it and neuertheles I wil proue it First because where God alone is Iugde there it is reason that all men be silent and onely harken what God saieth nor interrupt or corrupt his words Let vs heare Lib. 1. peccat c. 20. De vnit c. 13 Serm. 27. de verb. Apo. saieth S. Austin our lord and not ghesses or suspitions of men Againe I beleiue that which I read in holie Scripture not that which vaine Heretiks say And other where There is a controuersie risen let is goe to the Iudge let the Prophet iudge yea let God iudge by the Prophet let vs both hold our peace And yet againe let vs not heare This I say This thou saiest but let vs Lib. 6. cont Iul. c. 4. In Confutat Latomito 2. fol. 234. heare This our lord saieth Yea Luther writeth That mans word added vnto Gods word is a couer nay mans dung wherwith pure truth is hidden Moreouer seing Protestants impose silence to the Church Councells Fathers and all Catholiks in decision of matters of faith and therin admit onely the written word of God it were impudencie for them to request to speake Agayne if Protestants will mingle their owne words with the words of God they admit not the onely word of God for iudge of controuersies but partely also their owne and make one entire iudge of them both Finally Protestants are wonte to crie that the Scriture is the onely and profest rule of faith that they will heare Beza cont Heshus Daneus Cont. 3. 6. 7. Hospin part 2 Caluin cont versipel cont Cathalon nothing besides Scripture that nothing is to be taught but the pure written word nothing to be beleiued but that which is expressely conteined in the Scripture Let them heare therefore in these twoe hundred and sixte points in which I will compare their doctrine with the Scripture mere Scripture onely Scripture and let them harken to nothing but Scripture let all their owne words whatsoeuer be set aside let the Scriptures pure and onely words shew and iudge whether Catholik or Protestant doctrin in these 260. points here set downe be agreable or disagreable vnto it 6. The second condition touching the sense is That The 2. condition touching the sense proued the pure written word of God may iudge betwixt vs according to the pure sense therof which when it is spoken clearly or of purpose to tell vs what Gods meaning is of it self and according to the vsual acception of men it doth afford and this is euident also especiallie if the Church must not be admitted to be the infallible Interpreter of the true sense of Scripture But neuertheles I proue it First because Protestants cannot set downe anie condition which is so reasonable or indifferent to both partes Secondly because ether the Scripture in matters of controuersie clearly declareth her meaning by her self without any help or exposition of man or she doth not If she clearly declare her meaning by her self then needeth she no help of man
speeches of Protestants as it was to me to write them out let him runne ouer the Summe which I make of their words or by the notes in the margent chuse which are fittest to his purpose And thus much for the māner of my proceeding in this booke 11. The profit of this work is manifould First because by it a short and easie way may be taken to make an end The profits of this worke of all controuersies and that out of Scirpture alone as Protestants desire to wit by mere rehearsall of the expresse words of Scripture of Catholiks and of famous Protestants touching 260. articles of controuersie For if it appeare that catholikes in 260. articles agree both in word and sense with the expresse words of Scripture and these spoken of purpose to declare her meaning vnto vs and that Protestants in those 260. articles directly contradict the said words and sense of the holie Scripture no man will doubt but that all Protestant doctrin for as it is contrarie to the Catholik is also contrarie to the holie Scripture An other commoditie is that in this booke are gathered those places of Scripture and they ranked according to order of their matters which in 260. articles directly and in their proper and vsual sense do approue the Catholik doctrin and condemne the Protestant A third commoditie is that hereby are at hand in euerie kind of controuersie such sayings of famous Protestants as not onely directely crosse the Scripture but also many of them are so blasphemous against God against Christ against the Saints the Church Sacraments Faith Good works so opposite to pietie vertue and religion so fauorable to vice and all licenciousnes so repugnant to reason as some Protestants will deny and others scarse beleeue that euer any of theirs taught such doctrin Whome I request The Authors fidelitie in citing Protetestants sayings to take the paines to looke vpon the bookes and places by me alledged and then to beleeue their owne eyes For I not onely gathered their sayings out of their owne bookes but also after I had my self gathered them and caused them to be faire copied out I diligently conferred them with their books and admitted none which he that read their bookes did non find to be truly cited out of them Wherfore I say for my self as Caluin said for him self against Gentilis There shal be no colour for them to cōplaine that they are slandered seing I request that iudgmēt be made of their impietie out of their owne mere words And they who haue had to deale with Protestants ether by word or writing know well how important a thing it is to be able to conuince them that they teach that which in in very deed they teach which may clearly be done by their sayinges here rehearsed 12. The fourth commoditie of this worke is thar hereby shall appeare that almost in all controuersies which betwene Catholiks and Protestants Catholiks do stick fast to the very words of Scripture and religiously keepe her letter and forme of speech and Protestants goe fare from the words at lest of Scripture and bring in a different yea quite opposit forme of speech Nether ought they to think this to be a small fault both because they boasting of the pure and expresse word of God ought also to keep the very letter thereof and not to reiect it and to vse the contrarie as also because the Apostle commandeth to auoide profane nouelties of words and to keepe the 1. Timoth. 6. 2. Timoth. 1. forme of holesome words which we haue learned of him which commandment they do not follow who forsake the Scriptures forme of speech and embrace the contrarie and finally because not onely the sense but also the words and forme of speech vsed by the Scripture did proceed from the holie Ghoste and therefore it is sacrilegious audacitie to reiect Gods words and Gods forme of speaking and to bring in mans words and fashion of speaking quite contrarie As if these new Ghospelers should teach God how to deliuer his mind or he ment to speake otherwise by them then he did by his Prophets Apostles and Euāgelists wherefore their impietie is not to be borne withall who when the Scripture most often and most plainly calleth the beleefe of wicked men or reprobats faith and neuer denieth it to be faith yet dare say that it Caluin 3. Instit c. 2. §. 10. is vnworthie the name of faith When the Scripture often times and most directly calleth the Eucharist the bodie of Christ and not once directly denieth it to be his bodie yet dare say it is not his bodie And the like they doe in many other matters wherin if they controll not the meaning of the holie Ghoste at least they correct his speech and reforme it according to the square of their new doctrin Far otherwise proceeded the holie Fathers who would not suffer so much as a letter or syllable of the holie Scripture to be altered And as S. Austin grauely aduertized Philosophers may speake as they please but we speake according Lib. 10. de Ciuit. c. 23. to a certaine rule lest licencie in words breed impious opinions of the thing which they signifie Yea Protestants them selues some times will seeme to be very carefull of the words and phrases of Scripture For thus speaketh Luther If the In Confutat Latomi f. 227 Scripture terme any thing sin beware thou beest not moued by any words of theirs who as if they could speake better deny it to be sin And Caluin There is to be taken out of Scripture a 1. Instit c. 13. §. 3. certaine forme of thinking speaking by which all the thoughts of our mynd and words of our mouth are to be examined Beza Ad defens Castell also I see that all godlie and learned Diuines haue euer taught that the holie Ghost gouerned not onely the mynd but also the tongue and pen in so much as concerning the wonders of God not onely nothing can be saied of any mā more truly or more habily but also nether so grauely nor so properly Likewise Bucer Prefat in Math. No wisdom of the flesh can reach to these misteries of the kingdome of God Therefore then we speake most plainly most perspicuously and most surely of matters of faith when we speake according to the rule and forme of Scripture And otherwhere we In Hospin part 2. Histor must learne of the Scripture and the holie Ghoste how to speake and think of euerie matter Wherefore the holie Ghost his formes of speaking ought not to be corrected according to the iudgment of our reason Thus they which if they and theires had followed we should not haue had so much speech contrarie to the Scripture 13. The fift and that no small cōmoditie is that by this worke wil be taken from ministers all their false pretense of Scripture and of the worde of God wherewith perpetually they crie that the Catholik
words wherewith here or there it signifieth this or that thing As for example it is a farre greater matter to deny the Eucharist to be the bodie of Christ which the Scripture often times plainly affirmeth then not to call it bread as some times the Scripture doth but neuer directly saieth that it is bread Wherevpon Spalatensis l. 5. de repub c. 6. writeth thus It is one thing for a seeming thing to be called by the name of the true thing which the appearence doth shew An other to be said This is that The first may and is borne withall in all equiuocall termes but not the latter Wherefore let him omit these kinds of matters Fiftly let him shew that Catholiks haue done thus not by the way treating of other matters but of set purpose as Protestants haue done who most often then contradict the Scripture in plaine termes euen then when they answere it or comment vpon it Lastly let him shew that Catholiks haue beene forced for the maintenance of their doctrin to denie so many bookes to corrupt so many places of holie Scripture to deuise so many and so incredible shifts as we haue shewed the Protestants haue done or let him be ashamed to say that Catholiks are as faultie in this kind as Protestants be Moreouer though they could proue that some Catholiks haue bene as faultie herein as they are which they can neuer proue yet that would nothing preiudice the Chatholik Church because her faith is not the doctrin of one or of many Catholiks but the common of them all But the Protestant faith is in many points the doctrin of some or of manie of them euerie one of them making that a point of faith which him self gathereth out of Scripture whether his fellows beleeue it or no. Besids the Catholik Church if she find anie thing in the writinges of her children contrarie to holie Scripture she nether alloweth nor dissembleth it but commandeth it to be blotted out as is euident by the Expurgatorie Indices but the Protestant ether approueth or dissembleth the errors of her writers and so maketh them her owne VVhy all CoÌ„tradictioÌ„s here related may be abiected to the Prot. Church 19. The fourth scruple may be that all the CoÌ„tradictions against holie Scripture which are here rehearsed out of Protestant writers were not made nor allowed of all Protestants or of their Church and therefore all of them are not to be imputed to all ProtestaÌ„ts or to their Church I answere First that very many of the Contradictions against holie Scripture here set downe are found in their Confessions of faith and in other writings set forth in their common name which Contradictions are most iustly attributed to their Church and these alone suffice to shew that the very faith and common doctrin of Protestants is directly opposite both to the word and sense of holie Scripture Secondly almost all these Contradictions are taken out of the writings of the first the chiefest and famousest teachers guides and leaders of Protestants and therefore ether Protestants must acknowledge these Contradictions or reiect the doctrin of their first and chefest Maisters as directly contrarie to Gods word Thirdly all the Contradictions or Antitheses here produced are taken out of famous writers and mainteiners of the Protestant faith whose doctrin the Protestant Church hath not publikly condemned nor compelled the Authors thereof to recall it nor commanded it to be taken out of their writings and therefore if not by publike consent yet by silence and dissembling approueth it and so as I saied before maketh it her owne Fourthly Protestants obiect to the Catholik Church whatsoeuer any Cotholik writer though neuer so obscure hath written why then may not we better obiect vnto their Church what many and the most famous of their writers haue published Finally my intention in this workes not to shew the Contradictions of this or that Protestant man or Church against the holie Scripture but of the Protestants in generall especially of the cheefest and most famous But whether the Contradictions of Scripture made by And though they could not yet that would suffice many and famous Protestant writers and not condemned but dissembled by their Church be to be obiected to their Church or no these points ensuing will suffice to my purpose First that the commun fairh of Protestants is in many and weightie articles directly contrarie to the expresse word and cleare meaning of holie Scripture as is euident by that which in diuers articles I recite out of their Confessions of faith and other their common writings The second is that touching many other matters that self same doctrin which I cite out of other Protestants is conteined in their Confessions of faith though it be not deliuered there in termes so expresly opposite to the words of holie Scripture as it is by other Protestants The third is that much of that Protestant Doctrin which here if cite as opposite to holie Scripture is in very deed the common beleef of Protestants albeit it be not inserted in their Confessions The fourth point is that those Protestants whose words I alledge knew the common Apol. Anglic Cont. 2. q. 5. c. 8. L. 3. de Eccles c. 42. doctrin of Protestants as well as anie who now will denie or reiect that doctrin The fift is that Iuel Whitaker Feild and diuers other Protestants auouch that there is no materiall difference in doctrin amongst the cheefe ProtestaÌ„ts which ether they must confesse to befalse or maintaine the doctrin which here I cite out of their cheefest writers The sixt point is that housoeuer the doctrin which I cite is not in all points the Doctrin of this Protestant man or Church yet it is as I saied Protestant doctrin taught and maintained by famous Protestants such as our English Protestants hould communion withall and account them their brethreÌ„ in Christ And therefore ether let theÌ„ defend their doctrin or refuse their coÌ„munion The seuenth point is that whether all or most of the Protestant doctrin which here I cite as opposite to holie Scripture be the coÌ„mon doctrin or beleefe of ProtestaÌ„ts or no this alone would suffice to my purpose that the doctrin of the first chefest and famousest Protestant preachers and leaders is in more then Note 260. points of controuersie quite opposite to the expresse words of holie Scripture For thereby euerie one may see that the first cheefest ProtestaÌ„t preachers did not teach the word of God but the word of the Diuel quite contrarie thereâ—o were not ministers of the word of God but ministers of the Diuel not Reformers but Deformers not sent of God but thrust on by the Diuel not lightned from heaune but blinded from hel not Apostles but Apostatas not Pastores but wolues who vnder a most false pretence of the word of God did most directly impugne it drew Cristians from Gods truth to the Diuels lies from the lap of the Catholik
pastors as is shewed in the saied booke c. 2. cit and Caluin in Ezechiel c. 3. v. 9. saieth that Papists chalenge the name of the Church because they pretend a continuall succession And indeed saieth he we are forced to confesse that they haue the ordinarie ministerie And who can denie but the true Pastors of Gods Church are true owners of Gods worde which they haue authoritie to preach Thereby they confesse that Catholiks are true possessors of the holie Scripture For thus writeth Luther to 2. Germ. fol. 279. cited by Scarpius in Eccles c. 6. VVe confesse that vnder Poperie are manie Christian goods yea all Christian good and that it came from thence to vs. Namely we confesse that in Poperie is true holie Scripture true baptisme true office of preaching true Sacrament of the altar true keyes to forgiue sinnes true Catechisme Nay I say that in Poperie is true The kernell of Christianitie in Poperie Christianitie yea the very kernell of Christianitie and manie great Saintes And Hall Chalmeley and Batterfeild graunt that Luther wrote thus and seeme to allow it Luther also to 6. in c. 28. Genes saieth we confesse that Papists haue the Church because they haue baptisme absolution the text of the Ghospel and there are manie godlie men amongest them The eight proofe shal be from the Confession of such 8. title Confession of strangers as nether are Catholiks nor Protestants For as Vorstius writeth in Antibell p. 181. Iewes Turkes and Pagans do think that the Christian religion consisteth cheefly in Poperie And Whitaker Cont. 2. q. c. 2. No other famous Church can be named in these latter times which was thought to be the Church and was called the Church but the Roman Church Nether let anie think that such as want faith can not be sufficient iudges in this matter For albeit they be not sufficient iudges in the question of the trueth of doctrin yet are they sufficient in question of facte as this is And in this Ioseph lib. Antiq. Euseb l. 7. c. 24. sorte the Heathens in the time of the ould law iudged betwene the Iewes and the Samaritans and in the time of the Ghospel betwene the Catholiks and the Samosatenians And as Christians can iudge what kind of Mahometans are the true owners of the Alcoran though they think not the Alcoran to conteyne true doctrin So may Infidels iudge what kinde of Christians be true owners of the Ghospel though they beleeue not the Ghospel to be the worde of God The ninth proof may be taken from the agreement of 9. title Agreement with Scripture the Cath. doctrin both in words and sense with the holie Scripture as shall appeare in this booke Which proofe though taken alone doe not conuince that Catholiks are true owners of the Scripture yet in conuinceth that they are true owners rather then Protestants who so farre disagree from the Scripture both in words and sense The tenth proofe shal be that Protestants against these 10. title weaknes of Protest Proofes so manie and so forcible proofes for the Catholiks can bring no other proofe for their right to Scripture then that they haue the true doctrin of Scripture Which argument taken alone is as I shewed at large in my saied booke De Authore c. lib. 2. c. 15. a fond Sophisme or Foularie First because Schismatiks haue the true doctrin of Scripture as I there proued by reason by the testimonie of holie Fathers and the confession of Protestants and yet are no true owners of the Scripture because they are no true mēbers of the Church as I there also proued Secondly for Protestants to proue that they be true owners of the Scripture because they haue the true doctrin thereof is to proue one vnknowne and false thing by an other as vnkowne and false Which is not to proue at all because all proofe must be from a thing more knowne Thirdly they nether proue that they haue the doctrin of the Scripture by expresse words of Scripture for these are quite against them as shal be shewed in this booke nor by plaine inference out of the words of Scripture as appeareth by the Catholiks answers vnto all their proofes nor finally they haue proued any thing before a lawfull iudge but all their proofes are such as euerie Heretike maketh Besides if truth of doctrin doe proue true right to Scripture it farre more maketh for Catholiks and no more for Protestants then for anie other Heretiks Out of all which hath beene saied in this Chapter it is most euident that if the light of reason may be iudge in this matter Catholiks must needs be counted the true owners of the holie Scripture because they haue all the foresaied Titles then the which both fewer and weaker would make a claime to worldlie matters out of all question of all which Protestants can pretend none but the last Secondly it is euident that if Catholiks be the true If Cath. be true owners of the Scripture all controuersies are ended owners of the Scripture the sacred testament of Christ they are also true owners of the holie Sacraments of the keyes of heauen to binde and loose sinnes of the means of saluation and of all the goods which Christ hath by his will and testament bequeathed to his Church For vndoubtedly all these things pertaine to them to whome Christs testament doth belong Thirdly it is euident that if Catholiks be true owners of the Scriptures Protestants be vniust vsurpers of them as Iewes Turkes and Infidels are and haue no more right to keep or vse them against Catholiks then theeues haue to vse true mens goods or weapons against them For cleare it is that Catholiks and Protestants are opposite Churches as I haue shewed in the foresaied booke De Authore lib. 1. c. 2. and lib. 2. c. 6. and that one of them is a false Church whereas the Scriptures were giuen and belong to one onely Church Wherefore we may well say to Protestants as Tertullian de Prescript c. 37. saied to Heretiks of his time VVho are you when and whence came you what doe you in mine being not mine By what right Marcion Luther doest thou fell my woods By what licence Valentin Caluin doest thou turne away my water By what authoritie Apelles Zuingle doest thou charge my bounds It is my possession what doe you strangers here sow and feed at your pleasure And the same say we to Protestants Let them first shew what right they haue to Scriptures before they argue out of them let them render vs our weapons or shew what iust title they haue to them before they fight with them against vs. For as the same Tertull. saieth c. 15. Here we first stop them that they are not to be admitted to anie dispute of Scriptures VVe must see whether they may haue them or no to whom belongeth the Scripture that he be not admitted to it to whom it appertaineth not And c. 19. The
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
that in case of necessitie a lay man becometh a Minister and Pastour yea that where men want a woman may preach and absolue from sinnes Which are so plainly against Scripture as some Protestants confesse it See l. 2. c. 30. ART IX WHETHER A PASTOVR OF the Church may haue also temporall iurisdiction SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. Gen. 14. v. 18. and Hebr. 7. v. 3. Melchisedech is saied to A Pastour of the Church may haue temporall iurisdiction haue beene both a Preist and King Exod. 18. ver 13. Moises did sit to iudge the people And yet withall was a preist as we shall shew in the next article 1. Reg. 1. 4. Heli is saied to haue beene high Preist and iudge of the people The same is euidtē of the Machabees CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME C. Bellarm. l. 5. de Rom. Pont. c. 9. It doth not repugne that the Pope should be both a spirituall Prince and also a temporall Prince of some prouince PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Zuinglius Art 36. to 1. Iurisdiction or administration of He cannot law which the saied Church men do chalenge belongeth wholy to the secular Magistrate if he wil be a Christian. And in explan art 36. All administration of law is forbidden to Church men Caluin in Luc. 12. v. 13. So is the robberie of the Pope and his men condemned who though they pretend to be Pastours of the Church notwithstanding dare take vpon them terrene and profane iurisdiction which is contrarie to their function The same he hath 4. Iustit c. 11. § 8. Daneus Controu 4. pag. 560. Let vs shew that vnder the Gospell it is not lawfull for Bishops to haue execute practise both ecclesiasticall and politicall iurisdiction Polanus in Disput priuat disput 13. No man can be at once both a Bishop and a politicall Prince Hutterus in Analysi Confes Augustan p. 622. It is manifest that both powers cannot agree to one and the same man at one time THE CONFERENCE Scripture expressely saieth that Melchisedech was at once both King and Preist that Moises was both iudge and preist the same of Heli and the Machabees Catholiks say the same Protestants expressely say that all temporall iurisdictiō belongeth to the ciuill Magistrate all temporall administration of law is forbidden to Church men that the same man cannot haue ecclesiasticall and temporall iurisdictiō the same man cannot be both Bishop and Prince ART X. WHETHER MOISES WERE a Preist SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. Psal 98. v. 6. Moises and Aaron in his Preists and Samuel Moises was a Preist among them that inuocate his name CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME C. Bellarm. l. 5. de Rom. Pont. c. 9. Moises was both a soueraigne temporall Prince and a high preist as is euident it out of the Scripture PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Whitaker Cont. 1. q. 5. c. 4. Nether did Moises exercise at all He was no Preist the preisthood but was onely a Prophet Iuel in defens Apol. Part. 6. c. 11. diuis 4. Whether Moises were a Preist or no we are not certaine Daneus Cont. 4. p. 561. I answere that Moises had not nor exercised both the functions of Preihstood and Magistrate but onely the functions of a Magistrate and Prophet The same saied Hunnius in Colloq Ratisbon sect 2. Where he addeth that he sacrified as a Prophet not as a Preist Chamier l. 1. de Pontif. p. 71. I graunt that Moises as superiour to Aaron but as Magistrat not as Preist THE CONFERENCE Scripture saieth plainly that Moises was a Preist as it saieth that Aaron was one The same say Catholiks Protestants plainly say that Moises was no preiste exercised no preisthood THE SVMME OF THIS CHAPTER OF PASTOVRS What we haue rehearsed in this Chapter doth shew that Protestants do propose farre other kinde of Pastours to vs then the holie Scripture and Catholiks do For the Scripture together with Catholiks teacheth vs that Pastours are perpetuall haue in themselues authoritie to rule the Church that one single Pastour hath power to excommunicate that they haue authoritie to command and make lawes be true rulers of the Church do rule the true Church be to be called Preists cānot be made nor preach without lawfull calling may haue also temporall iurisdiction and finally that Moises was a Preist All which Protestants denie They also shew that Protestants steale from the Pastors of the Church their perpetuitie their authoritie their power to excommunicate in particular their authoritie to command and make lawes their true power of ruling or ruling the true Church their name of Preists and temporall iurisdictiō and finally from Moises his Preisthood And thus much of Pastours now of the Church CHAPTER VII OF THE CHVRCH ART I. WHETHER THE CHVRCH be one SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. I HON 10. v. 16. There shal be made one fould and One Church one Pastor Rom. 12. v. 5. So we being manie are one bodie in Christ Ephes 2. v. 16. That he may reconcile both in one bodie to God by the crosse CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME D. Stapleton Controu 1. quaestion 2. artic 1. The Catholik doctrine is that there is one onely Church which we professe in the Creed PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Whitaker Controu 2. quaest 1. cap. 7. pag 432. There Twoe Churches must needs be one Church of the wicked an other of the good And cap. 14. pag. 453. Where Austin saieth that which we say that there are twoe societies of men in the world that is twoe Churches To the one belonge the predestinate to the other the reprobate Humfrey ad Ration 3. Campiani We haue shewed that This and that Caluin and our Churches put not onely that inuisible Church but also this which is visible and apparent by her notes Morton in Apol. part 1. l. c. 1. The question is whether that Church which in our Creed we beleiue and professe to be one holie and catholik be inuisible and necessarily distinct frō any visible Church Protestants affirme Papists denie And cap. 3. Manie are in the visible Church who haue nothing to doe with the inuisible Therefore there must be admitted some inuisible Church out of which they are distinct from that in which they are Magdeburgenses Centuria 1. l. 2. c. 4. col 171. Christ and Twoe Churches the things themselues teach vs that there are twoe Churches Gesnerus in Compendio doctrinae loco 24. Thē will there be twoe Churches one visible the other inuisible We must needs distinguish betwene the visible congregation of them that are called embrace the Sacraments and professe the pure word of God and betwene the true faithfull and elect Vrsinus in Catechismo p. 343. The militant Church is twoefould visible and inuisible The visible is the companie of those that agree in doctrine hauing manie members dead or not regenerate The inuisihle is the companie of the elect and regenerate Daneus Cont. 4. p. 707. But if this man be of that opinion Twoe Churches that Austin
doth not acknowledge twoe Churches the one visible in which euen the reprobate are an other inuisible in which onely those are who are predestinated of God to saluation he is much deceaued Vorstius in Antibellarm p. 124. One distinction separateth the true and internall Church of Christ which wholy consisteth of the elect and true beleiuers from the externâ—ll companie of professors which often times hath manie reprobates albeit also it may be not without cause called the true Church of Christ by reason of professing true doctrine And seing all Protestants deuide the Church into visible and inuisible and do not onely professe that the inuisible Church is a true Church but also sometimes call the visible a true Church properly so termed and the spâ—use and bodie of Christ as I shewed l. de Authore Protestant Eccles 2. cap. 6. they must needs confesse that they make Visible and inuisible Church distinct In partes twoe true Churches militant which in their opinion differ in partes or members in definition and in manie proprieties For according to them the partes or meÌ„bers of the inuisible Church are onely iust and predestinate men partes or members of the visible Church are both iust and vniust predestinate and reprobate The definition of the inuisible Church is this A Societie in iustifying faith and predestination The definition of the visible this In DefinitioÌ„ A Societie in profession of true faith and lawfull vse of Sacraments The inuisible is knowne onely to God The visible to God and meÌ„ also Against the inuisible the gates In Proprieties of hell cannot preuaile against the visible they may She cannot be led into error at lest not into fundamentall error This may She cannot wholy perish this may She is beleiued of Protestants in the Creed not this She hath no visible notes whereby she may be distinguished from other Societies this hath If therefore both these Societies be true Churches before God there must needs be twoe true militante Churches For one cannot differ from it selfe in partes definition and in so manie and so great proprieties THE CONFERENCE Scripture plainly saieth that Christs fould is one that Christians are one misticall bodie Catholiks say the same Protestants plainly say that there are twoe Churches a twoefould Church one of the wicked an other of good or one of the predestinate an other of the reprobate that there is this and that Church visible and inuisible ART VII WHETHER BAD MEN MAY be in the true Church SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. Math. 13. ver 47. The kingdome of heauen is like to a net cast Bâ—d men in the Church into the sea and gathering together of all kinde of fishes Which when it was filled drawing it forth and sitting by the shore they chose out the good into vessels but the badde they cast out So shall it be in the consummation of the world Matth. 3. v. 12. Whose fanne is in his hand and he shall cleane Chaffe in Gods flore purge his flore and will gather his wheat into the barne but the chaffe he will burne with vnquenchable fire 1. Cor. 6. v. 15. Know you not that your bodies are the members of Christ Taking therefore the members of Christ shall I make them the meÌ„bers of an harlot God forbidde c. 10. v. 17. For All Communicants one bodie being manie we are one bread one bodie all that participate of one bread The same is euident by what hath beene saied before of Iudas CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME D. Stapleton Controu 1. q. 2. art 5. The orthodoxall sentence is that the true Church which we beleiue in our Creed consisteth of good and badde PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Whitaker Cont. 2. q. 1. cap. 7. The Church consisteth of the The bad no members of the Church good onely The bad are not members of the true Church c. 11. The godlie are no more ioyned in one bodie with the wicked then light with darknesse Christ with Belial c. 13. In the triumphaÌ„t Church are onely good so likewise in the militant Et q. 5. c. 3. The wicked Belonge to the Church belong not to the Church of God Rainalds thes 4. The wicked are no parte of the bodie of Christ therefore nether of the Church And in Apologia thes pag. 244. The Church proposed in the Creed containeth onely Saintes Apologia Conf. Augustan de Eccles The wicked cannot be the Church Luther in Psal 118. tom 7. Who hath not true faith is not a Pertaine not to the Church Saint and iust pertaineth not to the holie Church Caluin 4. Instit c. 1. § 7. None are admitted into that which is indeed the Church before God but they who by grace of adoption are the Sonnes of God Peter Martyr in locis clas 4. c. 1. § 1. We auouch that such Not partes of the Church men wicked are not indeed and before God partes of the Church In 1. Cor. 1. Onely Saintes are truely and before God of the Church the wicked in onely shew and not indeed belonge to the Church Daneus Cont. 4. p. 706. That which is the true Church consisteth of Saintes alone Volanus l. 3. cont Scargam Confesse that in name onely In name onely members of the Church and not indeed as thou falsely thinkest they are reputed amongst the members of the Church of God who being by nature goates are hidden vnder the name of Christs sheepe in his flock And he addeth that such are worthily iudged to couer themselues with the vaine and vnprofitable maske of the Church Musculus in locis tit de Eccles Not so much as the name of the Church is to be giuen to the wicked and reprobate THE CONFERENCE Scripture expressely teacheth that badde men are in the Church as badde fishes in the net and as chaffe in the flore that the bodies of those Christians who commit fornicatioÌ„ are members of Christ that all who eate of one Eucharisticall bread are one bodie Catholiks say the same Protestants expressely teach that badde meÌ„ are not members of the true Church pertaine not to the holie Church are not indeed before God partes of the Church onely in shew and not indeed belonge to the Church in name onely and not indeed are reputed among the members of the Church couer theÌ„selues with the vaine maske of the Church deserue not so much as the name of the Church that they are not ioyned in one bodie with the godlie are no parte of the bodie of Christ That the Church the Church proposed in the Creed the Church indeed and before God the true Church consisteth onely of good men and Saints ART III. WHETHER REPROBATES may be in true Church SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. The parables cited in the former article of the net and Reprobates in Gods net in his flore and his disciples the flore and the example of Iudas shew manifestly that reprobates may be in the true Church CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY
true Church may some time faile to be visible Scarpe de Iustif Cont. 5. The members of the visible Church The whole visible Church may faile In the vttermost extent may faile yea the whole visible Church as such Vorstius in Antibellarm p. 136. Whence it followeth that the visible Church of Christ not onely in a great parte but euen whole taken in the vttermost extent may for sometime faile from the true faith and be wholy obscured Againe The externall Church of Christ may be obscured and faile More of their like sayings may be seene in my foresaied booke c. 4. THE CONFERENCE Scripture plainly teacheth that the Church of Christ cannot be hidden and biddeth vs to tell and heare her The same say Catholiks Protestants plainly teach that there is not alwaies a visible number of those who piously worshippe Christ that the Church may haue no apparent for me is not alwaies seene with eyes sometimes faileth to be visible that the whole visible Church as such may faile that the whole visible Church taken in her vttermost extent may faile from the faith that God oftentimes will haue no visible Church on earth Which are so opposite to Scripture as Protestants sometimes confesse it See l. 2. c. 30. ART VI. WHETHER THE CHVRCH be infallible in faith SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. Isaie 59. vers vltim This is my couenant with them saieth Gods spirit euer in the mouth of the Church our Lord My spirit that is in thee and my words that I haue put in thy mouth shall not departe out of thy mouth and out of the mouth of thy seede and out of the mouth of thy seeds seede saieth our Lord from this present for euer Mathew 16. vers 18. And the gates of hell shall not preuaile Gates of hell preuaile not against her against it Ioan. 16. v. 13. But when the Spirit of trueth cometh he shall teach you all trueth 1. Tim. 3. ver 15. Which is the Church of the liuing God the The pillar of trueth pillar and ground of trueth CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME D. Stapleton Controu 4. qu. 2. art vnico The Church in her determinations of faith is euer must certaine and infallible PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Whitaker Cont. 2. q. 4. cap. 3. God hath not promised to his The vniuersall Church may erre In necessarie matters The whole Church Church that she should not erre The vniuersall Church may erre The whole Church may erre It is euident that the true Church may for a time erre euen in necessarie matters Yea after Christs ascension and that descent of the Holie Ghost vpon the Apostles it is manifest that the whole Church did erre about the vocation of the Gentils and not onely the common sorte of Christians but euen the very Apostles and Doctors And quaest 5. cap. 17. The Church may for a time erre in some fundamentall points Beza de notis Eccles vol. 3. If some particular Church may erre euen in some principall head of Christian religion and yet leaue not therefore to be a true Church why may we not say the same of all particular Churches taken not onely seuerally but all together for this is the Catholik Church And the margēt The Catholik Church and in fundamentall points The whole Churrh saieth Some errors may creepe into the Church euen in some fundamentall head of saith Daneus Controu 4. l. 3. c. 17. The whole Church all Pastors generally may erre The whole Church may be deceaued slippe and erre Author Resp ad Theses Vademont p. 503. The Catholik And grieuously Church may erre and that sometimes most grieuously The like they teach commonly THE CONFERENCE Scripture expressely teacheth that Gods spirit and his word shall neuer departe from the mouth of the Church that the gates of hell shall not preuaile against her that the Holie Ghost teacheth her all trueth that she is the pillar and ground of trueth Catholiks say the same Protestants expressely teach that the Church the true Church the vniuersall Church the whole Church may erre most grieuously and in some fundamentall and necessarie matters that the whole Apostolik Church euen after the descent of the Holie Ghost did erre Which is so repugnant to holie Scripture as sometimes Protestants confesse it See lib. 2. c. 30. ART VII WHETHER THE CHVRCH be to be heard simply in all things SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. Matth. 18. v. 17. If he will not heare the Church let him be Church simply to be heard to the as the Heathen and the Publican Luc. 10. v. 16. Who heareth you heareth me and who despiseth you despiseth me CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME D. Stapleton Cont. 4. q. 2. art 3. We must simply and absolutely obey the voice of the Church in doctrine of faith PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Whitaker Cont. 1. q. 3. c. 3. We must not simply receaue whatsoeuer Not simply to be heard the Church teacheth but whatsoeuer she is commanded of God to teach and proueth by Gods authoritie And q. 5. c. 5. The Church is to be heard not simply in all her sayinges decrees sentences and commandments The same he hath Cont. 2. q. 4. c. 2. and l. 1. de Scriptura c. 11. Bucanus in Inst Theol. loco 43. Must we simply heare the voice of the Church and receaue whatsoeuer she teacheth No. Reineccius to 4. Armat c. 3. We must beleiue the Church in Not simply to be beleiued all things not taken simply and absolutely but relatiuely and with condition as farre as according to Scripture and out of that she proposeth diuine trueth THE CONFERENCE Scripture simply and absolutely biddeth vs to heare the Church and saieth that who heareth her heareth Christ The same say Catholiks Protestants denie that she is simply to be heard or obeyed ART VIII WHETHER TRVETH IN respect of vs do relie vpon the Church SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. 1. Timoth. 3. ver 15. Which is the Church of the liuing God Church the pillar of trueth the pillar and ground of trueth CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME D. Stapleton Controu 4. quaest 2. artic vnico The Church according to the ordinarie course is for faithfull men the pillar of all reuealed trueth and for faith it selfe the ground For the faitfull relie vpon the teaching of the Church as an vnmouable pillar PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Whitaker Contru 2. q. 4. c. 2. The trueth of faith doth not Not pillar in regard of vs. relie vpon the Church as a foundation no not in regard of vs. Trueth doth not relie vpon the authoritie of the Church Againe If the trueth of faith did relie vpon the authoritie of the Church in respect of vs who then c. Bucer in Disp Cantabrig It is manifest enough that no Sustaineth not trueth Church is to be termed the pillar and ground of trueth as if she did sustaine and conserue trueth Melancthon in locis c. de Signis Eccles to 3. Faith doth not relie wpon the
are to be had and kept especially in Churches PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Iuel art 14. sect 2. The Iewes had no manner of Image nether painted nor grauen in their temples Luther in Deuteron 7. to 3. I do not much loue images and would they were not in Churches Zuinglius l. de ver fals relig c. de Statuis Images must Not in tēples be taken out of Churches Sadeel ad Art 59. Abiurat God abhorreth images Peter Martyr in locis tit de Cult Imaginum § 22. We must not suffer that Images be had in Churches And in this point the Protestants doctrine is well enough knowne by their deeds yea some of them goe so farre as they denie that we may paint any Images of Christ or the Saints For thus saieth Leo Iudae in Zuinglius to 2. f. 627. If Christ and his Saints be in heauen it is wickednes euen to make their images With whome agreeth Zuinglius ib. 630. Hoffman also ib. f. 631. saieth That good man thinketh that images may be kept and suffered so that none do adore or worshippe thē But this opinion is contrarie to the testimonies of Scripture wherein the Lord commandeth that we shall not make them The same intimateth Confessio Heluet. c. 4. THE CONFERENCE Scripture expressely saieth that God commanded twoe Images of Angels to be made and put in the Oracle that Salomon made twoe others and put them in the middest of the inner temple The same say Catholiks Protestants expressely say that God abhorreth images that they are not to be suffered in Churches no that the Images of Christ and his Saintes are to be made that the Iewes had no manner of Images in their temple ART IV. WHETHER THE HEATHENS or Idolaters did thinke their Idols to be Gods SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. Exod 32. v. 8. God himselfe thus speaketh vnto Moises They haue made to themselues a molten calfe and haue adored and immolating hostes vnto it haue saied These are thy Gods Israel that haue brought thee out of the land of Egypt Actes 19. v. 26. Demetrius a Heathen hath these words Heathens thought theirs Idols to be Gods Sirs you see and heare that this same Paul by persuasion hath auerted a great multitude not onely of Ephesus but almost of all Asia saying That they are no Gods which be made by hands CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME C. Bellarm. l. 2. de Imagin c. 13. It is false that the Heathens did not thinke the idols to be Gods PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Caluin 1. Instit c. 11. § 9. Nether are the Heathēs to be thought They thought not so to haue beene so blockish as that they knew not that God was an other thing then stones and stockes Daneus Controuer 7. p. 1394. It is a lie that the Heathens did beleiue the Images of their Gods to haue beene their Gods themselues Zuinglius in Resp ad Valentin to 1. f. 247. The Heathens did no more account their Idols to be Gods then now we vse to account of our Images The like say Peter Martyr Controu Gardiner col 396. and Sadeel ad art 59. abiurat THE CONFERENCE Scripture plainely teacheth that the idolaters did say that their molten calfe was their God that Demetrius a Heathen reprehēded S. Paul because he tought that they were no Gods which were made by mens hands The same say Catholiks Protestants plainely say that the Heathēs did not thinke stocks or stones to be their Gods that it is a lie that they thought the images of their Gods to be Gods themselues And yet these men who against the plaine testimonie of Scripture do defend the Heathens do accuse the Catholiks that they make Images their God THE SVMME OF THIS CHAPTER OF TEMPLES or materiall Churches Out of that which we haue rehearsed in this Chapter it appeareth that Protestants haue other kind of temples then the Scripture and Catholiks haue For the Scripture and Catholiks teach that temples or Churches are also for priuat praier that they are to be adorned and that images of Angels or Saintes are to be put in them all which Protestants denie and consequently they robe the Churches of one of their ends for which they are instituted and of their ornaments and holie Images CHAPTER IX OF BAPTISME ART I. WHETHER WATER BE necessarie to Baptisme SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. I HON 3. v. 5. Vnlesse a man be borne againe of Water necessarie to baptisme water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdome of God Ephes 5. v. 26. As Christ also loued the Church deliuered himselfe for it that he might sanctifie it cleansing it by the lauer of water in the word CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME Councel of Trent sess 7. com 2. If anie say that true and naturall water is not necessarie to baptisme be he accursed PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Beza Epistola 2. vol. 3. Theol. Though water be wanting if Not necessarie the baptisme of one cannot nor ought to be differred with edification surely I would as well baptize with any other liquor as with water Polanus in Sylloge Thes part 2. p. 556. The externall and sensible matter of baptisme is water and that wanting an other liquor proportionable Festus Homius in Disput 45. We do not greatly denie but where no water can be had there some other liquor which hath the some vse that water hath and is very proportionable thereto may be vsed in the place thereof Vorstius in Antibellarm p. 367. Bellarmin and his do more restraine this essence of baptisme then our men are wonte to doe Whiles he auoucheth that pure water and that solemne forme In the name of the Father c. is simply in all places and times precisely necessarie Agayne Extraordinarily and in some most rare and vnusuall cases we do not deny but that some other kind of liquor which hath the same vse that water hath may be vsed The same teacheth Luther in Colloq Mensal cap. 15. and Riuet iudgeth it probable tractat 3. sect 3. Nether is it disliked by Saddel ad Artic. abiurat 11. CONFERENCE OF THE FORESAIED WORDS Scripture plainely saieth that vnlesse one be borne againe of water he cannot enter into the kingdome of heauen that Christ cleanseth his Church with the lauer of water The same say Catholiks Protestants plainely say that water is not simply necessarie that extraordinarily and in case of necessitie one may baptize in other liquor as well as in water that where water wanteth an other liquor proportionable may suffice Which is so euident a contradiction of Scripture as Protestants themselues sometimes confesse it See lib. 2. cap. 30. ART II. WHETHER INVOCATION of the holie Trinitie be necessarie in baptisme SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. Matthew 28. ver 19. Going teach ye all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the Holie Ghost CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME Catechismus ad Parochos cap. de baptismo Pastors shall teach that this is the perfect and absolute
Church there is Sacrifice and offering of a cleane oblation and Sacrifice in iustice The same say Catholiks Protestants expressely say that there is no more Sacrifice in the Church And yet Whitaker Controu 3. quaest 6. pag. 2. 615. writeth thus Without Preisthood there is no Church And Vallada Apologia cont Episcop Luzon c. 26. No man denieth but the celebration of the Eucharist is a true Sacrifice ART XII WHETHER THERE BE AN altar in the Church SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. Hebrewâ— 13. v. 10. We haue an altar whereof they haue no Christians haue an altar power to eate which serue the tabernacle Isaie 19. ver 10. In that day there shal be an altar of our Lord in the middest of the land of Egypte and a title of our Lord to the border thereof CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME Councel of Trent Sess 24. c. 1. The Apostle Paul writing to the Corinthians when he saieth that they who are polluted with participation of the table of Diuels cannot be made partakers of the Table of our Lord by a table in both places vnderstandeth an altar PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Caluin in 1. Corinth 9. vers 19. There are no altars to They haue noÌ„â—â—tar sacrifice Beza in Colloq Montisbel p. 350. Paul maketh mention Paul speaketh not of an altar of a table of the Lord and not of an altar Ad Repetit Sanctis c. 4. I confesse there is no altar in the Christian Church And l. Quaest Resp vol. 3. In the Apostolicall writings there is no mention of an altar but onely of a table of the Lord. Peter Martyr in Rom. 11. Altars haue no place in the time of the Ghospel Herein also the Protestants doctrine is well knowne THE CONFERENCE Scripture plainely saieth that we haue an altar The same say Catholiks Protestants plainely say that we haue no altar that Paul maketh no mention of an altar that there is no mention of an altar in the writings of the Apostles ART XIII WHETHER THE PASCHAL lambe was sacrificed SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. Marc. 14. v. 12. And the first day of the Azimes when they Pascal lambe sacrificed sacrificed the Pasche Exod. 12. ver 6. And the whole multitude of the children of Israel shall sacrifice him Pascal lambe at euen CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME Councel of Trent Sess 24. c. 1. The multitude of the children of Israel did sacrifice the ould Pasche in remembrance of their going out of Egypt PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Perkins in Cathol reform Controu 11. c. 5. The Paschal No sacrifice lambe was a sacrament but no sacrifice The same hath Plessie l. 2. de Missa c. 2. Reineccius to 4. Armaturae c. 19. The holie Bible no where Not sacrificed teacheth that the Paschal lambe was immolated and sacrificed Tilenus in Syntagmate c. 64. We do not graunt that the Paschal lambe was a sacrifice properly called yea Moises expressely denieth that it was a sacrifice Pareus in Colloq Theol. 9. disput 27. The Minor is false That the Paschal lambe was a sacrifice properly called Beza in Marci 14. v. 12. I vsed the word of Killing rather then of Sacrificing that the domesticall bankets of the Pasche might be distinguished from those Sacrifices which in the temple were done of the Preists THE CONFERENCE Scripture expressely saieth that the Paschal lambe was sacrificed Catholiks say the same Protestants expressely say that it was not sacrificed that it was no proper sacrifice that it was a domesticall banket that Moises expressely denieth it to be a Sacrifice Which is so repugnant to Scripture as same Protestants confesse it See lib. 2. c. 30. THE SVMME OF THIS CHAPTER OF the Eucharist Out of all which hath beene rehearsed in this chapter it is cleare how different an Eucharist Protestants haue from that which the holie Scripture proposeth For the Scripture and Catholiks with it teacheth that the holie Eucharist is the true bodie and blood of Christ that it is his testament that Christs flesh is to be eaten that whilest the Eucharist was instituted Christs bodie was giuen and his blood shedde for vs that the chalice was shedde in remission of sinnes that bread is a necessarie matter of the Eucharist that vnleauened bread is a couenient matter and that we must prepare our selues to receaue the Eucharist Moreouer the Scripture teacheth that there is a Sacrifice and altar in the Church and that the Paschal lambe which was a figure of the Eucharist was sacrificed all which Protestants do denie It is cleare also that Protestants do steale from the What Protest steale from the Eucharist Eucharist the trueth of the bodie and blood of Christ the nature of his testament the necessitie of bread the conueniencie of vnleauened bread to make it of and necessitie of our preparation to receaue it They steale also eating and drinking from the flesh and blood of Christ oblation and shedding of them when the Eucharist was instituted And from the Church they steale both Sacrifice and altar and sacrificing froÌ„ the Paschal lambe And thus much of the Eucharist Now of the other Sacraments CHAPTER XI OF THE OTHER SACRAMENTS ART I. WHETHER PREISTS CAN forgiue sinnes SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. MATHEW 16. v. 19. And I will giue to the the keyes Preists can forgiue sinnes of the kingdome of heauen And whatsoeuer thou shalt loose on earth it shal be loosed in heauen Math. 16. v. 19. Amen I say vnto you whatsoeuer you shall binde vpoÌ„ earth shal be bound also in heauen and whatsoeuer you shall loose vpon earth shal be loosed also in heauen Ihon. 20. v. 24. And he saied to them receaue ye the Holie Ghost Whose sinnes you shall forgiue they are forgiuen them and whose you shall retaine they are retained CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME Councel of Trent Sess 14. Can. 9. If anie shall say that the Sacramentall absolution of the Preist is not a iudiciall act but a bare ministerie of pronouncing or declaring that sinnes are forgiuen be he accursed PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Perkins Galath 4. tom 2. The Pope challengeth to They cannot himselfe proper and iudiciall power of forgiuing and reteining sinnes Zuinglius in Art 51. to 1. Who attributeth remissioÌ„ of sinnes to a creature robbeth God of his glorie and is an idolater In resp ad Luther to 2. f. 430. These words whose sinnes you shall forgiue c. haue not that sense as if Christ in speaking theÌ„ would giue his disciples power to forgiue sinnes In Exposit fidei They cannot certifie a man of forgiuenes of his sinnes ib. f. 557. Wherefore all these things seeme friuolous I absoluethee I certifie thee that thy sinnes are forgiuen This is deceit and mere trifles Et in Hebr. 6. to 4. he saieth that Christ spooke the words cited out of Math. 18. by hyperoche or ouerlashing Bullinger in Marci 2. Men do not forgiue sinnes but teach that they are or haue beene forgiuen in Christ by faith Caluin in Ioan. 20. v.
D. Stapleton in Actor 8. v. 17. In these words is descricbed an other Sacrament of the Church different from the baptisme which is called Imposition of hands by reason of the forme which Luke here telleth that the Apostles vsed PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Caluin in Actor 8. v. 17. cit Let vs remember that Imposition Imposition of hands is now a vaine fansie of hands was the instrument of God at what time he bestowed the visible graces of his Spirit vpon his seruants but since the Church hath wanted such riches it is onely a vaine fansie And 4. Institut c. 19. § 6. he calleth Catholiks Stage players because they say they imitate the Apostles in imposing hands vpon those that are baptized Gualterus in Actor 8. homilia 58. We know that out of this place Papists haue brought in the Sacrament of Confirmation but it is so ridiculous as c. THE CONFERENCE Scripture expressely saieth that the Apostles imposed their hands vpon those that were baptized The same Catholiks say Protestants expressely say that it is a vaine fansie and ridiculous to impose hands vpon those that are baptized ART V. WHETHER MATRIMONIE be a Sacrament SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. Ephesians 5. v. 31. For this cause shall man leaue his father Matrimonie a Sacrament and mother and shall cleaue to his wife and shal be twoe in one flesh This is a great Sacrament but I speake in Christ and in the Church CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME Councell of Trent Sess 24. can If anie shall say that Matrimonie is not truely and properly one of the seauen Sacraments of the Euangelicall law instituted by Christ our Lord but inueÌ„ted of men in the Church nor giueth grace be he accursed PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Confessio Heluet. c. 19. We confesse that Matrimonie is a No SacrameÌ„t profitable institution of God but not a Sacrament In like sorte the English Confession art 25. Iewel defens Apolog. p. 185. Marriage of it selfe is nether Of itselfe not good good nor ill Whitaker l. 8. cont Dur. sect 64. What more foolish then to make a Sacrament of Matrimonie Caluin 4. Instit c. 19. § 34. What sober man would euer haue thought that Matrimonie was giuen for a Srcrament And others as we shall see hereafter c. 15. art 2. say that Matrimonie is nothing nor maketh a man any whit the better THE CONFERENCE Scripture plainely saieth that Matrimonie in Christ the Church that is among Christians is a great Sacrament The same say Catholiks Protestants plainely say that Matrimonie is no sacrament that it is follie and madnesse to make it a sacrament that of it selfe it is not good is nothing nor maketh a man better Which contradiction of Scripture is so manifest as same Protestants confesse it See l. 2. c. 30. ART VI. WHETHER ONE WIFE BEING diuorced one may marrie an other SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY DENIETH. Luke 16. vers 18. Euerie one that dimisseth his wife and No marriage after diuorce marrieth an other committeth aduoutrie and he that marrieth her that is dimissed from her husband committeth aduoutrie Marc. 10. v. 11. Whosoeuer dimisseth his wife and marieth an other committeth aduouttie vpon her And if the wife dimisse her husband and marrie an other he committeth aduoutrie v. 6. Which God hath ioyned together let no man separate 1. Cor. 7. v. 10. But to them that be ioyned in matrimonie not I giue commandment but our Lord that the wife departe not from her husband and if she departe to remaine vnmarried or to be reconciled to her husband And. v. 39. A woman is bound to the law so long time as her husband liâ—eth but if her husband sleepe she is at libertie let her marrie to whome she will onely in our Lord. CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY DENIE Councel of Trent Sess 24. Can. 7. If anie shall say that the Church doth erre when it taught and doth teach according to the Euangelicall and Apostolicall doctrine that the bande of Matrimonie caÌ„not be broken for the adulterie of one of the married parties and that nether no not the innocent partie which gaue no cause of the adulterie can marie againe whiles the other partie liueth be he accursed PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY AFFIRMI Willet Controu 15. quaest 2. pag. 782. For fornication our New marriage after fornication Sauiour hath granted libertie both to dissolue matrimonie and to marrie againe Confessio Saxonica cap. 18. Marriage is not forbidden to the innocent partie when the cause being knowne she is pronounced free Confessio Scotica We detest his Popes crueltie against the innocent reiected by diuorce Pseudosynod of Midelburg An. 1581. art 57. If anie for adulterie haue separated himselfe from his wife and will not be reconciled againe with her and desire leaue of a new marriage the Presbyterie the adulterie being first proued shall declare that it is lawfull by the word of God Luther in 1. Cor. 7. to 5. What if the one partie will not be recoÌ„ciled to the other but will abide separated and the other not able to containe should be enforced to marrie what should be doe may he marrie with an other I answere that without doubt And other offences he may Againe If the husband would teach or force his wife to steale to adulterate or committe any other crime against God it is the same reason of diuorce with the other that vnlesse they be reconciled a new marriage may be made Furthermore What if the second marriage did not fall out right that the one partie should vrge the other the husband the wife or contrariewise to liue wickedly like Pagans or if the one would flie from the other vntill the third or fourth marriage were made may he marrie of wife as often as she is such as we haue spoaken of so that he haue at once ten or more fugitiue wiues And againe shall it be lawfull A woman may haue ten husbands liuings for the wife to haue ten or more husbands who all are fled from her I answere that we cannot stoppe S. Pauls mouth who as often as it is needfull will vse his doctrine his words are cleare The like he hath ib. Sermon de matrimonio where also fo 123. he addeth If the Mistresse will not let the Maide come Bidembachius in Consensu Iesuitarum Christian p. 1588. Who reiecting his wife for whordome marieth an other doth not commit adulterie Beza in Confess c. 5. sect 39. To whome diuorce is lawfully Mariage lawfull after diuorce graunted if reconcilement cannot be procured within the time appointed to them we giue leaue to marrie a new And epist 10. he writeth that Bucer and most of the ProtestaÌ„t Churches in Germanie giue leaue to marrie a new for leprosie to whome saieth he we leaue their iudgment free as is reason Perkins de Serm. Dom. to 2. col 261. By reason of whordome Whordome dissolueth mariage marriage is dissolued The same is the common doctrine of Protestants as you may see
the Pharises THE CONFERENCE Scripture plainely saieth that manie Princes who confessed not Christ and loued the glorie of men more then of God did beleiue in Christ that manie beleiued in Christs name whome Christ trusted not that a euill man doth well in beleiuing The same say Catholiks Protestants plainely say that the foresaied Princes did not beleiue had not true faith were no beleiuers that those whome Christ trusted not did not beleiue in the sight of God that their faith was not true not sincere but hypocrisie that onely the godlie and the adopted sonnes of God are partakers of true faith that the faith of the impious and wicked is feigned dissembled an imagination or image of faith not true faith that the impious are not faithfull ART XXI WHETHER FAITH BE proper to the Elect SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY DENIETH. Act. 8. ver 13. Then Simon Magus also himselfe beleiued Simon Magus had faith and being baptized he cleeued to Philippe Seing also signes and very great miracles to be done he was astonished with admiratiō Heb. 6. v. 4. For it is impossible for them that were once illuminated Also some reprobates haue tasted also the heauenlie guift and were made partakers of the Holie Ghost c. and are fallen to be renewed againe to pennance CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY DENIE D. Stapleton in Actor 8. v. 13. Simon Magus had true faith Card. Bellarm. l. 3. de Iustificat c. 14. Faith is not proper to the elect PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME Whitaker l. 8. cont Dur. sect 48. True faith is proper to the the elect In Concion vlt. In no reprobate true faith is found Zuinglius in Math. 19. tom 4. The Scripture sometimes Simon Magus had no faith indeed Beleiued not all saieth that some beleiued who professed faith which indeed they had not as appeareth of Simon Magus in the Actes In exposit Fidei to 2. fol. 558. There are some who beleiue not at all as were Iudas and Simon Magus Caluin in Actor 8. v. 3. c. The mynd of Simon was wrapped in dissimulation of faith Beza cont Illyric vol. 2. p. 131. Simon Magus was quite faithlesse Was quite faithlesse In Colloq Montisbel p. 379. Indeed he wanted faith indeed he beleiued not Volanus l. 3. cont Scargam p. 1070. Scarga foolishly attributeth true faith to Simon Magus Daneus Contr. de Baptismo c. 14. He obiecteth that Simō Magus lost faith and that other Apostates did the like But I denie that they haue or euer had true faith Pareus l. 3. de Iustif c. 14. Simon was an hypocrite beleiuing onely with mouth not with harte And he addeth Nether maketh it any matter that Luke absolutely saieth that he beleiued And as for reprobats Caluin 3. Institut c. 2. § 11. None are illuminated vnto faith None but the predestinate haue faith Faith peculiar to the Elect but they who are predestinated to saluation In Confessione p. 106. I acknowledge that faith is a peculiar guift giuen to the elect alone Beza in Conf. c. 4. sect 20. Faith is the guift of God proper and peculiar to the elect alone Bucer in Matthaei 16. They are safe for euer who once haue gotten true faith Musculus in locis titul de fide Faith in Christ is onely of the elect Zanchius de Praedestinat c. 4. to 7. The reprobates neuer Reprobates neuer beleiue truely truely beleiue in Christ And the same is the common doctrine of the Protestants THE CONFERENCE Scripture plainely saieth that the reprobate Simon Magus did beleiue was baptized cleeued to Philippe and was astonished at the miracles wrought by S. Philippe that euen they who cannot be recalled to pennance were once illuminated Catholiks say the same Protestants plainely say that Simon Magus did not beleiue at all was wholy faithlesse indeed wanted faith indeed beleiued not had not true faith beleiued onely with mouth not with hart that onely the elect are illuminated vnto faith that reprobates neuer truely beleiue and that it maketh no matter that the Scripture absolutely saieth the contrarie These are so opposite to Scripture as some Protestants confesse it See lib. 2. c. 30. ART XXII WHETHER FAITH BE by hearing SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. Rom. 10. ver 15. Faith then is by hearing and hearing is by Faith is by hearing the word of Christ. CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME Councel of Trent Sess 6. c. 6. They are disposed to iustice whiles stirred vp and holpen by Gods grace conceauing faith by hearing they are freely moued to God PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Whitaker l. 1. de Scriptura c. 11. sect 4. All true faith cometh Faith not by preachers from the Scripture not by the labour of the Preachers Againe All the Fathers with one voice teach that faith riseth of the Scriptures onely not of the authoritie of the Church Et c. 13. sect 8. Reading maketh that we may know the Scriptures and the doctrine of the Scriptures Et Cont. 145. cap. 8. Faith riseth of the Of the Scripture onely Scripture alone And in the same place thus expoundeth the aforesaied wordes of the Apostle By hearing that is by the sense of the Scripture rightly vnderstood Zuinglius in Exegesi to 2. fol. 347. We do not thinke that faith can be gotten by words but that faith being mistresse the words which are proposed may be vnderstood De Prouidentia cap. 6. tom 1. When Paul writeth to the Romans that faith is Not by outward hearing by hearing after the same manner he attributeth that to the nearer and more knowne cause to vs which belongeth onely to the Holie Ghost not to outward preaching The like words hath Oecolampadius apud Schlusselburg libro 1. Theol. Caluin art 1. Caluin in Ioan. 5. vers 9. 3 Christ is not otherwaies rightly knowne but by the Scripture THE CONFERENCE Scripture expressely teacheth that Faith is by hearing and addeth there also that it is not without a Preacher The same say Catholiks Protestants expressely teach that faith is not otherwaies then by Scripture that it is by onely Scripture by reading that it is not by the labour of the preachers not by the authoritie of the Church that it is by the Holie Ghost and not by externall preaching that it cannot be gotten by words ART XXIII WHETHER FAITH IS or can euer be lost SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. Luke 8. vers 13. For they vpon the rock Such as when they Some beleiue for a time heare with ioye receaue the word and these haue no rootes because for a time they beleiue and in time of temptation they reuoult Ioan. 20. vers 29. Then he saieth to Thomas Be not incredulous S. Thomas lost his faith but faithfull And v. 25. Thomas saied Vnlesse I see c. I will not beleiue 1. Tim. 1. v. 19. Certaine haue made shipwrak about faith c. 4. Others leese faith v. 1. In the last times certaine shall departe from the faith c. 6. v. 10. Certaine haue erred from the faith
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
maintaineth Luther l. de votis to 2. f. 279. To teach that workes are holesome Not profitable or profitable is diuelish and Apostaticall from faith seing faith alone is necessarie and profitable In 1. Petri. 1. to 5. fol. 453. All which tend to that end that we may learne that we cannot be holpen by workes In c. 40. Isaiae in Schlusselburg tom 7. Catal. Haeret. fol. 320. When workes are condemned they are Vnprofitable so condemned as vnprofitable to Christian iustice and likewise to saluation Postilla in Dom. 3. post Pascha fol. 257. Nether will anie workes helpe thither he meaneth to iustification In die AsceÌ„sionis f. 267. Workes do nothing at all for pietie and iustification Doe nothing In dom 13. post Trinit Albeit I had all the workes of Abraham Noë and all the beloued fathers they would profit me nothing In Dom. 13. he saieth that workes profit a man nothing In festo S. Annae that they doe nothing Et Serm. de 10. Leprosis to 7. he writeth Let him know that his workes are not necessarie and profitable to himselfe but onely to his neighbour Nor yet content to haue taught that good workes are vnprofitable he addeth that they are pernitious to saluation For thus writeth Hospin in Concordia discordi c. 20. Rorarius sheweth that Luther alwaies vsed this proposition Good workes pernicious to saluation Good workes are pernitious to saluation And the same confesse the Ministers of Saxonie in Colloq Aldeburg p. 205. and Luther himselfe intimateth in c. 40. Isaiae to 3. in these words The iustice and wisdome of the flesh is condemned as vnprofitable yea pernitious to obtaine iustice and saluation For by iustice of the flesh he vseth to vnderstand good workes And so Schlusselburg in the place now cited vnderstood him The Ministers of the Elector in Colloq Aldeburg p. 293. speake thus Amsdorfius hath written and after him or Pernitious to saluation by him Flacâ—ius workes are not onely not necessarie but also pernitious to saluation and his words are at large related by Coccius to 1. p. 1113. Besides they adde p. 121. that the saied Amsdarfius wrote a booke with this title Good workes are hurtfull to saluation And that no man may say that Amsdorfius spoake or wrote this onely of the trust of workes himselfe declareth saying That good workes euen according to their nature or Perniâ—ious euen of their nature and substance substance as they are commanded of God are pernitious to saluation And the same euasion reiecteth also Hospinian in place before alledged Kemnitius also in Schlusselburg to 7. Catal. Haeret. p. 529. confesseth that in their Church this doctrine is spread The good workes of the iust are pernitious to saluation The same confesseth liber Concordiae c. 4. Hutterus in Analysi Confess Augustan disput 13. Adamus Francisci in Margarita Theol. loco 10. Reineccius tom 4. Armaturae c. 15. Lubeccenses apud Schlusselburg to 7. Catal. Haeret. p. The law vnprofitable to iustification 607. The law is not onely not necessarie to iustification but altogether vnprofitable Gerlachius to 2. disput 14. The morall now since the fall of man is so vnprofitable to iustifie and saue as c. Caluin in Resp ad Sadolet p. 126. Surely we denie that in iustifying mans workes are worth a haire Againe we denie that workes haue any thing to doe in iustifying a man In Rom. 8. v. 3. The law hath no force at all to giue iustice Coccius tomo 1. pag. 1113. repeateth these words of Rather hindreth Luther out of his Sermon in Natali Christi It is now made euident that to this new natiuitie worke nothing but rather hinder precepts laws doctrine free will good workes innocent life c. THE CONFERENCE Scripture plainely saieth that pietie is profitable to all things and hath promise of the life to come The same say Catholiks Protestants plainely say that good helpe nothing to iustification or saluation are not worth a haire haue nothing to doe there that they are not profitable worke nothing to saluation profit nothing to saluation that they are vnprofitable yea pernitious to iustice and saluation and that of their owne nature as they are commanded of God and that to teach that workes are profitable is diuelish and Apostaticall from faith ART XV. WHETHER GOOD WORKES be a cause of saluation SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. Math. 25. v. 23. Because thou hast beene faithfull ouer a few Workes cause of entrance into ioye And of possessing the kingdome things I will place the ouer maniethings enter into the ioy of thy Lord. Et v. 34. Possesse you the kingdome prepared for you from the foundation of the world for I was an hungred and you gaue me to eate Rom. 8. v. 10. The bodie indeed is dead because of sinne but the spirit liueth because of iustification 2. Cor. 4. v. 17. For that our tribulation which presently is momentarie and light worketh aboue measure excedingly an eternall Tribulation worketh glorie weight of glorie in vs. Et c. 7. v. 10. The sorrow that is according to God worketh pennance vnto saluation that is stable but the sorrow of the world worketh death Gal. 6. v. 8. He that soweth in his flesh of the flesh also shall Life reaped of sowing in spirit reape corruption but he that soweth in the spirit of the spirit shall reape life euerlasting Philippens 1. v. 27. And in nothing be ye terrified of the aduersaries Men worke their saluation which to them is cause of perdition but to you of saluation and this of God Et c. 2. v. 12. With feare and trembling worke your saluation CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME D. Stapleton l. 8. de Iustific c. 34. Good workes are truely and properly the cause ether of reconciliation or of saluation PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Whitaker lib. 2. de Scriptura cap. 14. sect 5. The iust The iust not rewarded for for workes are not rewarded for the workes of iustice which they haue done Perkins in Serie Causarum c. 57. Saluation dependeth not of workes but of our faith Luther in Gal. 2. to 5. f. 308. Thus are we deliuered from sinne Saluation dependeth not of workes Life not giuen for workes Nons saued for workes iustified and life euerlasting is giuen vs not for our merits and workes but for faith In Catechismo f. 687. Surely our workes do nothing to saluation Illyricus in Claue part 2 tractat 6. None shal be saued for his workes Herbrandus in Compendio theol loco de bonis operibus Life euerlasting is giuen to vs freely by Christ and not for our good workes Zuinglius in Ioan. 5. tom 4. Workes do not saue do not Workes saue not iustifie Caluin in Rom. 4. v. 16. If the heauenlie inheritance come to Heauen cometh not by workes Affliction no cause of saluation Workes not in parte cause of saluation No true cause vs by workes faith will fall the
and Luther in Galat. 1. fol. 215. The Confession of Zwizerland addeth that they were holie Churches of God Author Respons ad theses Vadimont pag. 533. affirmeth that they fell not from true faith And Perkins tractat de Baptismo col 819. auoucheth that they were the sonnes of God But if they who denied the resurrection kept the name of a true Church remained the sonnes of God were not excluded from Gods mercie fell not from faith surely ether the resurrection is no article at all of faith or not necessarie ether to grace or saluation THE CONFERENCE Scripture plainely teacheth that there shal be resurrection of the dead and that the contrarie doctrine denieth Christs resurrection and ouerthroweth all Christian faith The same say Catholiks Protestants plainely teach that the more wittie the Gentils were the more they laughed at the resurrection that the more learned men now are the more they thinke the resurrection to be a fable that Luther and Erasmus were not free from this leauen and that in this matter a faithfull soule is rare that Schegkius openly denied resurrection of this bodie which is indeed to denie all resurrection seing resurrection is not but of the same which died and yet was condemned of no Protestants yea excused of some that manie of them both drunke and sober let fall such speaches from them as do shew that they beleiue not the resurrection of the dead That amongst the Sacramentaries two principall Apostles Caluin and Farel did not beleiue the resurrection of this flesh and consequently not the resurrection of the dead that Sozinus was not satisfied about the resurrection of the flesh that manie of them denie the resurrection of the blood and lasty that they auouch that those Christians who denied the resurrection of the dead fell not from true faith not from the Church or fauour of God THE SVMME OF THIS CHAPTER of mans Soule What we haue rehearsed in this chapter plainely sheweth that Protestants thinke farre otherwise of mans soule then the holie Scripture doth For the Scripture and Catholiks with it teacheth that the soule of man is the forme of the bodie is immortall that there shal be resurrection of the dead which Protestants denie It sheweth also that Protestants play the theiues towards their owne soules whilest take from it immortalitie and the nature of the forme of the bodie and denie the resurrectioÌ„ of the dead And hitherto we haue shewed that Protestants in 260. articles contradict the expresse words of the holie Scripture it remaineth that we shew that they also contradict the true sense of the words which we will doe by twoe wayes the one by generall reasons the other by the plaine confession of The Scope of the second booke some Protestants touching manie of the foresaied articles End of the first booke THE SECOND BOOKE IN WHICH IT IS SHEVVED THAT PROTESTANTS CONTRADICT THE TRVE sense of holie Scripture CHAPTER I. THAT PROTESTANTS CONTRADICT the true sense of Scripture because in so manie things they gainsay the expresse words thereof FIRST of all we must consider that when the holie Scripture and Catholiks both of purpose intend clearely to declare their meaning touching the foresaied 260. articles in controuersie they do iumpe ether in the very selfe same or inequiualent words and that coÌ„trariwise wheÌ„ the Scripture and the learnedest of the Protestants intend to expresse their meaning coÌ„cerning the saied articles they vse quite opposite and contrarie speaches Which is a manifest signe that the Catholiks doctrine about the saied articles is the selfe same with the doctrine of the holie Scripture and the Protestants doctrine quite contrarie thereunto For sithence this agreemeÌ„t of Catholiks with the Scripture in words and speach and disagreement of Protestants in the same falleth out so often and in so manie and weightie matters it cannot be attributed to chaÌ„ce because chaÌ„ce as the Philosophers 2. Physâ—c teach is in those things onely which fall out seldome And therefore it proceedeth of the nature of these sentences or doctrines whose agreement or disagreement with the sentence of the holie Scripture breedeth this so frequent agreement or disagreement with the words or speaches of the same Wherefore thus I argue in forme of syllogisme These doctrines which when they are of purpose to be expressed clearely distinctly and as they differ from all other doctrines do of their nature require to be expressed with the very same or equiualent words are in deed one and the selfe same doctrine And contrariwise those doctrines which when they are to be so expressed of their nature require to be expressed with quite opposite and contrarie words or speaches are in deed opposite and contrarie doctrines But the Scriptures and the Catholiks doctrines touching the foresaied 260. articles are of the first kind and the Scripture and Protestants doctrines of the second Therefore they are all one and these quite contrarie The Maior of first propositioÌ„ is euideÌ„t For how could twoe doctrines or opinioÌ„s of their nature require to be expressed with the selfe same or equiualent words if there were any differeÌ„ce betwene them For vndoubtely that difference would exact some difference in the words and those words which clearely and fully expresse the one doctrine could not clearely and fully expresse the other And much lesse could one the selfe same speach clearely expressely theÌ„ both if they were contrarie one to the other And therefore certaine it is that twoe coÌ„trarie doctrines cannot of their nature require to be expressed by the selfe same or equiualent words And consequently also it is most certaine that the Scriptures and Catholiks doctrines which touching these 260. articles of their nature require to be expressed with the selfe same or equiualent words are not opposite one to the other But those doctrines which when they are to be clearely and distinctly expressed of their nature require to be expressed with opposite and contrarie speeches must needs also of their nature be contrarie one to the other For els why should they of their nature require to be expressed by contrarie speaches And the opposition which is betwene the speaches wherewith they require to be signified riseth of the oppositioÌ„ which is betwene the doctrines themselues The Minor or second proposition is proued First by the reason alreadie made Because it cannot come by chance that in so manie and so weightie matters when Catholiks and ProtestaÌ„ts do of purpose clearely distinctly expresse their opinioÌ„s those should agree in words and speach with the holie Scripture and these should disagree This agreement therefore and disagreement in words must needs rise of the very nature of their opinions Secondly it may be proued by examples but for breuities sake I will be content with one That the Protestants opinion touching the Eucharist or that which Christ after his last supper gaue with his hands to be eaten when it is clearely and dinstinctly to be expressed as it differreth from the
For from whence might they better draw their dreggs So plainelie he confesseth that his doctrine in the foresaied points contradicted the bookes of Machabes Tobie and Ecclesiasticus And notwithstanding S. Austin whome †Caluin 4. Instit c. 14. §. 26. Protestants account the best witnesse of antiquitie clearelie testifieth that manie ages agoe the holie Church held the bookes of Machabes for Canonicall Scripture For thus he writeth of them lib. 18. de Ciuitat c. 36. Which not Iewes but the Church holdeth for Canonicall And the like he saieth lib. 1. cont Gaudent cap. 23. Lib. de doctrin Christ c. 8. l. 2. Retract c. 4. and otherwhere Besides manie Protestantt as Caluin in Antidot cit p. 266. Whitaker Contr. 3. q. 6. c. 3. Perkins de Symbol p. 787. and also Hyperius Zanchius Lubbertus Hospinian Rainolds Feild and others alledged in the Protestants Apologie Tract 1. Sect. 3. confesse that the Councel of Carthage where S. Austin was present and subscribed thereto did reckon the bookes of Machabes in the nūber of Canonicall Scripture And to omit all other arguments drawne out of the Scripture and Fathers for the infallibilitie of the Church the Protestants themselues eftsoones confesse that the Church can discerne true Scriptures from false and that we are bound to yeeld to her iudgment For thus saieth Luther l. de Captiuit to 2. fol. 84. This indeed hath the Church that she can discerne The Church can discerne the word of God Hath authoritie to iudge the word of God from the word of men as Austin confesseth that he beleiued the Ghospell being moued by the authoritie of the Church The Confession of Wittenberg cap. de Eccles The Church hath authoritie to iudge of all doctrines And cap. de Concilijs She hath an assured promisse of the perpetuall presence of Christ and she is gouerned of the holie Ghost Melancthon Respons ad Acta Ratisbon tom 3. pag. 732. We acknowledge this authoritie of testifying the Apostolicall Scriptures or discerning the writings of the Apostles from counterfait doth agree to the true Church Caluin de vera ref p. 232. I denie not but that it is the proper office of Church to discerne true The proper office of the Church Scriptures from counterfeit Peter Martyr Praefat. 1. Epist ad Corinth We will easily graunt that the ancient Church was indued so much with the holie Ghost that by his leading and directiō they easily discerned betwene those which were proposed to them which were the true and sincere words of God and by this spirituall power they distinguished the Canon of Scriptures from apocryphall bookes And in locis Class 1. c. 6. § 6. We acknowledge the office of the Church to be that being indued with Gods Spirit she may distinguish the true and sincere bookes of holie writ from counterfeit and apocryphall Iuel in Defens of the Apologie pag. 204. The Church of God had the spirit of wisdome She hath the spirit of wisdome Can discerne true Scriptures whereby she might discerne true Scriptures from false Fulke in his Answere to a false Cathol p. 5. The Church of Christ indeed can discerne true Scriptures from false Perkins de Serm. Dom. tom 2. col 252. The Church hath the guift of iudging of greatest matters She can iudge of the booke of Scripture Hath the guift of iudging which are Canonicall which are not of the spirits of men and of their doctrines and therefore surely can iudge which companie of men is the true Church which is not Whitaker Cont. 1. q. 3. c. 1. pag. 315. We denie not that it belongeth to the Church to approue to acknowledge to receaue to promulgate to commend the Scriptures to all her children and we say that this testimonie is true and ought to be admitted of all Cap. 2. pag. 316. It is the office of the Church to iudge and discerne true sincere and right Scriptures from false counterfait and bastard And for to discharge Hath the spirit of Christ to distinguish this office she hath the Spirit of Christ by which she may distinguish trueth from lyes she knoweth the voice of her Spouse she is most iuditious and can discerne spirits Cap. 5. p. Her tradition conuinceth 322. I denie not that the Tradition of the Church is an argumēt by which it may be cōuinced which kookes are Canonicall which not Canonicall cap. 6. pag. 323. The Church hath the Spirit of God by which being taught she heareth the voice of he Spouse and acknowledgeth his doctrine cap. 7. pag. 324. Indeed we may Her authoritie cōpelleth be compelled by the authoritie of the Church to acknowledge the Canonicall Scripture I say as I often saied before that we are compelled by the authoritie of the Church to beleiue these bookes to be Canonicall And cap. 9. pag. 326. We graunt with Ireney A sound demonstration that the authoritie of the Church is a sound and breife demūstration a posteriori of Canonicall doctrine And l. 1. de Scriptura c. 1. sect 9. he affirmeth that the testimonie of the Church ought to be receaued and who receaueth it not is guiltie of sacriledge And lib. 2. cap. 4. sect 4. p. 227. I say the testimonie of the Church is sufficient to refute and conuince those who thinke amisse of the Scriptures The like he hath ib. p. 218. 228. and and other where often Out of which confessions of Protestants of the authorite and power of the Church to discerne and distinguish true Scripture from false we may thus argue It belongeth to the Church yea it is her function and proper office to discerne true Scriptures from false she hath that she can distinguish the word of God from the word of man she is taught of the holie Ghost indued with Gods Spirit hath the guift of iudging the spirit of wisdome for to discerne by her tradition it may be conuinced which bookes are Canonicall which not by her authoritie we may be compelled to acknowledge the Canonicall Scripture her authoritie is a sound demonstration of Canonicall doctrine her testimonie ought to be receaued of all and who receaueth it not is guiltie of sacriledge But this holie Church manie ages agoe hath iudged the bookes of Machabes to be Canonicall Therefore they are such The Maior or first Proposition is the confession of Protestants now rehearsed and the Minor is confirmed by the foresaied testimonie of S. Austin and the confessions of the forenamed Protestants And howsoeuer Protestants The Cath. aduantage ouer Protest will delude this argument they must needs confesse that Catholiks haue the aduantage of them in that Protestāts produce no testimonie which forceth Catholiks to reiect anie booke which anie Father testifieth to haue beene anciently held of the Church for Canonicall as Catholiks produce the testimonie of S. Iames which maketh the Lutherans to reiect his epistle which other Protestants confesse to be Canonicall and an other testimonie out of the bookes
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
from euill to good because it is saied absolutely Zacharie 1. ver 3. Conuert to me saieth the Lord of hostes and I will conuert to you they limitate this onely to outward conuersion Peter Martyr in Roman 11. The Prophet spoake not of inward iustification but of outward conuersion to good workes If we proue that we are not infallibly certaine of forgiuenesse Touching Iustification of sinnes or eternall punishment because it is saied absolutely Ioel. 2. v. 14. Who knoweth if he God will conuert and forgiue and the like is saied Ion. 3. v. 9. Kemnice in locis part 2. tit de Argum. limitateth this to forgiuenesse of temporall punishment and saieth All the speach of the Prophet tendeth to that he treateth of remission of temporall punishment In like sorte he limitateth manie other places of Scripture in which forgiuenesse is attributed to workes onely to forgiuenesse of temporall punishment That also of Tobie cap. 4. Almes deliuereth from death he restraineth to temporall death And in like manner promises made to good workes he limitateth to certaine blessings in this world or in the next but will not haue them extended to eternall life And finally wheresoeuer in the Scripture anie man praieth God to iudge or reward him according to his iustice he limitateth that to the iustice of his cause or quarell with other men If we proue that euerlasting happines is giuen for good Touching eternall life workes because S. Iames saieth cap. 1. ver 25. He that hath remained in it not made a forgetfull hearer but a doer of the worke this man shal be blessed in his deed they limitate this to blessednes in this life Schlusselburg to 8. Catal. Haeret. p. 497. thus answereth to this place To be blessed is not alwaies taken in holie writ for eternall saluation but for blessednes in this life If we proue that we must not onely beleiue but also keepe the law because Christ saieth Math. 5. ver 18. I am not come to break the law but to fulfill Caluin ibid. answereth Here is treated of doctrine not of life Touching doctrine we must not imagin anie abrogation of the law by the coming of Christ And v. 19. where is saied One iot or one tittle shall not passe of the law till all be fulfilled Caluin ibid. saieth I answere that word be done or fulfilled is not referred to mens liues but to the solide trueth of doctrine If we proue that our consciences are obliged by the particular Touching laws of men iust lawes of Princes because it is absolutely saied Rom. 3. v. 2. He that resisteth power resisteth the ordinance of of God and v. 5. Be subiect of necessitie not onely for wrath but also for conscience sake they limitate these words to the power of Magistrates in generall Daneus Contr. 5. p. 1127. To obey the Magistrate in generall is a matter of conscience but to obey this or that law of the Magistrate wholy and in all points we are not bound in conscience And Whitaker libr. 8. cont Dureum sect vlt. We must obey the Magistrate in generall for conscience sake because by a generall precept we are commanded to obey the Magistrate but particular lawes of Magistrates haue no command ouer our consciences In like sorte Caluin 4. Instit c. 10. § 5. Wherefore thus in forme I frame my ninth argument who not onely in so manie and so great matters do contradict such words of holie Scripture and in such sense as we haue seene but also take so much vpon them as limitate and restraine so manie and so weightie sentences of Scripture they are to be thought to gayne say the right sense of Scripture But Protestants do so Therefore c. CHAPTER X. THAT PROTESTANTS CHANGE manie absolute Propositions of Scripture into conditionals THE tenth argument shal be taken from that Protestants are forced to change manie and weightie absolute Propositions of Scripture into conditionals For if we proue that absolutely God will not the death Touching God of a sinner but rather his life and conuersion because he absolutely saieth Ezechiel 18. and 33. I will not the death of a sinner but rather that he be conuerted and liue Caluin l. de Praedestinat pag. 706. answereth Whereas the Prophets speach exhorteth to pennace no maruaile if God say he will haue all to be saued but the mutuall relation betwene threats and promises sheweth that such kind of speaches are conditionall So the promises which inuite all to saluation shew not what simply and precisely God hath decreed in his secret counsaile but what he is readie to doe to all that are brought to faith and pennance Touching the Church if we proue that the gates of Touching the Church hell shall not preuaile against her because Christ doth absolutely so promise Math. 16. ver 16. Besnagus l. de statu Eccles cap. 8. and others adde this condition If she forsake not her dutie and the word of God If we proue that simply we must heare the Pastors of the Church because Christ saieth Luk. 10. ver 16. He that heareth you heareth me and he that despiseth you despiseth me Caluin ib. addeth this condition If the Church do faithfully her dutie If we proue that the Church is simply infallible because 1. Timoth. 3. she is simply called the pillar and strength of trueth Vallada in Apol. cont Episcop Lusonensem cap. 20. answereth The visible Church cannot be the pillar of trueth but as it is grounded vpon the doctrine of the Apostles Vorstius in Antibell pag. 143. The Apostle speaketh conditionally to wit as long as the Church perseuereth to be the Church of Christ Academia Nemaus resp ad Tournon p. 546. Let it be a true and faithfull Church if it discerne trueth from falsitie by vndoubted and authenticall trueth If we proue that the Church is simply to be heard because Christ saieth Math. 18. ver 17. If he heare not the Church let him be to thee as an Ethnick and Publican White in his way p. 78. answereth The sense is that we must obediently heare the Church and obey her not simply in all things but conditionally as long as she speaketh agreably to Gods word And Author respons ad Theses Vademont pag. 688. The answere is easie and readie As long as the Church teacheth the word of God she is to be heard but her authoritie is none when she seperateth her selfe from Gods word And when Bellarmin had brought manie places of Scripture to proue that the Church cannot faile Vorstius libr. cit pag. answereth In them certaine conditionall promises are proposed vnto vs by which eternall saluation and securitie against Satan death c. is promised of God to all and euerie faithfull to wit as farre forth and as long as they shal be such or perseuer in true faith If we proue that there are some doers of the law as Touching Gods law well as there are hearers because Saint Paul saieth absolutely Rom. 2.
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
dead of praier to the dead of forbiddacne of marriage and other such like doctrines This consent we denie to be a note of the Church for in all these things they did dot consent with the Ancient fathers with mutuall consent Apostolicall Church Duditius in Beza epist 1. saieth thus If it be trueth which the ancient Fathers haue professed with mutuall consent that is all on the Papists side Thus they touching their dissent from the Fathers In like manner they confesse that they dissent from the Church and Councells For thus P. Martyr in 1. Cor. 3. That The Church alwaiâ—s praied for dead The ancient Church The Church at 500. also vseth to be obiected to vs. That the Church hath alwaies praied for the dead which truely I doe not denie Whitaker CoÌ„t 2. q. 5. c. 7. I answere True it is that Caluin saieth and the Centurie writers that the ancient Church erred in manie things as of limbus of free will of merit of works and the other things before rehearsed Agayne I say that the Church which was 500. or 600. years after Christ did not hould in all points the doctrine of the Apostles For she held some errors Casaubon epist ad Cardin. Perron It was a most ancient custome that in the publike praiers of the Church remembrance should be made of the The ancient Church dead and rest praied for them of God The ancient Church by this means approued her faith of the resurrection to come Zuinglius in Elencho tom 2. speaking of the ceremonies In the beginning of the Church Generall Councells of baptisme saieth We know that in the beginning of the Church these things were vsed The like they confesse touching Councells For thus Confessio Anglica art 21. Generall Councells may erre and sometimes haue erred euen in the things which belonge to the rule of pietie Vrban Regius in Interpret All Councells The ancient Councels loc to 1. It is more cleare then the light that all Councells haue pernitiously erred Caluin 4 Insit c. 9. § 10. There is some thing wanting euen in those ancient and purer Councells There was a notable example hereof in the Councell of Nice Whitaker Cont. 2. q. 7. c 7. auoucheth that the Councell of Nice and Chalcedon haue erred Nether doe Protestants onely dissent froÌ„ the vniforme consent of Fathers Councels and Church but also they make small account thereof For thus P. Martyr in loc Tit. Not Fathers euen agreing Script § 16. But at least say they then are the Fathers to be allowed when they agree amongst themselues No not then alwaies Et lib. de votis As long as we abide in the Fathers we shall alwaies remayne in the same errors Whitaker Cont. 1. q. 5. c 8. The agreing exposition of the Fathers is no rule of expouÌ„ding Not witnesses without exceptioÌ„ Scriptures Cont. 2. q. 7. c. 7. We denie not but the Fathers be witnesse of the trueth but so as they be not without exception for all haue erred l. 6. cont Dur. sect 3. The consent of Fathers is not sure and free from error Et ad Demonst 7. Sanderi Not the whole Senate of Fathers Nether will we thinke that thou hast demonstrated any thing though thou couldest bring the whole Senate of Fathers against vs. Rainolds in his Conference p. 151. Trueth is not to Not all be tried by consent of Fathers Psal 150. If not one or twoe of the Fathers but all haue thought it nor thought it onely but haue written it nor written it onely but thought it not obscurely but clearely nor seldome but often nor for a time but perpetually yet their consent were not secure And he termeth vniuersalitie antiquitie consent rotten postes Yea in his 5. Thesis he will haue the Roman Church to be no true Church because she forbiddeth the Scriptures to be expounded contrarie to that sense which our holie mother the Church doth hould or contrarie to the vniforme consent of Fathers By which forbiddance saieth he are often reiected those senses which the spirit by the tenor of the words and sentences doth teach to be the meaning of the holie text MortoÌ„ in Apol. part 1. l. 1. c. 69. Sometimes neglecting the persons of the Fathers it is most safe to fech the prime antiquitie out of the Apostolicall writings Which is saieth he the Protest defense to reiect the Fathers prore and puppe of the Protestants defense Caluin 4. Instit c. 9. § 12. Let no names of CouÌ„cells of Pastours of Bishops hinder vs that we trie not all the spirits of them all with the square of Gods word for to finde whether they be of God Daneus CoÌ„tr. p. 289. Touching the saying of the Fathers this is our breif answere to them all We regard not what the Fathers haue saied but how Saying of Fathers not reguarded truely Et Cont. 5. p. 698. We must not looke what the Fathers haue written but what they should haue writteÌ„ Vorstius in Antib p. 395. The Protestants doe not thinke that they ought much to care what the ancient Fathers haue thought or written of this Not to be cared for matter Pareus l. 5. de Iust c. 5. I say that Scripture is to be expouÌ„ded by Scripture not by Fathers Et l. 2. de Grat. c. 14. Though all the Fathers agreed well yet were it weake Reineccius to 1. Arm. Not all fathers together c. 9 WheÌ„ all Doctors of the Church with a common consent doe teach some thing to come from Apostolicall tradition is that to be beleiued to be Apostolicall tradition No. Gerlachius disp 22. de Eccles The Fathers haue straied from the path of trueth not in these onely wherein they disagree with themselues and with others but in those also which they haue vniformely deliuered Celius Secundus de Amplit regni Dei lib. 1. Should then the Their authoritie nothing at all authoritie of so manie ancient Fathers the consent of ages auaile nothings Nothing at all Polanus in thes part 3. p. 546. We cite them â—estimonies of Fathers â—specially when we handle points of religion controuerted with Papists not for our sake but for Papists that we may refute Papists by the Fathers whome they haue Fathers cited as Heathens made their iudges as in ould time the Fathers refuted the HeatheÌ„ by the testimonies of the Sybills of Poets Philosophers orators and Heathen Historians As therefore the Fathers vsed the testimonies of Heathens against HeatheÌ„s So we produce the testimonies of Fathers against Papists Muscul in loc tit de Scrip. As for me I require not the testimonies of Fathers for to giue authoritie to Canonicall Scripture and to make distinction betwene it and the Fathers writings contenting my selfe with the authoritie and canon of the Scripture it selfe But because our aduersaries endeauour to trouble the trueth by pretext of Fathers I well alledge them where they are against their endeauours but when they cite any thing
so manifest that much of their doctrine was in ould time condemned of the Fathers for heresie as themselues confesse it For touching the heresies of Aërius thus writeth Bucan Instit loc 42. Did the Fathers rightly reckon the opinion Protest confesse they hould the heresies Of Aerius of Aërius who made no distinction betwene a Bishop and a Preist amongst heresies No more surely then these other his opinions 1. That we ought not to make praiers or offerings for the dead 2. That dead Saints are not to be praied vnto 3. That there ought not to be anie set dayes of fasting Beza respons ad Serau c. 32. Surely Serauia if thou doest thinke Aërius to haue beene an Heretike in those three former points all the reformed Churches this day are Heretiks to thee as well as they are to the Papists Vorstius in Antibel p. 201. Aërius was vniustly condemned of heresie by the Fathers Angelocrator l. 7. de chronol The opinions of Aërius a most learned man that he reiected praier for dead and set fast and made a Preist equall to a Bishop were to be borne withall vnlesse with Aërius he had impugned the Trinitie Whitaker Cont. 2. q. 5. cap. 7. Epiphanius indeed and Austin after him put Aërius amongst Heretiks But if he held nothing but these points he was no Hereike Cartwright Replica 2. p. 618. If it must preuaile against me that Aerius an Heretiks would make a Bishop and Priest all one whome Epiphanius a Catholike thought to be distinct and different by the word of God or that Austin reckoned it amongst the heresies of of Aërius by this way will rise a great preiudice to the trueth wherewith we beleiue that we ought not to pray for the dead nor offer sacrifice for them For Epiphanius to 1. haer 7. calleth this an heresie of Aërius and of the same iudgement is Austin haer 51. which notwithstanding is orthodox doctrine Gratianus Antiiesuita part 1. pagin 528. Surely if one take away those things which Aërius is rather feigned then proued to haue held with the AriaÌ„s about the diuinitie of Christ there wil be nothing which may be iustly and deseruedly reprehended in his doctrine Daneus in libr. Augustini de Haeres capit 53. The Aërians were quickly supprest because they were oppugned by the common consent of all Bishops 1. Aërius taught that a Preist did not differ from a Bishop in order and degree Which doctrine I see not why it should be condemned 2. That praiers are not to be made for the dead because they caÌ„not be holpen by such suffrages of ours Why Christians should not admit this I see not 3. That fasts are not be appointed vpon certaine set and solemne dayes yearely as was the fast of lent for that all this kind of aniuersarie fasts is superstitious and not to be vsed of Christians Which surely is true 4. That there is no pascha among ChristiaÌ„s which is to be kept and celebrated Nether ought this opinion of the Aërians to be condemned because it is true Wherefore we haue not noted these men among Heretiks Touching the heresies of Iouinian thus writeth the Of Iouinian same Daneus l. cit c. 82. Iouinian did equall mariage with single life and virginitie for that both of theÌ„ are of theÌ„selues indiffâ—eÌ„t and no parte of Gods true worship as also because c. This why it should be erroneus nether Hierome proueth nor any other of the Fathers hath proued Whitaker loc cit IouiniaÌ„ thought that the choice of meates and fasting was not meritorious I answere Is the choice of meates meritorious Follie. To fast for this end to merit eternall life is to abuse fasting We willingly agree with IouiniaÌ„ in this point IouiniaÌ„ taught that mariage was equall to virginitie in dignitie and merit So also Paul so Christ so we all teach Indeed Hierome inuetheth against Iouinian for this cause HuÌ„fre ad Rat. 3. Camp We grant it is true which Sanders saieth of the Iouinians and Protestants That fasting or abstinence froÌ„ some certaine meats profiteth nothing Touching the heresies of Vigilantius thus Humfre loc cit Of Vigilantius He taught that the reliks of Saints are not to be worshiped And we also Vigilantius taught that there was no need to light torches or to wachat the sepulchres of Martyres And why should not we teach the same and much rather He taught that Saints are not to be worshipped nor that men ought superstitiously to runne to their monuments We say the same Vorstius in Antibel p. 162. The heresies alledged of Bellarmin are indeed no heresies for example which he alledgeth out of Hierome touching Iouinian and Vigilantius and out of Epiphanius touching Aerius and some few others Angelocrator loc cit Vigilantius a Frenchman but a most learned Prelat in Spaine denieth that Saints are to be reuerenced and would haue riches to be preferred before pouertie Against him Hierome wrote Beza in 2. part resp ad Acta Montisb Hierome defending an ill cause that is inuocation of Saints against Vigilantius c. Luther in Postilla Exalt Sanctae Crucis Vigilantius wrote of this matter worshippe of reliks against whome Hierome earnestly opposed himselfe which I wish had not beene done and if Vigilantius his booke were extant as Hieroms is I beleiue Vigilantius wrote more Christianely of this matter then Hierome Serranus cont Hayum part 3. The discreet Reader seeth that Hierome in that booke against Vigilantius passeth not onely the boundes of modestie but also of trueth Iuel in DefeÌ„s Apol. part 1. c. 2. sect 3. Hierome reproueth Vigilantius that he reprehended wakes inuocation of Saints worshippe of relikes lights and other such things Of Origen As for the heresies of Origen thus writeth Spalatensis l. 5. de Repub. c. 6. n. 44. Origen was shroudly taxed of Theophilus because he held that the Sacraments did not worke sanctification by the worke as I may so speake wrought but onely by the worke of the worker and that God doth not vse materiall and insensible creatures to importe sanctification to men But Theophilus whilest he doth reproue this opinion or error of Origen is all c. And yet herein Protestants teach as Origen did as appeareth by what hath beene related l. 1. cap. 10. artic 7. Finally Daneus Contr. 4. pag. 770. confesseth to agree Of MessaliaÌ„s and NouatiaÌ„s with the Messalians that habituall concupiscence in the iust is sinne and with Nouatians that Christians are not to be anointed Thou seest Reader that Protestants plainely confesse that they defend the condemned doctrine of Aërius Iouinian Vigilantius Origen Messalians Nouatians and that S. Austin S. Hierome S. Epiphanians Fathers Bishops with common consent of all did coÌ„demne their doctrines for heresies and them for heretiks Whome I aduise to consider well those words of Beza written of a late Heretik epist 81. He plainely and without dissimulation houldeth and accounteth Origen Aërius Heluidius c. not for Heretiks but for
would not giue them faith or Christ that he might surely bring theÌ„ to their end by infidelitie as by the fruite of this reprobation they adde p. 128. We obiect that this doctrine is of it selfe so absurd and horrible that to proue and refute the horror thereof in a manner sufficieth to point at it They teach also that God doth not daÌ„ne meÌ„ for sinne as That â—e damneth not for sinne is shewed l. 1. c. 2. art 23. And yet Vrsin in Miscel p. 87. giueth this censure hereof This wicked and absurde doctrine wherewith he concludeth an other no lesse false and absurd That as manie wicked as haue perished doe perish or shall perish haue not perished doe not perish or shall perish for their sinnes but for incredultie onely Et Beza resp ad Acta Montiâ— part 2. p. 215. saieth that it is an intolerable speach that men are not damned for sinne Finally they teach that God by his omnipotencie cannot make that Christs bodie should be at once in diuers places as is shewed l. 1. c. 2. art 23. And yet liber Concordiae c. 5. saieth that it is horrible to say and heare that God not with all his omnipotent power can make that Christs bodie at the same can be substantially present in more then one place Thus much of their confessed blasphemies against God Touching Christ they teach that his humanitie is not Touching Christ to be worshipped or praied vnto l. 1. c. 3. art 3. Which to be blasphemous thus teacheth Hutter in Anal. Confes Aug. Blasphemie that Christs humanitie is not to be worshipped art 3. Away with that impious speach of Daneus blasphemously saying that Christs humane nature albeit personally vnited to the diuinitie is not capable of whorshippe or religious hope Gerlachius tom 2. disput 5. Now all the faithfull see the execrable impietie of the Caluinists who wickedly blaspheme that Christ as man is not to be worshipped or praied vnto Reineccius tom 2. Armat c. 37. saieth that the impietie of Daneus who denieth that Christs humanitie is religiously to be worshipped is to be refuted not by words but by thunderbolts yea with the fire of hell They teach that the humanitie of Christ or Christ as That Christ as man cannot giue life c. man hath no power to giue life to forgiue sinnes to worke miracles as we related l. 1. cap. 3. art 4. Which to be blasphemous thus confesseth Hutter in Anal. cit art 3. For not as the SacrameÌ„taries do wickedly auouch the of power miracles is to be attributed onely to the diuinitie of Christ but to his whole person and therefore to both natures together Gerlachius to 2. disp 4. By these now may appeare the impietie of the Caluinists for they take from Christ power to giue life Musculus in Hospin part 2. Hist f. 323. There is none but a plaine wicked Atheist who can denie that to forgiue sinnes is imparted to the finit humanitie of Christ They teach that Christ was ouerwhelmed with desperation That he despaired as is to be seene lib. 1. c. 3. art 11. Which Zuinglius in Histor passionis to 4. coÌ„fesseth to be blasphemie saying Away with their doctrine out of the Church of Christ who affirme that Christ on the Crosse despaired And Tilenus in Syntagm cap. 65. They are extremely infidels who despaire of their saluation They teach also that Christ died for the elect onely as That he died but for the elect hath beene shewed l. 1. c. 3. art 18. Which Lobechius disp 6. confesseth to be blasphemous in these words The Caluinists affirme that Christ died for the elect onely and not for all men By which blasphemie they not onely depriue Christ of a great parte of his honor and the Church of comfort but also coÌ„tradict the holie Ghost to his face The like hath Adamus Francisci loco 17. and Gerlachius disput 16. And Grauerus in Absurdis Caluin c. 5. sect 58. saieth that it is an absurd and blasphemous Caluinisticall doctrine Iames Andreae in Beza resp ad acta Montisb p. 212. saieth It is a horrible doctrine of Beza that Christ died not for the sinnes of the whole world Finally they teach that the blood of Christ wherewith That his blood is corrupted he redeemed vs is corrupted and now no more in being as appeareth l. 1. c. 3. art 20. of which doctrine thus pronounceth Schlusselburg lib. 1. Theol. Caluin art 2. This is a horrible blasphemie dishonorable to the blood of the Sonne of God with which we were redeemed Touching the Scripture they teach that it can be vnderstood Touching Scripture without the holie Ghost as is proued l. 1. c. 5. art 2. Which doctrine thus condemneth Casaubon Exercit. 16. cont Baron sect 215. Baronius addeth that the Scriptures cannot be vnderstood without the helpe of God and this he confirmeth with some testimonies of the Fathers as if there were anie Christian who denieth this or calleth it in doubt Concerning the Church they teach that she doth not Touching the Church perpetually continew as is proued l. 1. cap. 8. art 4. Which Whitaker Cont. 2. q. 3. c. 2. confesseth to be basphemous in these words Who denieth or doubteth that the Church is founded for euer and is to continew for euer he is no Christian Concerning Baptisme they teach that when water Touching Baptisme wanteth it may be ministred in anie other liquor as is to be seene l. 1. cap. 10. art 1. Which as blasphemous thus condemneth Hutter in Anal. Confess p. 466. Beza is blasphemous who affirmeth that he doth not against the will and pleasure of Christ who ether in administring baptisme vseth milke or anie other liquor whatsoeuer or in these countries where there is no vse of wine or if be nature he abhorre wine doth in the Lords supper vse anie other kinde of drinke Et p. 490. The liceÌ„ce which Beza of his owne head taketh was sacrilegious saying If there want water and yet the baptisme of some cannot be differred with edification nor ought not surely I would as well baptize with anie other liquor as with water The like iudgement hereof giueth Grauer in Absurdis Caluin c. 4. sec 6. They teach that Baptisme doth not giue grace and that the childreÌ„ of the faithfull are in the grace of God before they be baptized l. 1. c. 10. art 79. Which doctrine thus censureth Hutter in Anal cit art 13. It is the madnesse of the Sacramentarians who will haue that the grace of regeneratioÌ„ is not giuen by the vse of SacrameÌ„ts but that the children of the faithfull and elect haue it before The like saieth Grau l cit sect 10. Touching the holie Eucharist they say that it is not the Touching the Eucharist bodie and blood of Christ lib. 1. c. 11. art 1. Which to be blasphemie thus iudgeth Hutter in Anal. cit pag. 536. It is extreme impudencie desperate bouldnesse horrible blaspemie to oppose
a contradictorte proposition to the words of Christs institution For Christ saieth This which I giue you to eate is my bodie The Sacramentaries denie it and say That which thou giuest vs to eate is not thy bodie The like hath Musculus art cit They teach that Christ is not in the Supper l. 1. c. 11. art 1. And neuerthelesse thus writeth Beza in Hospin part 2. Histor fol. 301. Manie thinke that we would exclude Christ from the Supper which is plainely impious We are so farre from saying that Christ Iesus is absent from the Supper that aboue all men we most repugne this blasphemie Concerning faith they teach that it is not simply necessarie to saluation l. 1. c. 13. art 15. Which is blasphemous Touching Faith in the iudgement of Luther in Genes 47. tom 6. Zuinglius saieth he wrote of late that Numa Pompilius Hercules Scipio Hector do enioy euerlasting happines in heauen with Peter and other Saints Which is nothing els then plainely to confesse that they thinke there is no faith no Christianitie The like saieth Beza l. de puniend Haeret. Touching good works they denie that it is necessarie Touching good workes they should be present when we are iustified l. 1. c. 14 art 12. Of which doctrine thus pronounce the Electorall Ministers in Colloq Aldel p. 343. It is horrible dishonor to God and a barbarous doctrine to professe that in the very instant and act of iustification not onely merit but also necessitie of the presence of good works is excluded They say that all the good works of iust men are sinnes and mere iniquities lib. 1. cap. 14. art 2. Of which doctrine Zuinglius giueâ—h this verdict in Exposit Fidei to 2. Some of ours haue saied paradox like that euerie worke of ours is abhomination They say also that we may not doe good for reward l. 1. c. 14. art 19. Of which doctrine Remonstrantes in Collat. Hagae p. 95 giue this censure Who denie that the faithfull may doe good workes in regard of reward due to good works he peruerteth and denieth the nature of faith of Gods law of eternall life and death Touching sinne they teach that in the faithfull it doth Touching sinne not expell grace l. 1. c. 16. art 6. Of which Hutter thus writeth They plainely make the Apostle a liar who with open mouth pronounceth that euerie fornicator vncleane and couetous man is excluded out of the kingdome of heauen and also Christ our Sauiour who pronounceth this sentence against those that denie him whosoeuer shall denie me c. They teach that men shall not be damned for their sinfull works but onely for incredulitie l 1. c. 16. art 10. And yet Beza in 2. part Resp ad Acta Montisb pag. 218. after he had recited these positions of Iames Andrews Onely incredulitie damneth men Men are not damned because they haue sinned addeth Durst euer man before this so impudently bring into Gods Church so false so monstrous so abhominable doctrine Et p. 215. Surely your speach seemed into lerable to vs that men are not damned for sinne The like hath Vrsin in Miscellan p. 84. Touching Iustification they teach that a iustified man Touching Iusication cannot leese grace by any sinne that he committeth lib. 1. c. 17. art 12. Which doctrine is thus censured by Wittembergenses in Schlusselb lib. 1. Theol. art 7. It is a great madnesse of the Anabaptistes and other frantike men who say that the iustified cannot fall or at least not leese the holie Ghost and become againe guiltie of Gods wrath albeit they breake Gods commandments against their conscience Hutter in Anal. cit p. 562. It is a blasphemous speach of Zanchius saying that forgiuenesse of sinnes once obtained is not made voyde by sinnes folowing and that the holie Ghost once giuen to the iustified remaineth with him for euer And of Beza writing that Peter denying Christ and Dauid falling into adulterie did not leese the holie Gost Adamus Francisci loc 6. The Caluinists with a horrible madnesse imagin that the regenerate caÌ„not fall into mortall sinne and that if they fall notwithstanding they retaine Gods grace the holie Ghost and faith Et Confess August c. 11. condemneth the Anabaptistes who denie that they who are once iustified can againe leese the holie Ghost They teach that a Sinner doth not cooperate to his conuersesion but that he is iustified doing nothing as a logge or els rebelling lib. 1. c. 17. art 15. Which doctrine thus the Wittembergians condemne in Schlusselb to 5. Catal. Haer. With all our hearts we abhor from that doctrine dishonorable to God and full of Blasphemies against the Sonne of God A man is conuerted not onely as a logge but also resisting and we say that by such speach not onely securitie and profane contempt of God but also horrible sinnes of men are bolstered Of free will they teach that man hath no freedome in good or euill deeds l. 1. c. 21. art 2. Which doctrine Melancthon lib. de Causa Peccati to 2. thus condemneth We doe not applaude the madnesse of the Stoickes or Maniches who are dishonorable to God and pernitious to mans life feigning that men do necessarily commit sinne Finally Iames Andrews in Colloq Montisb condemned manie doctrines of Beza as blasphemous as pag. 381. That the elect though they sinne grieuously doe retaine the holie Ghost pag. 393. That onely the elect infants are adopted in baptisme p. 447. That Christ died not for the sinnes of the whole world p. 422. That God will haue some to perish Et p. 423. That God will not haue mercie on some and that he created some to this end to shew his wrath in them Vorstius also in Parasceue oftentimes condemneth Piscators doctrine of blaphemie And scarce is there anie Protestant that writeth against an other who doth not accuse him of blasphemie Wherefore let this be my 25. argument Whose sundrie doctrines are not onely so opposite to the expresse words of Scripture as hath beene shewed in the first booke but also so blasphemous as sometimes the very Authors of them partely other learned Protestants their brethren do confesse it they are opposite to the true meaning of holie Scripture But manie doctrines of the Protestants are such Therefore c. CHAPTER XXVI THAT PROTESTANTS DOE FRVSstrate and make voide the ends of the coming and passion of Christ MY 26. argument wherewith I will proue that ProtestaÌ„ts coÌ„tradict the true sense of holie Scripture shal be because manie of their positions doe frustrate and make voide the coming and passion of Christ For one end of the coming and passion of Christ was Protest say Christ tooke not away sinne to take away and exhaust our sinnes 1. Ioan. 3. v. 5. And you know that he appeared to take away our sinnes Hebr. 9. v. 28. Christ was offered once to exhaust the sinnes of manie But Protestants as we shewed l. 1. c. 17. art 5. say that Christ did not take
Fratres Finally Luther in Postilla domest Dom. 1. Aduentus saieth Oh sorrow The world dayly becometh worse by The world worse by Luthers doctrine this doctrine and Castalio in Caluin de Prouident These are the things Caluin which thy aduersaries reporte of thy doctrine and warne men to iudge of this doctrine by the fruits thereof For they say that thou and thy disciples carrie manie fruits of thy God that most of you are contentious reuengefull myndfull of wrong and endowed with such vices as thy God doth suggest Where thus I argue in the 27. place Whose doctrine is not onely so opposite to the expresse words of Scripture as was seene in the first booke but also taketh away encouragements to vertue yea all vertue out of the world and remoueth impediments of sinne and giueth allurements theertoe that is opposite to the true sense of holie Scripture But such is the doctrine of Protestants Therefore c. CHAPTER XXVIII THAT PROTESTANTS HAVE NO infallible interpretation of Scripture THE 28. Argument to proue that Protestants must needs contradict the true sense of holie Scripture is because they haue no sure and infallible means to attaine to the true meaning thereof But before we proue that they haue no infallible mean to come to the right sense of Scripture we must proue that Scripture at lest in some points of faith needeth some means to interpret or expound it to wit ether because no where it deliuereth some points of faith so clearely that the onely words thereof sufffice to captiuate the vnderstanding or because though some where it deliuer clearly enough some points of faith yet other where it seemeth so to teach the contrarie as without some infallible interpreter it would seeme vncertaine whether of the twoe it did teach That therefore Scripture doth not of it selfe teach That Scripture needeth an Interpreter clearely all points of faith so as it need no interpreter for that purpose I proue first out of the Scripture it selfe For the holie Eunuch did read the Scripture speaking of the passion of Christ Actor 8. and yet being asked of Philip whether he vnderstood what he read answered And how can I if none shall shew me You see that the Scripture did not clearely foretell the passion of Christ as that a pious man by the onely words thereof without an interpreter could vnderstand the meaning thereof And Luk. vlt. v. 27. And beginning from Moyses and all the Prophets he did interprete vnto them in all the Scriptures the things that were concerning him Et v. 45. Then he opened their vnderstanding that they might vnderstand the Scriptures But if Christs disciples did not vnderstand the Scriptures which spoake of him and the Apostles had need that Christ should open their vnderstanding for to vnderstād the Scriptures it is euident that the Scriptures by themselues doe not so plainely teach all matters of faith as they need no interpretation for to be rightly vnderstood of the faithfull Besides 2. Pet. vlt. it is saied that in S. Pauls epistles there are some things hard to be vnderstood And that these hard things do containe points of faith is cleare both because without cause they should be limited to other things as also because it is added that the learned and vnstable doe depraue these hard things to their owne destruction but such things are especially matters of faith Moreouer if the Scripture did so clearely teach all points of faith that for them it needed no interpreter it would follow that the guift of interpretation had beene superfluously giuen to the Church for to expound Scripture in matters belonging to faith Secondly I proue this out of the Fathers but for breuities sake I will content my selfe with one testimonie of S. Austin He lib. de Vtil cred c 7. to one that saied When I read the Scriptures by my selfe I vnderstood them thus answereth Is it so Without some skill in poetrie thou darest not read Terentian Maurus Asper Cornutus Donatus and manie more are necessarie for to vnderstand anie Poet and thou fallest vpon those bookes without a guide and darest giue thy opinion of them without a teacher Loe how plainely he saieth that we can not vnderstand the Scriptures by our selues and by how familiar an example he proueth it Thirdly I proue it by the verie cōfession of Protestāts For Protest confesse that Scripture alone sufficeth not thus writeth Whitaker Cōt 1. q. 4. c. 1. When Bellarmin maketh this to be the state of the questiō Whether the the Scripture by it selfe be so cleare as without anie interpretatiō it sufficeth of it selfe to determine and decide all controuersies of faith he fighteth without an aduersarie for surely in this point we are not against him Agayne They say that we thinke but falsely that all things in Scripture are plaine and that they without anie interpretation are sufficient to determine all controuersies without Behould how plainely he denieth that Protestants think that Scripture of it selfe without anie interpretatiō is sufficiēt to end all controuersies of faith And the like hath Iunius l. 3. de verb. Dei c. 3. When he graunteth that Scripture needeth an interpreter Kemnice 1. part Exa p. 104. It hath need of the guift and helpe of interpretatiō And the Magdeburgiās Cēt. 1. l. 2. c. 4. The Apostles thought that the Scripture cānot be vnderstood without the holie Ghost and an interpreter and the same meā all other Protestāts who admit that the Scripture is obscure or that the guift of interpretatiō is needfull for the expositiō thereof For doubtles they meane that as well of such places of Scripture wherein points of faith are deliuered as of others this Caluin 4. Inst c 17. § 25. clearely enough insinuateth where whē Catholiks obiected that they had the word of God wherein he affirmeth that the Eucharist is his bodie he answereth Indeed if they may banish the guift of Interpretatiō out of the Church Wherefore he thinketh that there is in the Church the guift of Interpretation euen for to expound Scriptures touching points of faith such as the Eucharist is Furthermore Plessie l. 3. de Eccl. c. 3. writeth that the cōtrouersie of Schisme cānot be properly decided by the Scripture because it is rather a question of fact then doctrine If therefore Scripture by it selfe can determine nether the questiō of Schisme nor yet all controuersies of faith it is manifest that the interpretation of some is necessarie and that also infallible because fallible interpretatiō is not sufficiēt to put vs out of doubt And surely Protestants must needs teach that Scripture by it selfe alone is not sufficient to decide all controuersies of faith both because els it had decided all controuersies amongst themselues or betwene anie that are not obstinate as also because scarce in anie controuersies that are betwixt vs and them Scripture doth so much as in shew directly and immediatly giue sentence for them but they haue need to
which Protestants assigne I let passe that the Lutherans say that the Sacramētaries had their exposition of the Scripture frō the Diuell and that Luther professeth that he was taught of the Diuell as perhaps we shall proue an other time at large Wherefore thus I make my 28. argument They who in so manie and weightie matters do expressely contradict such plaine words of Scripture and yet haue no infallible way to attaine to the true sense thereof must needs contradict the true sense of Scripture But Protestants be such Therefore c. CHAPTER XXIX THAT PROTESTANTS ARE FORCED to admit no Iudge in the Church to whose iudgement they will stand THE 29. Argument wherewith we will proue that Protestants are against the true sense of Scriptrue shal be because their doctrine is so plainelie against Scripture as they dare not admit anie Iudge thereof For thus Zuinglius tom 1. in Explanat artic 67. Protest admit Iudge I suffer no man to be iudge in the matter of trueth and faith Whitaker Contr. 1. quaest 5. c. 4. God hath reserued to himselfe the iudgement of religion and hath not graunted it to anie man And Contr. 4. q. 1 c. 2. There is now no infallible iudge on earth which is man Vorstius in Antibel pag. 80. We haue proued that onely Christ or the holie Ghost speaking plainely in Scripture is to be accounted this supreme iudge of controuersies of faith Pareus in Colleg. Theol. 4. Disputatio 2. The supreme iudge of interpretations of Scripture and controuersies of faith from whome there is no Appeale is is no man now nor since the Apostles nether Church nor Councell c. Lutherans in Colloq Ratisb Session 9. Proue this that besides the written law there must be an other visible iudge appointed The like saieth Academia Nemausiensis Resp ad Tournon Eliensis resp ad Apol. Bellarm. c. 14. Feild l. 3. de Eccles cap. 13 16. Moulins in his Bucler art 3. sect 6. and other Protestants commonly But that there must needs be admitted a iudge in the Church to whose iudgement we must stand I proue First out of Scripture For Deut. 17. it is saied If thou perceaue that There must needs be a Iudge the iudgement with thee be hard and doubtfull thou shalt come to the Preists of the leuiticall stock and to the Iudge that shal be at that time and thou shalt aske of them who shall shew thee the trueth of the iudgement and thou shalt doe whatsoeuer they that are presidents of the place which our Lord shall chuse shall say and teach thee according to the law and shalt follow their sentence nether shalt thou decline to the right hand nor to the left hand But he that shal be proud refusing to obey the commandement of the Preist who at that time ministreth to our Lord thy God and the decree of the Iudge that man shall die Behould a Iudge instituted in the Church vnder the law and him to be obeyed vnder paine of death Likewise Math. 18. Christ saieth If he will not heare the Church let him be to the as an Ethnik and Publican And Actor 15. When the Christians did disagree about the obseruation of Iewish ceremonies they apointed that Paul and Barnabas should goe vp and certaine others of the rest to the Apostles and Preists in Hierusalem vpon this question and all true Christians submitted themselues to their decree and S. Paul commanded it to be kept And the like practise hath beene euer obserued in the Church and they held for Heretiks who did not submit themselues to the iudgement of a lawfull Councell Secondely I proue it out of the Fathers For thus S. Ciprian Epist 55. For nether are Heresies risen or Schismes sprung from anie other roote then because the Preist of God is not obeyed nor beleiued that there is one preist for a time in the Church and one Iudge for a time in steed of Christ Loe to denie that there is a iudge in the Church in steed of Christ is the occasion of all Heresies and Schismes And S. Austin l. 1. cont Crescon c. 33. Whosoeuer feareth to be deceaued in the obscuritie of this question let him aske the Church of it whome the holie Scripture doth shew without anie doubt Thirdly because it was euer the custome of Heretiks Heretiks denie a Iudge to denie that there is a Iudge in the Church Whereupon the Donatists in Breuic Collat. say that Christ must be the iudge of this cause stirring vp enuie to Catholiks because they had requested a man to be iudge Fourthlie I proue it by reason because it is a plaine argument of an euill cause that the Patrons thereof dare not submit it to the iudgment of anie Iudge in the common wealth Besides there can be no peace in anie societie or commonwealth vnlesse beside the laws there be some Iudge who may determine matters and to whose iudgement men must stand And who denie such Iudges ether mantaine an ill cause or loue not peace but continuall braules For these and the like arguments Protestants sometime Protest sometime admit a Iudge in Words in words doe admitt a Iudge in the Church For thus Whitaker Cont. 1. q. 5. c. 4. I confesse that in euerie common wealth there ought to be Iudges who may make an end of contentions amongst men Et c. 7. God indeed hath left a Iudge to his Church but who it is now is question and debate betwene vs and the Papists Eliensis cap. 14. cit But beside the law there is need of another liuely Iudge Who denieth that Melancthon in Resp ad Ant. Bauar tom 3. We openly confesse that there must be iudgments in the Church But indeed they will haue the Scripture onelie to be this Iudge For thus Zuinglius disput 1. to 1. I will neuer admit any other iudges beside the holie Scriptures Which is in word to admit a Iudge and in effect But not in effect to denie him For the Scripture is the law of Christians and therefore not their Iudge who is to giue sentence according to the law And the Lutherans in Colloq Ratisbon sess 1. when they had saied that Scripture is the rule and square of faith afterward doe adde It is one thing to shew the Iudge◠another to shew the rule Wherein they plainelie distinguish the Scripture and the Iudge Moreouer the testimonies of Scriptures of Fathers and the reasons before alledged do proue that there must be a liuelie or speaking Iudge in the Church which is different from the law or Scripture Finallie it is fond to make Protest iudge can nether heare nor speake such a Iudge and him onely who is both deafe and dūbe and who can nether heare those that contend nor pronounce sentence nor compell them to obey it Furthermore as hath beene often saied in most controuersies betwixt vs and Protestants Scripture doth not so much as seeme to giue sentence for Protestants vnlesse it be
conferred by them and ioyned with some humane principle and brought into sillogisticall forme Whereas a Iudge must be such as by himselfe without anie helpe of ether of the parties he can giue sentence Besides the sentence of the Iudge and especiallie if there can be no appeale from him must be so cleare as no man can doubt for whether partie it is But such is not the sentence of Scripture in manie controuersies Agayne there is controuersie betwene vs about diuers bookes of which the rest of the Scripture saieth nothing Finallie before Moises the Church had no Scripture and for sometime after Christ it had no parte of the new testament and yet she neuer wanted a Iudge And as we saw in the Chapter before Protestants confesse that Scripture of it selfe is not sufficient to determine all controuersies of faith and therefore not to iudge all Wherefore we must needs haue some other Iudge For these and the like causes some Protestants seing how absurd it is that Scripture is the onely Iudge in the Church say that Christ or the holie Ghost speaking in the Scripture is the Iudge Whitaker c. 7. cit We say that this Iudge is the holie Ghost speaking in the Scripture In like sorte Confes Heluet. c. 12. Academia Nemaus loc cit Lutherans in Colloq Ratisb sess 9. and others But seing Christ or the holie Ghost is no otherwise in the Scripture then as in a signe of his will to say that the holie Ghost as he is in Scripture is Iudge is no other thing indeed then to say that the Scripture is iudge And as the King as he is in his written laws is not a sufficient iudge of the common wealth because els eueÌ„ after his death he should be iudge but besides there must be a liuing iudge who both heareth and speaketh who can heare the parties and giue senteÌ„ce So nether is the holie Ghost a sufficient iudge is in the holie Scripture Others therefore acknowledge that there must be in the Church a speaking iudge or man For thus Eliensis loc cit Wherefore we all of long time demand a free and lawfull synod Protest admit a liuing Iudge in words And Lutherans in Colloq cit sess 9. We professe that God hath giuen some power to the Ministers and Doctors of the Church to iudge of controuersies of religion Neuerthelesse in trueth they denie the verie nature of the Iudge For ether they will not admit such a Iudge as we are bound to obeyâ— as appeareth by that they denie the vniuersall Church all Pastors or generall Councels to be infallible yea Moulins in the preface of his Bucler saieth that there But not in effect can be no greater temeritie then to desire that men sinners may be infallible iudges of the seÌ„se of the law And the LutheraÌ„s loc cit It is simply and absolutely certaine that the Ministerie may erre But this in trueth is to denie the Iudge whose end is The iudge in the Church admitteth not appeale to make peace and to compose debates which he cannot doe vnlesse men be bound to obey him and all the foresaied authorities reasons which proue that there ought to be a iudge in the Church proue also that he ought to be such from whome we may not appeale Wherevpon Whitaker CoÌ„t 1. q. 5. c. 4. thus writeth I answere that those words Deuteron 17. cit are to be vnderstood of authoritie to define hard contentions and controuersies as Ecclesiasticall by the Minister and politicall by the Magistrate that there might be in both some from whome there should be no appeale els there would be no end of contending But this he meaneth onely in the Nether in outward nor inward Courte externall or outward courte not in the inward courte of conscience For thus he addeth A great weight of iudgement was in the Priest and what he had once determined was good in the externall courte that so controuersies and debates might be ended And Cont. 4. q 1. cap. 2. Controuersies may be brought to the externall Courte and there defined but conscience resteth not in that Courte But this shift is easilie refuted First because the distruction of the externall Courâ—e is without cause deuised in this matter Secondlie because the peace of the Church especially consisteth in the internall courte to wit in faith Wherefore in this Courte we may not appeale from the Iudge of the Church otherwise there would neuer be peace of conscience Thirdly the practise of the Church in the Councell of the Apostles and in other generall Councels sheweth that the Iudge of the Church hath power to end controuersies euen in the inward courte of conscience Finallie if one were bound to obey the iudgement of the Church in the outward Courte and not in the inward it would follow that sometimes he were bound to denie Gods trueth before men to wit if the Church should define against Gods trueth Besides the authoritie of the Church is spirituall and ouer the soule and therefore her power of iudging extendeth it selfe euen to the inwarde Courte of the â—oule Wherefore let this be our 29. argument Whose doctrine in manie and weightie matters doth so contradict the expresse words of Scripture as they dare not admit anie Iudge in the Church they are to be thought to contradict the true sense of the Scripture But such are Protestants Therefore c. CHAPTER XXX THAT PROTESTANTS DOE SOMEtimes confesse that their doctrine doth contradict the holie Scripture THE last proof which we will make to shew that Protestants doe contradict the true sense of Scripture shal be taken from their owne confession wherewith sometimes they confesse it implicitlie sometimes plainelie and expressely Implicitly they confesse it diuers wayes First because they acknowledge that they Protest cannot reconcile their doctrine with the Scripture know not how to reconcile their doctrine with the holie Scripture Luther de seru arbit to 2. fol. 466. How this is iust that he God condemneth those that deserue it not is now incomprehensible yet it is beleiued till the Sonne of man be reuealed Et f. 486. In the light of grace it is vnanswerable how God condemneth him who with all his power can doe nothing but sinne and be guiltie Here both the light of nature and the light of Grace teach that it is not the fault of wretched man but of vniust God Et to 1. f. 390. It is a wonderfull probleme that God rewardeth iustice which himselfe reputeth iniustice Melancthon in Rom. 9. edit 1. This misterie is inexplicable that God both willeth sinnes and yet truelie hateth them Peter Martyr in locis Class 1. c. 16. § 9. It is no meruaile that we cannot vnderstand how it is not contrarie to Gods iustice to punish sinnes and by tempting to enforce them because God can doe more then we can vnderstand Caluin 1. Institut capit 18. § 3. By reason of the weaknesses of our vnderstanding we doe not
in manie places refuteth In like sorte Grauer in Absurdis Caluin c. 14. ser 10. Touching the Eucharist they denie that it is the bodie Of the Eucharist and blood of Christ l. 1. c. 11. art 1. Which is against Scripture For thus Muscul in loc tit de Caena I may not say the bread of the Supper is not the bodie of the Lord. For in so saying I should contradict the Lord saying This is my bodie Againe Otherwise bread should not be the bodie of the Lord against his expresse word Beza in Hosp part 2. f. 300. being asked whether he disliked that one should say The bread of the Supper is the bodie of Christ answered No for they are the words of Christ Et Hosp ib. f. 136. We denie not that bread and wine are the bodie and blood of Christ For Christ himselfe saied This is my bodie They say that those words This is my bodie must be thus expounded This signifieth my bodie Of which exposition Musculus in Schlusselb l. 1. Theol. Caluin art 22. giueth this iudgement We must beware of that exposition wherewith Christs words are thought to be the same as if he had saied This signifieth my bodie For this is not Christs meaning to shew that this bread signifieth his bodie They denie that Christ gaue vs his bodie to eate or his blood to drinke l. 1. c. 11. art 2. Which doctrine thus censureth Caluin l. de Neces ref Christ saied in plaine termes that he gaue them his bodie Beza epist 5. But I answere that is all one as to make Christ a lyer as who in cleare and plaine words saieth he gaue them that bodie which was deliuered for vs. Et Apol. 1. contr Saintem p. 292. To denie all eating of flesh were plainely to denie the very words of Christ They denie that the Cuppe is the new testament l. 1. c. 11. art 4. And yet Simlerus in Hosp part 2. f. 348. saieth The proper sense of these words is The Cuppe is the new testament or the blood of the new testament Iames Andreae in Colloq Montisbel p. 38. To me it seemeth altogether new and vnheard of that the Supper is denied to be the testameÌ„t of Christ against the plaine words alledged out of Luke Et Musculus in locis titul de Caena In Luke and Paul it is saied of this Cuppe that it is the new testament They denie that the Cuppe of the Eucharist was shed for vs. l. 1. c. 11. art 6. And yet Illyricus in Luc. 22. v. 20. writeth Which is powred out for you in the Greek text must needs be referred to the Cuppe Touching Matrimonie they denie that it is a SacrameÌ„t Of Matrimonie c. 12. art 5. And yet thus professeth the Confession of Wittemberg c. de Coniugio We confesse that Mariage is a kind of life instituted and approued by God and a mysterie as commonly it is expounded a great Sacrament in Christ and the Church as Paul saieth Touching faith they denie that it can be without good Of Faith works l. 1. cap. 13. art 8. which doctrine thus condemneth Schlusselburg l. 1. Theol. art 15. Aretius saieth that faith and good works are conioyned as the species and her proprietie as a man and reason But we out of the word of God teach and learne that this doctrine is false They denie that faith it selfe is imputed to vs for iustice l. 1. c. 13. art 19. And yet thus iudgeth Vrbanus Regius in loc fol. 46. Sincere faith on the mercie of God and Iesus Christ is our verie iustice Faith is imputed for iustice to the beleiuer Abraham beleiued and it was imputed to him for iustice They denie that the faith of the Hemorroïssa was pure libr. 1. capit 13. articul 25. And yet thus Bullinger in Marci 5. The power of true faith is singularly expressed Touching good works they denie that they are necessarie Of good workes to saluation l. 1. c. 14. art 13. And yet Piscator saieth in Thes loc 10. The Scripture teacheth that good works are necessarie to saluation The same say the Electorals in Colloq Aldeburgico They denie also that good works are cause of saluation lib. 1. cap. 14. art 15. And yet thus writeth Illyricus in Claue tractat 6. titul de Var. bonum operum praed We heare that to manie effects and praises and euen saluation it selfe is attributed in Scripture to good works It is plaine that oftentimes somewhat to much praise is ascribed to good works which doth not agree to them nor is to be ascribed to them if we will speake exactly truely and properly They denie that they are meritorious lib. 1. cap. 14. art 8. And yet thus professeth Apollog Confession in Melancthon tom 3. Seing works are some fulfilling of the law they are truely saied to be meritorious reward is rightly saied to be due to them Agayne The text of Scripture saieth that life euerlasting is rendered to them Which Protestants denie lib. 1. cap. 14. articul 7. They denie also that they are to be done for God lib. 1. cap. 14. art 20. Of which point thus iudgeth Kemnice in locis tit de bonis oper The testimonies of Scripture most clearely teach that good works are to be done for Gods sake Touching virginitie they denie that it is counsailed in Scripture l 1. c. 15. art 4. And neuerthelesse Vrbanus Regius in locis fol. 372. saieth Virginitie is counsailed in the Ghâ—spell not commanded And in Interp. loc 49. Virginitie is onely a counsaile not a precept Concerning sinne they teach that it can remayne with Of sinne iustice l. 1. c. 16. art 17. Yet thus pronuonceth Luther in Gal. 3. These are directly opposit That a Christian is iust and loued of God and yet with all is a sinner Againe How are these twoe coÌ„tradictories true at once I hâ—ue sinnes am most worthie of the wrath of God and the Father loueth me They denie that sinne putteth a man out of grace l. 1 c. 16. art 6. And yet thus writeth Hemingius in Enchir class 2. If a penitent sinne against his conscience as Dauid did with murder and adulterie he casteth of the holie Ghost and becometh guiltie of Gods wrath and vnlesse he doe pennance falleth into eternall punishment It is a horrible madnesse to say that such retaine the holie Ghost wheÌ„ as Paul saieth plainely Gal. 5. The works of the flesh are manifest and they that doe such shall not possesse the kingdome of God They denie that the widdows whereof S. Paul speaketh 1. Timoth. did sinne in marrying l. 1. c. 16. art 15. And yet thus Bullinger in Tim. 5. Surely to marrie of it selfe is no sinne But because they haue once giuen their promise to Christ the spouse and to the Church and of their owne accord haue left marriage hereupon their marriage turneth to the disgrace of Christ which is that which Paul termeth to become wanton against Christ Bucer lib. 2. de Regno
AFFIRME D. Stapleton Cont. 1. q. 2. art 1. The Catholik doctrine is that there is but one Church which we professe in our Creed and that she consisteth of the elect and reprobate PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Whitaker Cont. 2. q. 1. c. 7. We say that the Church consisteth Reprobates not of the Church indeed not of reprobates but of onely predestinate Agayne A reprobate may seeme to be of the Church but he cannot be indeed of the Church And q. 5. c. 3. That is a false Church which consisteth of reprobates Rainalds in Apol. Thes p. 170. I determine that the elect alone are contained in the Church of the Creed M. Perkins de praedest tom 1. col 154. A reprobate is but in Onely in shew members of the Church shew onely a member of Christ Abbats in Diatribam Thomsoni c. 8. Reprobates are not reputed in the Church Caluin in 1. Ioan. 2. v. 19. Ihon plainly pronounceth that they Neuer members of the Church who falle away were neuer members of the Church Beza in Confes cap. 5. sect 8. As for the rest Beside the elect they are not be numbred among the members of the Church albeit they were Apostles Daneus Cont. 4. p. 689. The true Church of God containeth onely his elect Pareus Colloq Theol. 1. disput 12. The reprobate are not truely and indeed of the Church nor belonge vnto it before God Not truely of the Church Sadeel in Refutat Posnan c. 4. Reprobates pertaine not to the true Church And Musculus in the former article will not so much as the name of the Church to be bestowed vpon the reprobates THE CONFERENCE Scripture expressely teacheth that those who are to be be cast out and to be burnt with vnquenchable fire that is reprobates are in the kingdome of heauen and in the flore of God that is in his Church Catholiks say the same Protestants expressely teach that reprobates are not in the Church not in the true Church not in the Church of the Creed not indeed not before Good that the Church the true Church containeth onely the elect that the re-reprobates onely in shew and apparence can be of the Church that they deserue not the name of the Church that she is a false Church which consisteth of the reprobates ART IV. WHETHER THE CHVRCH continueth euer SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. Mathew 16. vers 18. Thou art Peter and vpon this rock Church inuincible will I build my Church and the gates of hell shall not preuaile against it Luke 1. v. 33. And he shall reigne in the house of Iacob for Shall haue no end euer and of his kingdome there shal be no end CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME D. Stapleton Cont. 1. q. 3. art 2. The Church of Christ continueth to the end of the world PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Apologie of the Church of England Longe agoe hath The whole Church cleane fallen downe the Bishop of Rome willed to haue the whole Church depend vpoÌ„ himselfe alone wherefore it is no meruaile though it be cleane fallen downe longe agoe Agayne When we likewise saw that all thinges were quite troden vnderfoote by these men and that nothing remained in the temple of God but pittifull spoiles and decaies we reckoned c. Cartwright in Whitgifts Defense p. 217. When Antichrist Rooted out from the ground had rooted out the Church euen from the ground c. Luther in c. 49. Genes tom 6 The Pope hath extinguished the Church Caluin cont Sadolet p. 132. The matter came to that passe that it was cleare and manifest both to the learned and vnlearned Christ kingdome flat downe that the true order of the Church theÌ„ perished Christs kingdome was cast flat downe when this principalitie of the Pope was erected Beza in Conf. c. 5. sect 29. But for that horrible tyranie of the Popedome which ouerthrew the whole Church and whicb almost alone doth stay her renewing we c. Daneus in l. Augustini de Haeres c. 95. About the yeare of our lord 574. arose this destruction plague and tyranie of the Rooted out from the foundation whole Church which after rooted out the kingdome of Christ from the foundation Chassanio l. 2. de Ecclesia p. 151. It is false That the Church shall neuer be broken of More of ther like sayings may be seene in my 2. booke of the Author of the Protestant religion c. 1. Where also c. 2. I haue refuted their euasions THE CONFERENCE Scripture expressely saieth that the gates of hell shall not preâ—aile against the Church that there shal be no end of the kingdome of Christ The same say Catholiks Protestants expressely say that the whole Church was cleane fallen downe long agoe that nothing remained in the temple of God but pittifull spoiles decaies that the Church was rooted out from the ground the Church extinct the whole Church ouerthrowne the whole Church destroied that the kingdome of Christ was cast flat downe and rooted out from the foundation which are so contrarie to the Scripture as sometimes Protestants confesse no lesse See lib. 2. cap. 30. ART V. WHETHER THE CHVRCH BE alwaies visible SCRIPTVRE EXPRESSELY AFFIRMETH. Matth. 5. vers 15. Christ thus speaketh to his disciples or Church cannot be hiddeÌ„ Church You are the light of the world A cittie cannot be hidde situated vpon a mountaine And c. 18. v. 17. And if he will not heare them tell the Church And if he will not heare the Church let him be to thee as the Heathen and the Publican Isaie 62. v. 6. Vpon thy walles Hierusalem I haue appointed Wacth meÌ„ for euer in the Church wachmen all the day and all the night for euer they shall not hould their peace CATHOLIKS EXPRESSELY AFFIRME D. Stapleton Cont. 1. q. 3. art 1. The Church which we are to beleiue must necessarily alwaies be visible There must alwaies be a visible Church PROTESTANTS EXPRESSELY DENIE Whitaker Cont. 2. q. 2. c. 1. Their Papists opinion is that Militant Church inuisible the militant Church is alwaies visible But we teach that the whole Church that is the Catholik is inuisible not onely the triumphant parte but also the militant Et q. 4. c. 1. We confesse that there is alwaies on earth some number of them who piously worshippe Christ and hould the true faith and religion but we say that this member is not alwaies visible Their Papists opinion is that there is perpetually some visible Church on earth Caluin in Praefat. Instit Papists will haue the forme of the Church not apparent Church to be alwaies apparent and visible we on the contrarie affirme that the Church may consist of no apparent forme Et in Catechismo c. de fide She is not alwaies seene with eyes discerned by markes Daneus Cont. 4. l. 3. c. 12. Oftentimes God will haue some visible Oftentimes no visible Church Church on earth oftentimes none And l. 4. c. 8. The