Linguistic DNA - Concept Modelling Demonstrator

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
scripture_n	write_v	writing_n	yield_v	33	3	6.6705	4	false

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A15422	Synopsis papismi, that is, A generall viewe of papistry wherein the whole mysterie of iniquitie, and summe of antichristian doctrine is set downe, which is maintained this day by the Synagogue of Rome, against the Church of Christ, together with an antithesis of the true Christian faith, and an antidotum or counterpoyson out of the Scriptures, against the whore of Babylons filthy cuppe of abominations: deuided into three bookes or centuries, that is, so many hundreds of popish heresies and errors. Collected by Andrew Willet Bachelor of Diuinity.	Willet, Andrew, 1562-1621.	1592 (1592)	STC 25696; ESTC S119956	618,512	654

the time of Esdras till Christ and in our Sauiours time the Scriptures were not in the vulgare toung but onely in the Hebrue which the Iewes vnderstood not after the captiuitie Ergo it is not now necessary to haue them in the vulgare touÌ„g That the people vnderstood not Hebrue the Iesuite proueth out of the 8. of Nehemiah where it is said that Esdras did expouÌ„d the law to the people because they vnderstood it not We answere that the text saith cleane contrary that he read the law before the people that vnderstood it v. 3. and they might geue the sense though the people vnderstood the language Concerning the places obiected out of the Gospell to proue the Iewes spake another language theÌ„ Hebrue as it appeareth by those speaches Marc. 5. Talitha cumi Math. 27. Golgotha which sauour not of the Hebrue toung we answere that although they spake not pure Hebrue but many straunge wordes were vsed yet they vnderstood the Hebrue for why els doth Christ bid the people to search the Scriptures And they were not the Iewes but the Romane souldiers that vnderstood not the voyce of Christ vpon the Crosse saying he called for Elias 2 The Apostles saith the Iesuite wrote their Epistles onely in Hebrue or Greeke and not in the vulgare tounges of the natioÌ„s to whom they preached Ergo it is not necessary that the scriptures should be in the vulgare toung We answere First it had bene an infinite labour for the Apostles to haue left their writings in euery language neither was it necessary seeing out of the original they might be traÌ„slated into euery language SecoÌ„dly they preached the same things vnto the GeÌ„tiles in their own touÌ„gs which they afterward left in writing Thirdly the Greeke touÌ„g wherein they wrote was vniuersally knowen and few countryes were ignorant of it especially in the East parts 3 There is no cause say they why the Scriptures should be translated if it be for the vnderstanding of the people they vnderstaÌ„d them not being translated neither We aunswere many things they may easely vnderstand and for the harder places they are nearer the vnderstanding of them being translated then before for then they haue two great lets the toung vnknowen and the obscure and hid sense now they need not to labour for the toung but onely for the sense 4 The Scriptures are occasion of offence and heresie being not right vnderstood Ergo. First because many surfet of meats and drinkes it is no reason that sober men should be forbidden the vse of them no more for heretikes wicked mens sakes ought the people of God to be barred from Scripture Secondly more haue perished by ignorance in Scripture then by misunderstanding it and the Scripture was ordained of God to meete with offences and to confute heresies 2. Tim. 3.15 Wherefore these men make them selues wiser then God that thinke the Scripture is an occasion of those diseases for the which it is apppointed a remedie The Protestantes WE do beleeue and hold that it is requisite expedient and necessarie for the Scriptures to be vttered and set forth in the vulgare and commoÌ„ speach and that none vpon any occasion ought to be prohibited the reading thereof for knowledge and instructions sake and that Christian Magistrates ought to prouide that the people may haue the Scriptures in their mother knoweÌ„ toung Wherefore great wrong was offered to the people of England that diuerse 100. yeares till king Henrie the eight could not be suffred to haue the Scriptures in English And how I pray you did the Papistes storme when as Tindals translatioÌ„ came forth some affirming that it was impossible to haue the Scriptures traÌ„slated into English some that it would make the people heretikes others that it would cause theÌ„ to rebell Fox pag. 117. col 1. What fowle and shamefull slaunders were these For the vulgare translations of Scripture we reason thus 1 It is Gods commandement that the Scriptures should be read before the people that they may learne to feare God Deut. 31. vers 11.12 The people are commanded to write the law vpon their gates and in their houses to conferre and talke with their children and teach them the law Deut. 6.6.7.8 And our Sauiour biddeth the people search the Scripture Iohn 5. v. 39. Ergo what God hath commaunded no man ought to prohibite or forbid the people therfore must not be kept from reading of Scripture 2 Without Scripture there is no faith faith is necessarie for all people Ergo the knowledge of the Scripture that faith coÌ„meth by the scriptures read Iohn 20.31 these things are written that ye might beleeue Iesus Christ to be the sonne of God Againe the weapons of ChristiaÌ„ men are not denied to any whereby they should fight against their spirituall enemies but the word of God is a speciall part of our harnesse and a principall weapon euen the sword of the spirite Ergo. 3 The Gospell may be preached in the vulgare toung as our blessed Sauiour and the holy Apostles taught the people Ergo the word of God may be read and writteÌ„ in the vulgare toung The proposition our aduersaries graunt that SermoÌ„s may be made in the vulgare toung but it foloweth not say they that therefore Scripture should be in the mother toung Rhem. 1. Cor. 14.8 But I pray you how can the preacher alledge Scripture in his SermoÌ„ vnlesse it be recited in the vulgare toung or how should the people know they preach the word vnlesse they may compare their doctrine with Scripture as the Berrheans did Act. 17. 4 We haue the practise of the Church of God in times past for our warrant for in Chrisostomes time the people had vulgare translations whereupon he exhorteth them to get them Bibles or at the least the new Testament the Actes of the Apostles the Gospels Homil. 9. Epist. ad Coloss. We heard before that the Armenians Sclauonians Gothes had the Scripture in their own language so many hundred yeares ago in England king Alured translated the Psalter a copie whereof was found in Crowland Abbey called S. Guthlakes Psalter as M. LaÌ„bert witnesseth and Bede our learned country man translated S. Iohns Gospell Fox pag. 1115. col 2. The Rhemistes also confesse that more then 300. yeare ago the Italians had the Bible translated and the French men aboue 200. yeares ago Praefatan Testam 4. sect Why should not the people of God haue the same libertie now freely to read the Scriptures as they haue had in times past 5 Let vs heare Augustines opinion Lectiones diuinas saith he in Ecclesia sicut consuestis audite in domib vestris relegite I would haue you both to attend vnto the publike readings in the Church and in your house to read ouer againe the holy lessons but how could the people read them at home if they were not in their vulgare toung AN APPENDIX OR PART OF THIS question concerning publike prayers and diuine seruice in the

body who would haue the verie flesh of Christ present in the Sacrament for this is against the article of the Creede that Christ is ascended into heauen and there sitteth till his comming againe in iudgement Concerning these meanes thus writeth Augustine Rarissime inuenitur ambiguitas in verbis proprijs quam non aut circumstantia ipsa sermonis qua cognoscitur Scripturarum intentio aut interpretum collatio aut praecedentes soluat inspectio de doctrin Christ. lib. 3.4 There is almost no ambiguitie in any word properly vsed that is not metaphoricall or borrowed which may not either by the circumstance of the place the conference and comparing of interpreters or by looking into the originals easily be taken away Augustine we see approueth this methode though our aduersaries like it not Besides these prayer must be vsed before we enterprise any thing that the Lord would direct vs. And they which caÌ„ not so easily take this course which is prescribed shall do well to seeke helpe of learned and godly expositors or to consult with their Pastors and Ministers Ex Whitacher quaest 5. cap. 9. THE SEVENTH QVESTION CONCERNING the perfection and sufficiencie of Scripture THis question is deuided into three parts First whether the Scriptures be absolutely necessary SecoÌ„dly whether they be sufficient without vnwritten traditions Thirdly whether there be any traditions of faith and manners beside the Scriptures THE FIRST PART OF THE NEcessitie of the Scriptures The Papistes THe Iesuite laboureth to proue that the Scriptures are not simply necessarie error 11 which we denie not for meate is not simply necessarie for God may preserue man without so in respect of God nothing is simply necessarie God is not necessarily tyed to vse this or that meanes but his argumentes do tend to this end to shew that the scriptures are not necessarie at all and may be spared in the Church so saith Petrus a Soto the Scripture was not alway extant and it is not necessarie vnto faith And the Scripture it not now so necessarie since Christ as it was afore Tilman de verbo Dei error 17. 1 There was no Scripture from Adam to Moses for the space of two thousand yeares and yet true Religion was kept and continued and why might not true ReligioÌ„ be as well preserued a 1500. yeare after Christ without scripture as afore We answere It foloweth not because in times past God taught his church by a liuelie voyce that the written word is not necessarie now for the Lord saw it good that his word should be left in writing that we might haue a certaine rule of our faith in this corrupt and sinfull age And what els is this but to coÌ„troll the wisedome of God saying it is not necessarie or needfull for the Church which the Lord saw to be needfull for if the Lord had thought it as good for vs to be taught without Scripture as in that simple and innoceÌ„t age of the world I meane innocent in respect of vs he would not haue moued and stirred vp his Apostles to write 2 After the time of Moses when the law was written yet there were many that feared God amongest the Gentiles which had not the Scriptures as Iob and the other his friends Ergo the scripture not necessarie The Iewes also them selues vsed traditions more then Scriptures as Psal. 44. v. 1.2 the fathers did report the workes of God to their children by the negligence also of the Priests the law was lost as 2. King 22. we read that the volume of the law was found which had bene missing a long time We answere First eueÌ„ the faithfull amoÌ„gest the GeÌ„tiles did read the scripture as the Eunuke Act. 8. had the booke of the Prophet Isay. Secondly the Iewes declared the workes of God vnto their children but the same were also written as how the heathen were cast out before them and of their deliueraÌ„ce out of Egypt those were the things they heard of their fathers as we read Psal. 44. 78. yet all these things are recorded in the bookes of Moses Thirdly what though the Priests were negligent in preseruing the scriptures it is no good argument to proue that therefore they are not necessarie neither was the whole booke of the law lost but either Moses owne manuscript or the booke of Deuteronomie Yet he hath proued nothing 3 The Church after Christ wanted the Scriptures many yeares Ergo they are not necessarie We aunswere it is a great vntruth for the old TestameÌ„t the Church could not be without and the new Testament was written not long after in the age of the Apostles whose liuely voyce and preachings were vnto them as their writings are now to vs. See now what strong arguments they bring the scriptures were not necessary in the time of the Patriarkes when God taught them by his owne voyce they were not necessarie in the time of the Prophetes and Apostles when they had meÌ„ inspired of God to teach them Ergo they are not now necessarie when neither God teacheth from heauen neither haue we any Prophetes or Apostles to instruct vs by heauenly reuelations nay rather because they were not necessarie then when they had other effectuall meanes notwithstanding they are necessarie now seeing there is no other way of instruction left vnto vs. The Protestantes THat the scriptures are necessarie for the people of God the reading preaching and vnderstanding whereof is the onely and ordinarie meanes to beget faith in vs we thus proue out of the Scriptures them selues 1 The scriptures conteine necessarie knowledge to saluation which can not be learned but out of the scripture Ergo they are necessarie The knowledge of the law is necessarie but that onely is deriued from the Scripture as the Apostle witnesseth Rom. 7.7 he had not knowen lust to be sinne vnlesse the law had said thou shalt not lust And if the right knowledge of the law is not learned but out of the scripture much more the knowledge of the Gospel is more high and mysticall and more straunge vnto our nature 2 That whereby we are kept froÌ„ error and doubtfulnes in matters of faith is necessarie but this is performed by the scripture Ergo. First the Scripture keepeth vs from error Math. 22.29 ye erre not knowing the scriptures saith our Sauiour The ignoraunce of scripture was cause of their error Secondly if our knowledge were onely builded vpon tradition without scripture we should be doubtfull and vncertaine of the truth so S. Luke saith in his Preface to Theophilus I haue written saith he that thou mightest be certaine of those things whereof thou hast bene instructed Hence we conclude that although we might know the truth without scripture as Theophilus did yet we can not know it certainlie without 3 If the scriptures be not necessarie then we may be without them but this can not be Ergo the scriptures can not be spared for then God had done a needlesse and superfluous worke in stirring vp

the Prophets and Apostles to write S. Paule saith that what soeuer is writteÌ„ is written for our learning that through patience and coÌ„solation of the scriptures we might haue hope Rom. 15.4 The Lord saw in wisedome that his people could not be without the Scriptures which are necessarie for their learning for their comfort and to strengthen their hope how then dare our aduersaries say that the scriptures are not necessarie seeing these things wrought in vs by the scriptures knowledge consolation hope are most necessarie 4 Let Augustine now put in his verdict Illud credo quod etiaÌ„ hinc diuinoruÌ„ eloquiorum clarissima authoritas esset si homo illud sine dispendio salutis ignorare non posset de peccator merit remiss lib. 2.36 I thinke saith he that euen concerning this matter speaking of the originall or beginning of the soule the Scriptures would not haue bene silent if we might not safelie be ignoraunt of this matter without daunger of saluation Ergo whatsoeuer is necessarie to saluatioÌ„ is onely to be found in scripture for other matters there not expressed there in no daunger in not knowing them therfore the Scriptures by this Fathers iudgement are most necessary THE SECOND PART OF THE SEVENTH question of the sufficiencie of Scripture The Papistes THey do straungely affirme that the Scriptures conteine not all things necessarie error 12 to be knowen coÌ„cerning faith and manners and that they are not sufficient without traditions Bellarm. cap. 3.4 Lindanus a Papist saith that the scriptures conteine not all things necessarie to saluation Andradius that their approued traditions are of equall authoritie with the Scripture Ex Tilman de verbo error 2. 1 First the Iesuite thus reasoneth against the sufficiencie of Scripture There are diuerse bookes of canonicall Scripture lost and perished Ergo that part of canonical scripture which remaineth is not sufficieÌ„t that much is lost he thus proueth 1. Chron. cap. vlt. mention is made of the bookes of Nathan Gad. 2. Chron. 9. of the bookes of Ahiiah Ieedo in the new TestameÌ„t Col. 4. of the Epistle of S. Paule to the Laodiceans all those bookes are lost We aunswere First we denie not but that some bookes are now wanting which were part of canonicall scripture yet that which remaineth is sufficieÌ„t as some of SolomoÌ„s bookes are perished which he wrote of herbes plaÌ„ts and many of his Prouerbes the Lord saw that they were not so greatly necessarie for vs to saluation Secondly there is not so much wanting as the Iesuite would beare vs in haÌ„d for the books of the Prophets which he nameth are the same with the bookes of the Chronicles of the Kings which no doubt were writteÌ„ by those Prophetes And as for the Epistle of S. Paule to the LaodiceaÌ„s there was neuer any such the text is written from the Laodiceans it was the Epistle rather of the Laodiceans to S. Paule vnto the which he partly maketh aunswere in the Epistle to the Colossians and therefore he would haue it read also in their Church 2 If the Apostles had any such meaning to contriue in the scriptures the summe of faith and all necessarie knowledge it is very like Christ would haue geuen them some expresse commaundement so to do but we read not of any such strict commaundement Ergo they had no such purpose Bellarmine We aunswere First they them selues dare not denie but that the Apostles wrote by the instinct of the spirite what is that els but the commaundement of God Actes 16.6 Paule was forbidden of the holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia and ver 10. when he had seene a vision of a man of Macedonia appearing vnto him the Apostle concludeth that they were called of God wherefore what they did by the secret mouing of the spirite was done at the coÌ„maundement of God Secondly Apocal. 11.1.14.13 Iohn is biddeÌ„ to write that which he saw no doubt the other Apostles had the like coÌ„maundement 3 There are many points which we ought in no wise to be ignoraunt of which the scriptures speake either obscurelie of or not at all First these things are obscurely and doubtfully set downe in Scripture the equalitie of the persons in Trinitie the proceeding of the holy Ghost from the Father and the Sonne the doctrine of originall sinne We aunswere First if these things be found at all in the Scriptures it is sufficient concerning the question we haue in hand Secondly the Scripture doth manifestly declare the truth in all those points the equalitie of the persons is directly proued 1. Iohn 5.7 the procession of the spirite Iohn 15.26 the spirit is there said to be sent froÌ„ the Father the Sonne And Ioh. 14.26 Original sinne is described plainly by the Apostle Rom. 5.12 though the name be not found in Scripture Secondly there are diuerse things necessarie to be knowen not at all declared in Scripture First as that Marie continued a perpetuall Virgine We answere the Scripture saith euery where she was a Virgine neither maketh mention of any children she had and therefore out of the Scripture we gather that she continued Secondly Basile saith that it is sufficient to know she was a Virgine before the birth of Christ. Secondly to know that the Pasch or Easter must be kept vpon the Lordes day is necessarie Aunswere there is no such necessiitie in it to saluation neither needed the Church so much to haue contended about it in times past these are the mightie weapons which our aduersaries vse The Protestantes WE do not affirme as our aduersaries charge vs that all things necessarie to saluation are expressely conteined in scripture that is in so many words but this we hold that all things which are necessarily to be knowen of vs are either expresly declared in Scripture or necessarily concluded out of Scripture and so conteined in them We also graunt that it was not Gospell onely which was written but all that Christ and his Apostles taught by liuely voyce the whole summe whereof and substaunce is conteined in the written word and so we conclude that nothing necessarie to saluation either concerning faith or manners is els where to be found but in the holy Scriptures 1 S. Paule saith if we or an Aungell preach vnto you otherwise then that which we haue preached let him be accursed Ergo the Scripture conteineth all things necessarie First the Iesuite aunswereth that S. Paule speaketh not onely of his writings but also of his preachings which were not written We aunswere that the summe of all S. Paules preachings is conteined in his Epistles and other holy writings for S. Paule confirmed his doctrine out of the scriptures as Act. 17.10 the Berrheans examined his doctrine by the scriptures and found it to be consonant and to agree in all things Secondly he condeÌ„neth those which preach any thing not besides or otherwise but contrarie and therefore not any other doctrine besides Scripture is forbidden but that

which is contrarie We aunswere whatsoeuer is imposed as necessarie to saluation beside the Scripture praeter Scripturas is also contra Scripturas contrarie to Scripture as are all Popish traditions which they lay a necessitie vpon both beside and contrarie to Scripture Neither did those false Apostles against whom S. Paule writeth so much bring in another or coÌ„trary Gospell as the Apostle saith ver 7. as they did labour to corrupt and peruert that Gospel which S. Paul taught Therfore all traditioÌ„s whether praeter or coÌ„tra beside or contrarie to Scripture are notablie by this place ouerthrowen 2 Iohn 20.31 these things are written that ye might beleeue that Iesus Christ is the sonne of God that in beleeuing ye might haue life through his name Ergo the Scriptures conteine all things necessarie to saluation for they suffise to worke in vs faith and faith bringeth vs to eternall life First Bellarmine aunswereth that Iohn speaketh onely of that which he had written Aunswere If this one Apostles writings were able to worke faith the whole body of Scripture much more but he rather speaketh of all other holy writings of the Apostles for he was the suruiuer of them all acknowledged their writings and approued them SecoÌ„dly saith he the Apostle saith not that those writings onely suffise but they are profitable and referred to this end to worke faith Aunswere The Scripture is not one of the meanes but the sole whole and onely meanes for if they perfectly worke faith what neede any other helpes but the first is true for they doe beget in vs a perfect faith which shall bring vs to eternall life Ergo they are the onely meanes of faith 3 The whole Scripture saith S. Paule is profitable to teach to improue to correct and instruct in righteousnesse 2. Tim. 3.16 Ergo it conteineth all things necessarie for what els is requisite besides these foure to teach the right faith improue error to instruct in righteousnes and vertue to correct vice First they aunswere the Apostle meaneth as well euery booke of Scripture as the whole euery part therfore hath this perfection as well as the whole But you will not say that euery booke conteineth all things necessarie to saluation therefore this perfection is not so to be taken We aunswere First S. Paule vnderstandeth the body of Scripture as ver 15. thou hast knowen the Scriptures he speaketh of them all Secondly if euery part had these vtilities you might as well conclude that euery word and sillable hath them for they are parts of Scripture Thirdly it appeareth by these foure great vtilities here set downe that the Apostle meaneth not any part or partes of Scripture but the whole for euery part of Scripture is not profitable for all these endes but the whole SecoÌ„dly they say it foloweth not the Scripture is profitable therfore sufficient they also graunt it is profitable Aunswere but we conclude out of S. Paule that the Scripture is not onely profitable but sufficient as it foloweth v. 17. that the man of God may be absolute perfectly instructed to euery good worke If then the scriptures are able perfectly to instruct vs then are they sufficient then neede we no other helpes 4 Lastly Augustine thus writeth in Psal. 66. Ne putetis saith he ex alijs Scripturis petendum quod forte hic deest Thinke not saith he that it is to be found in any other writings if it be not in Scripture And in another place In Euangelio quaeramus nam si ibi non inuenimus vbi inueniemus Let vs saith he seeke to be resolued in the Gospell if we finde not there where shall we find it Ergo by the iudgemeÌ„t of Augustine there is no truth necessary to be knowen which is not to be found in the Scripture THE THIRD PART OF THE SEVENTH question whether there be any traditions beside Scripture concerning faith and manners The Papistes error 13 THey vnderstand by this word tradition doctrine preceptes and ceremonies with other vsages of the Church which are not written in the scriptures They do not say that all their traditioÌ„s are necessary but they make diuerse kindes of them some are vniuersall obserued in the whole Church some particular some are free some necessarie some are Apostolicall inuented by the Apostles some Ecclesiasticall by the Church so thus they conclude all traditions decreed in Councels and iudged Apostolicall whatsoeuer the Church of Rome receiueth as Apostolicall are not to be doubted but to be Apostolicall indeed Secondly all Apostolicall traditions are of equall authoritie with the writings of the Apostles Bellarm. lib. 4. cap. 2. 9. and they are that part of the word of God which is vnwritten as well as the scriptures are that part which is written Let vs see what arguments they bring for these traditions 1 They geue an instance of certaine traditioÌ„s as the Baptisme of infants and the not rebaptising of those which were before Baptised by heretikes We aunswere these two customes of the Church are grounded vpon scripture for as childreÌ„ were in the time of the law CircuÌ„cised so are they now vnder the Gospell Baptised and that promise Gene. 17. I will be thy God and the God of thy seede as it belonged to them and their children so doth it appertaine to vs and our children Concerning the other point that they whom heretikes haue once Baptised ought not to be Baptised againe S. Augustine doth proue it out of the scripture Ephe. 4. there is one Faith one Baptisme Ergo not to be repeated But now they come in with other traditions as the Lenton fast which they vse most fondly and superstitiously the eight Ecclesiasticall orders Bishops Prists DeacoÌ„s Subdeacons Acolythistes Readers Exorcistes Doore-keepers the worshipping of Images with many other these they would face vs out to be Apostolical traditions and to haue bene vniuersally obserued which are but their vayne brags and Thrasonicall crakes they shall neuer proue them vniuersall much lesse Apostolicall And because they finde no scripture to establish these their superstitious fantasies by they flye vnto tradition which is their onely hauen where they hope to finde succour but all in vayne Bellarm. lib. 4. cap. 9. Consul Whitacher quaest 6. cap. 4. 2 They proceede and alledge scripture for their traditions as that place Iohn 16.12 I haue many things to say but you can not beare them now Ergo say they there are many traditions not written We aunswere First it foloweth not because Christ declared not all things at that time that therefore he kept them from his Apostles all together Nay whatsoeuer afterwardes the Apostles learned of the spirite of God they had heard before of Christ for it was the office of the spirite but to put them in remembrance of Christes sayings Iohn 14.26 which they had heard before but vnderstood them not and so forgat them Wherefore these things which Christ forbeareth to speake are the same things which are coÌ„teined in

scripture 1. Deut. 17.12 He that harkeneth not vnto the priest that man shal die But mark I pray you what goeth before v. 11. according to the law which they shal teach thee according to the iudgement which they shall tell thee shalt thou do see then here is no absolute iudicial power giuen to the priest but according to the law of God 2. The example of the Apostles Act. 15. is as foÌ„dly alleadged where it was decreed saith the Iesuite that the GeÌ„tiles shuld not be burthened with ceremonies which saith hee was not determined by the scriptures but by the absolute suffrages of the Apostles Again their decrees were absolutely imposed vpon the Churches without any further examination of the Disciples Ergo we are now also absolutely bound to obey all decrees of Councels Bellar. de concil 1.18 We answere first it is false that this matter was determined without scripture for Iames alleadgeth scripture Peter thus reasoneth we beleeue through the grace of God to be saued as wel as they v. 11. therfore what need this yoke of ceremonies 2. Though there had been no scripture who seeth not that the spirit of God so ruled the Apostles that their writings and holy actions should serue for scripture vnto the ages following Thirdly the Disciples needed not to examine their decrees knowing that they were gouerned by the spirit as they themselues write It seemed good to vs and the holy Ghost yet we see the brethren of Bereae searched the scripture for the trueth of those things which the Apostles preached Act. 17.11 When they can proue such a plenarie power fulnes of the spirit in their pastors and Councels as was in the Apostles we wil also beleeue them The Protestantes WE doe firmly beleeue that neither the Church nor Councels haue any such absolute power to determine without the holy scriptures either beside or agaynst them or to binde other men to obey such decrees Neither that the true Church of God dare or will arrogate such power vnto it self But that Councels are ordayned for the discussing deciding of doubtful matters according to the scriptures and word written 1. If the Apostles preachings might bee examined according to scripture much more the acts of all other Bishops and pastors But that was lawful in the Disciples of Berea Act. 17.11 which are commended for it therefore called noble couragious Christians because of this their promptnes diligence in searching out of the truth Ergo. 2. All things necessarie to saluation to be beleeued are articles of our fayth but al such articles must be grounded vpon the word of God therfore nothing can be imposed as necessary to saluation without the word of God Wherefore it is a blasphemous saying of the papists that the Church may make new articles of fayth Rhemens annot in 1. Tim. 3. sect 9. and Eckius maintained the same poynt agaynst Luther in the disputation at Lipsia and brought forth a new article of faith agreed of in the Councel of Constance that it is de necessitate salutis of the necessitie of saluation to beleeue that the Pope is the head of the Church The fathers of Basile more modest then so concluding that it was an article of fayth to beleeue that Councels were aboue the Pope doe vse this reason those things say they which we alleadge for the superioritie of general Councels are gathered out of the sayings of our Sauiour Christ. Ergo we are al bound to obey them Therefore we conclude that the word of God only written is the rule of fayth and al things necessary to be beleeued Rom. 10.10 Fayth commeth by hearing and hearing by the word Councels are to explane and declare articles of faith not to establish new 3 Lastly we will heare Augustine speake Nec tu debes Ariminense neque ego NicaenuÌ„ tanquaÌ„ praeiudicaturus proferre concilium scripturarum authoritatibus c. Neither must I alleadge the Nicen Councel nor you the Arimine I am neither bound to the one nor you to the other let the matter be tried by Scripture cont Maximu Arrianum lib. 3. cap. 14. By this fathers sentence therefore no man is bound of necessitie to be tyed to Councels but the Scripture onely is absolutely to be beleeued THE SEAVENTH QVESTION WHETHER Councels be aboue the Pope or not The Papists THis is a matter yet not fully determined amongst the Papists Neither are error 35 they all of one opinion In the Councell of Constance and Basile it was fully concluded that the Councell is aboue the Pope Gerson of Paris that was also present in the Councell of Constance and a great dooer against Iohn Hus stifly maintaineth the authoritie of Councels aboue the Pope Other Papists more fauorable to their new God amight say that the Pope is by right aboue the Councell but he may if he wil submit himselfe to the Councell But now commeth in the stoute Iesuite and saith with the rest of the schoolemen that the Pope hath such a soueraigntie aboue the Councell that he cannot be subiect to their sentence though hee would Bellar. de concil lib. 2.14 Yet hee is in a mammering with himselfe for saith he in periculo schismatis when there is a schisme and it is not knowne who is the true Pope in such a case the Councell is aboue the Pope Let vs examine some of his best reasons 1 Now commeth in a great blasphemie All the names saith the Iesuite that are giuen to Christ in the Scriptures as head of the Church are ascribed to the Pope as he is called fidelis dispensator Luc. 12. a faithfull steward in the Lords house pastor gregis Iohn 10. the shepheard of the flocke Caput corporis ecclesiae Ephes. 4. the head of his bodie the Church vir seu sponsus Ephes. 5. the husband or spouse of the Church all these titles saith he are due to the Pope Ergo he is aboue the Church and so consequently aboue generall Councels Bellar. de concil lib. 2.17 O Lord what great blasphemie is here to appropriate the titles of Christ to a mortall man But goe to Bellarmine and the rest of that packe fil vp the measure of iniquitie of your forefathers say with Pope Athanasius that the people of the world are the partes of his bodie with Cornelius the Bishop in the Councell of Trent the Pope being the light came into the world and men loued darkenes rather then light with Pope Calixtus in the Councell of Rhemes who when hee saw the Councell would not consent to excommunicate the Emperour impiously cried out that they had forsaken him as Christ was left of his Disciples with Innocentius the third that all things in Heauen and earth and vnder the earth doe bowe the knee vnto him with Otho no Pope but a Cardinall that sitting amongst his Bishops blasphemously applied to himselfe the vision of Ezechiel cap. 1. resembling the Bishops to the sower faced beasts himselfe vnto God that approched to the

aduersaries the Papistes that holding all those bookes to be Scripture which we do acknowledge doe adde vnto them other bookes which are not canonicall so that they offend not as other heretikes in denying any part of the Scripture but which is as bad in adding vnto it for both these are accursed Reuel 22.18 First of all breifly before we proceed let vs see who they were that offend in the first kind Some heretikes generally reiected the whole Scripture some certaine partes thereof The Sadducees receiued no Scripture beside the fiue bookes of Moses the Maniches condemned the whole old testament and so did wicked Marcion The bookes of Moses the Ptolemaites refused the booke of the Psalmes the Nicolaitanes and the Anabaptistes in our dayes there wanted not which condemned the booke of the Preacher and the Canticles as wanton and lasciuious bookes and the Anabaptists are not here behind with their partes The holy and excellent booke of Iob hath also found enimies and some of the Rabbins which do thinke that the storie is but fained which heresie is confuted Ezech 14.14 for there Noah Iob Daniel are named together so that it is manifest that such a man there was The new testament the Maniches most impiously affirmed to be full of lies Cerdon the heretike condemned all but Lukes Gospel The Valentinians could away with none but Iohns Gospell The Alogians of all other hated Iohns writings The Ebionites onely admitted Matthewes Gospell The Acts of the Apostles the Seuerian heretikes contemned The Marcionites the Epistles to Timothie to Titus to the Hebrues The Ebionites could not away with any of S. Paules workes ex Whitakero cont 1. de Script cap. 3. Vnto these adde the Zwencfeldians and Libertines that refuse to be iudged by the Scripture calling it a dead letter and flie vnto the inward and secret reuelations of the spirite And by your leaue the Papists are not far from this heresie some of them although the Iesuite crie neuer so much with open mouth that wee belye them De verbo Dei lib. 1. cap. 1. Take but a litle paines to peruse that worthy learned mans and reuerent fathers defence of the Apologie p. 521. there you shall find how that Lodouicus a Canon Lateran in Rome said in the Councell of Trent that the Scripture is but mortuum atramentuÌ„ dead inke The Bishop of Poitiers sayd that it was but res mammis muta a dead and dumbe thing Albertus Pigghius that the Scriptures were but muti Iudices dumbe Iudges Eckius calleth it Euangelium nigrum theologiam atramentariam the blacke Gospell and inkie diuinitie and it is nasus cereus a nose of wax saith he And now in cometh Hosius with his part that it is but lost labor which is bestowed in the Scripture for the Scripture is a creature and a certaine bare letter But the Iesuit saith that we abuse the name of that man for those are not his owne words but he reporteth them of Zuinckfeldius Be it so for this time though M. Iewell bestowe some paines to proue them to be according to his owne meaning Though these be not Hosius owne wordes yet these are not much better yea far worse who speaking of Dauids writing of the Psalmes sayth thus Quid ni scriberet scribimus indocti doctique poemata passim why might not he write sayth he being a temporall Prince as Horace saith we write ballades euery body both learned and vnlearned p. 522. I pray you now how much do these Papists differ from the Libertines and Zuinkfeldians vnlesse it be in this that the Libertins cleaue to secret reuelations the Papistes are pinned vpon the Popes sleeue affirming that it is no Scripture nor Gospel without the determination of the Church Nay one of them saith determinatio Ecclesiae appellatur EuaÌ„gelium the determination of the Church is called the Gospell Iohannes Maria will you yet heare of greater impietie Anno Domini .1240 or thereabout there was a booke set forth by the Friers called Euangelium aeternum full of their owne fables and abominable errors they taught that Christes Gospell was not to be compared vnto it and that the Gospel of Christ should be preached but fifty years This booke with much a do was condemned by the Pope but after long disputation and it was burnt secretely lest the fryers should haue bene discredited and withall the booke of Guilielmus de S. amore which he had written against the Friers and disputed against their Gospell was commanded to be burned with the other Besides these heresies their opinion also is to be reiected that thynke that the holy writers might in some things be deceiued as mistaking one thing for another or fayling in their memorie To this opinion Erasmus enclined whom Bellarmine taketh paine to confute lib. 1. cap. 6. He might as well haue turned his argument vpon Melchior Canus their owne champion who thinketh that Stephen Act. 7. in telling so long a storie might forget him selfe in some things Cau. lib. 2. cap. 18. ex Whitakero but now to the question The Papists Assertion THere are certaine bookes annexed to the old Testament which the Papists error 1 them selues do not acknowledge for canonicall as the Prayer of Manasses the two bookes of Esdras commonly called the third and fourth of Esdras also other which are not vsually in our English Bibles as an appendix to the booke of Iob the 151. Psalme a booke called the Pastor All these by our aduersaries are reiected The question betweene vs is concerning these books first certaine peeces ioyned to canonicall bookes as seuen Chapters of Esther certaine stories annexed to Daniel as of Bel the Dragon of Susanna the Song of the three children also the Epistle of Baruch ioyned to Ieremy TheÌ„ folow certaine whole books as Tobie Iudith the Wisedome of Salomon Ecclesiasticus two bookes of the Machabees these six bookes with the other three appendices or peeces of books the Papists hold to be canonicall and of as firme authority as any part of the Scripture Arguments they haue none beside cartaine testimonies of some fathers and Councels which we purpose not to deale withall leauing them to our learned country men who haue taken in hand to discusse these controuersies to the full The Protestants confession WE are agreed concerning the new testameÌ„t that all the books therof as they stand are to be receiued of all for Scripture for as for those forged Gospels of Thomas S. Andrew of Nicodemus and the like though the Church were troubled with them in times past yet their memory being now worne out there is no question of theÌ„ Concerning the bookes on both sides acknowledged if some one man seeme to doubt of some one part as Luther doth of the Epistle of Iames and Iude it ought no more to preiudice vs then Catetanus opinion doth hurt them who called more bookes in question then Luther did as the Epistle of Iames of Iude the second of Peter the second and

third of Iohn the last Chapter of Marke We differ not then in the new Testament vnlesse it be concerning the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews which ouer aduersaries stoutly affirme to be S. Pauls which we deny not neither certainly can affirme it seeing in some Greeke copies it is left out and in the Syriacke translation But it mattereth not who was the author seeing we receiue it as canonicall for the title is no part of the booke and so neither of Scripture and we receiue many bookes in the old Testament the authors whereof are not perfectly knowne So then all the question is about the Apocrypha of the old TestameÌ„t they are called Apocrypha because they are hid and obscure not because their authours are vnknowne for as I sayd we knowe not by whom certaine Canonical bookes were written neither are they so called because of some vntruthes conteined in them contrary to Scripture as the most of them haue for it foloweth not that euerie booke which hath no vntruth or lye should straight wayes be taken for Scripture but they are therfore iudged and called Apocrypha because they were not in former time receiued into publike and authentick authoritie in the Church neither to be alledged as grounds of our faith though they may be read for example of life and may haue other profitable vse But the Canonicall Scripture onely hath this priuiledge to geue rules of faith and thereupon it hath the name that we may be bold to beleeue and ground our faith vpon the canonicall holy Scripture which is the onely word of God Wherefore out of this number of Canonicall Scripture we exclude all the books afore named therfore let not the reader be deceiued that although they be ioyned in one volume with the Scripture to think that they are for that of the same authoritie and credit with the rest first we will shew one reason in general and afterward come vnto the particular books in order 1 All canonical scripture in the old Testament was written by Prophets we haue a sure word of the prophetes saith S. Peter 2.1.19 and S. Paule Rom. 16.26 calleth them the Scriptures of the Prophets But none of those bookes aforenamed of Tobias Iudith and the rest were written by the Prophets for they were all written since Malachies time who was the last Prophete as the Church complaineth Psal. 74.9 There is not one Prophete nor any that can tell vs how long Ergo none of these bookes are canonicall 2 All the canonicall bookes of the old Testament were acknowledged of the Iewes and Hebrues for they were then onely the Church of God and where should Scripture be found but in the Church to them sayth S. Paule were committed the oracles of God Rom. 3.2 But the Iewes receiued none of these books for none of them are written in the Hebrue toung neither did they receiue them with the like authoritie as other bookes of Scripture and this some of the Papists can not denie Ergo thy are not Canonicall 3 There is no Scripture of the old Testament but it hath approbation of the new for as the Prophetes beare witnesse to Christ so he againe doth witnesse for the Prophets and therefore it is a true proposition of Caietane though he be controlled and checked of Catharinus an other Papist for it that there is no Scripture which was not either written or approued by the Apostles but in the whole new Testament you shall not find one testimony cited either in the Gospel or the Epistles out of any of the Apocrypha as out of other bookes of Scripture therefore hauing no approbation of the new Testament we conclude they are none of the old 4 It shall appeare in the seuerall discourse of the particular bookes that there is somewhat euen in the bookes themselues to be found that barreth them from being Canonicall OF THE BOOKE OF BARVCH The Papistes THis is their best reason for the authoritie of this booke because Baruch was Ieremies scribe and therfore Baruch can not be refused vnlesse also we doubt of Ieremie Bellarm. lib. 1. de verbo Dei cap. 8. The Protestantes THis booke was neither written by Ieremie nor Baruch first because it is in Greeke if either Ieremie or Baruch had written it it is most like they would haue written in Hebrue Secondly the phrase and manner of speach sheweth that it was neuer written in Hebrue for in the 6. Chapter in the Epistle of Ieremie it is said that the Israelites should be in captiuitie seuen generations that is 70. yeares but it can not be found in any Hebrue booke that generation is taken for the space of 70. yeares OF THE SEVEN APOCRYPHAL Chapters of Esther The Papistes ONe of their chief Arguments besides testimonies and authorities which would make to great a Volume is this which is common also to the rest of the Apocrypha they are read in the Church haue bene of auncient time Ergo they are Canonicall I aunswere that it is no good argument Hierome saith plainly Legit Ecclesia sedeos inter Scripturas Canonicas non recipit Praefat. in lib. Solomon The Church indeede saith he readeth them yet for all that they are not Canonicall And Augustine was woÌ„t to read vnto the people the Epistles of the Donatistes and his aunsweres vnto them Epist. 203. The Protestantes THe most of our reasons against the authoritie of the 7. Chapters added to Esther for of the 10 first Chapters which are found in the Hebrue we make no doubt at all are drawen from the matter of the booke it selfe 1 In the second of the Canonicall Esther ver 16. it is said that the conspiracie of the two Eunuches against the king was in the 7. yeare of Assuerus but in the 11. Chap. ver 2. of the Apocryphall Esther we read that Mardocheus did dreame of this conspiracie in the secoÌ„d yeare Bellarmine aunswereth that both are true for the dreame was in the secoÌ„d yeare the conspiracie in the seueÌ„th so belike there was fiue yeares betweene But in the 11. Chapter it is said that Mardocheus was much troubled about that dreame and the next night after his dreame the conspiracie was enterprised 2 The true history of Esther saith that Mardocheus had no reward at that time of the king cap. 6.3 but the forged storie saith that at the same time the king gaue him great gifts which can not be meant of that great honor which afterward was bestowed vpon Mardoche for then Haman being hanged the same day could worke him no despite wheras the forged story saith that after the king had rewarded him then Haman began to stomach him because of those two Eunuches 3 Againe the storie which is added was written many yeares after Mardoches Esthers death vnder the raigne of Ptolomaeus Cleopatra as it appeareth cap. 11.1 it is not like therefore to be a true storie Bellarmins ridiculous coÌ„iecture is this that there were two stories

writteÌ„ in Hebrue of Esther the one coÌ„pendious short which we now haue the other more large which might be translated by Lisimachus there spoken of cap. 11. whose translation we now onely haue the originall being perished What goodly gesses here be to make Canonicall Scripture what neede two bookes of one thing If the first were written by the spirite of God and so were Canonicall what neede a secoÌ„d the spirite of God vseth not to correct his own writings and this can not be that ample and large storie imagined being shorter and not so full as the first 4 Besides the false storie saith that Haman was a Macedonian Cap. 16. v. 10. the true storie saith he was an Agagite or Amalekite cap. 8.3 how can these two agree Nay the forged booke saith that Haman would haue destroyed the king so coÌ„ueyed the kimgdome of the Persians to the Macedonians which could in no wise be for the kingdome of the Macedonians was not yet spoken of and so it continued in small or no reputation till Phillippus the father of Alexander who was many yeares after Vide plura Whitach quaest 1. cap. 8. De Scripturis 5 In the latter Chapters that is repeated which was set downe in the former part which argueth that the story was not writteÌ„ by one maÌ„ and it is not like he would write one part in Hebrue another in Greeke If any say as the Iesuite saith that this part was in Hebrue and being translated into Greeke was lost why was one part rather lost then the other and was it not as like to be preserued in Hebrue as in Greeke These are verie bare and suspicious coniectures OF CERTAINE CHAPTERS annexed to Daniell THere are three parcels ioyned to Daniell the song of the 3. childreÌ„ the storie of Susanna of Bel and the Dragon in the vulgare Latin which are not any part of Canonicall Scripture 1 They are neither extant in Hebrue at this day nor are like to haue bene translated out of Hebrue into Greeke but compiled first in Greeke and therfore not written by Daniell for v. 54.58 of the storie of Susanna where one of the Elders saith he saw her vnder a Lentiske tree the other vnder a prime tree he vseth a certaine paronomasie or allusion vnto the Greeke wordes which caÌ„ not stand in the Hebrue as of the tree ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ he saith the Angell of the Lord ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ shall cut you in two and so of the tree ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ shall deuide thee in two As if a maÌ„ should thus allude in English thou wast vnder the prune tree the Lord shall prime thee This allusion is not in the Hebrue as the learned haue verie well obserued but onely in the Greeke 2 The time is vncertaine wheÌ„ this storie should be done It was in the captiuitie for Susanna dwelt in Babilon but Daniell could not then be so young a child as the storie maketh for he was carried away in the first captiuitie with Iehoiakim as it is Dan. 1. And Ezechiell that liued about that time doth speake of the great prudence sage wisedome of Daniel Ezech. 28.3 and ioyneth him with Noah Iob. cap. 14. All this proueth that Daniell could not bee so very a babe in the beginning of the captiuitie as the storie maketh him 3 In the story of Daniell it is said that he was 6. dayes in the LyoÌ„s den but the true storie saith he was there but one night cap. 6. The Iesuite aunswereth he was twise in the Lyons den or rather he thinketh there were two Daniels the one of the tribe of Iuda which was that great Prophet the other of Leui which was the principall in those two stories of Susanna and of Bel and the Dragon But this is a poore shift to inuent another Daniell whom the Scripture neuer knew and if it were so why are all their actes ioyned together as if one Daniell had done and write them all OF THE BOOKE OF TOBIE 1 THis booke is not found in the Hebrue in the which toung all the oracles of God were kept Ergo it is worthelie doubted of 2 Our aduersaries them selues confesse that in Hieromes time it was not receiued for Canonicall The Iesuite aunswereth that it might be doubted of before it was determined in a Generall Councell to whom saith he it appertaineth to define of Canonicall Scripture As though this were not a greater doubt whether a CouÌ„cell hath any such authoritie to determine which books ought to be receiued for Canonicall for Canus a Papist maketh question of it Lib. 2. cap. 8. And the Iesuite him selfe saith that the Church can not Facere Canonicum de non Canonico make a booke not canonicall to be canonicall but onely to declare those to be Canonicall which are so in deed Wherefore the Papistes take to much vpoÌ„ them to make this boke within the Canon being of it selfe not Canonicall and so adiudged by antiquitie 3 He that readeth the booke it selfe shall finde that both the stile and the matter is not such as beseemeth Canonicall Scripture read Tremell in cap. 3. ver 8. cap. 13. ver 15. OF THE BOOKE OF IVDITH AN escpeciall Argument against this booke is that the historie can not be assigned to any time 1 It is pretie sport to see how the Papistes doe moyle them selues about this point and can not agree amongest them selues Some hold that this storie fell out after the captiuitie in Cambises time as Lyranus and Driedo some in Darius Histaspis raigne as Gerardus Mercator some would haue it before the captiuitie in Sedechias time as Genebrard some in Iosias time as Iohan. Benedictus but the Iesuite confuteth them all and bringeth the storie to Manasses raigne but he hath also mist the cushin 2 It appeareth that this story could not be after the captiuitie for we read not of any Nabuchadneser afterwards for the kingdome was translated froÌ„ the Assirians to the Persians and Meedes Againe it could not be before either in Iosias time Sedechias or Manasses first because in the 5. Chap. v. 18. it is said that the temple had bene destroyed and cast downe which could not be in any of those kings raignes It is but a shift of Bellarmines to say those words were foysted into the text it is rather to be thought that the Iesuite is put to his truÌ„ps not hauing els what to answer SecoÌ„dly Iudith being at this time in the flower of her age and liuing afterward many yeares till she was 105. yeare old all which time and many yeares after her death the booke saith in the last Chapter the land had rest this can not agree with Manasses time for within 40. yeares or not much aboue the land fell into great trouble straight after Iosias death Where then is this long time of rest And the Iesuite that still grouÌ„deth vpon impossibilities and vnlikele-hoods that Iudith was at this time 40. yeare old which was saith

abridgeth the story of one Iason a Syrenean Lib. 2. cap. 2. v. 23. Who was an Heathen but the spirite of God vseth not neither needeth to borow of prophane writers He saith that this worke was not easie but paineful to him but required sweating and watching v. 26. But to the holy writers of Scripture though their own labour and diligence was not wanting yet was not the worke hard or molestious vnto them Lastly the author faith he writeth for pleasure recreation of the Reader and craueth pardon if he haue not done well Lib. 2.15.39 But to read for pleasure is no end of Scripture neither doth the spirit of God vse any excuse either for matter or manner Our aduersaries say that S. Paule likewise confesseth that he was rude in speaking 1. Cor. 11.6 We aunswere he so saith because the false Apostles so gaue out of him not that he was so indeed and yet in that place S. Paule doth not excuse him selfe for his not sufficieÌ„t haÌ„dling of his matter as this author doth neither is that speach of S. Luke any thing like for there the Euangelist doubteth not to say that he had attained to an exact knowledge of all things Vpon these premises we conclude that these bookes of the Machabees are not Canonicall nor to be taken for any part of holy Scripture though we denie not but that there may be some profitable vse of them for the storie AVGVSTINES IVDGEMENT OF the bookes called Apocrypha FIrst generally of them all thus he writeth Quas itaque Scripturas dicimus nisi Canonicas legis Prophetarum de vnit Eccle. 16. We acknowledge no Canonicall Scripture of the old Testament but the law and the Prophetes but none of the Apocrypha were writteÌ„ by any of the Prophets Againe he saith Omnes literae quib Christus Prophetatus est apud Iudaeos sunt Psal. 56. All the bookes which do Prophesie of Christ were kept amoÌ„gest the Iewes but none of the Apocrypha were written in Hebrue Ergo. Concerning the story of Bel and the Dragon he calleth it a fable de mirabilib lib. 2. cap. 32. Of the same credite is the storie of Susanna The booke of Iudith was not saith he receiued in the Canon of the Iewes De Ciuit. Dei 18.26 The two bookes of Ecclesiasticus and the wisedome of Solomon are onely said to be Solomons propter eloquij nonnullam similitudinem because of some affinitie and likenesse of the stile De Ciuit. Dei 17.20 So he thinketh that Solomon was not indeed the author of them how then can that booke be Canonicall which geueth it selfe a false title being called the wisedome of SolomoÌ„ and was neuer compiled by Solomon THE SECOND QVESTION CONCERning the authenticall and most approued Edition of the Scriptures The Papistes WHereas it is confessed that the Hebrue Edition of the old TestameÌ„t error 2 is the most auncient in the which toung the Scriptures were compiled by the Prophets that the new TestameÌ„t was writteÌ„ in Greeke by the Apostles and the Euangelistes yet our aduersaries do generally hold as it was decreed in the TrideÌ„tine Chapter Sess. 4. Decret 2. That in all sermoÌ„s readings disputations controuersies the vulgare Latine traÌ„slation should be taken for authentike before the Hebrue or Greeke and that no man should presume vpon any occasion to reiect it or appeale from it The Protestantes WE do truly affirme that although there are diuerse EditioÌ„s of the old Testament besides the Hebrue and some of them verie auncient as the translation of the Septuagints compiled by 72. auncieÌ„ts of the Iewes at the instigation of Ptolomeus Philadelphus king of Egypt 300. yeares before Christ and after Christ there were other translations in Greeke made by Aquila Synomachus Theodotion and others also a Chalde Paraphrase compiled by the Iewes last of all diuerse Latin translations the which as Augustine saith in his time were so many that they could not be nuÌ„bred yet of al the rest the Hebrue being the most auncient and the mother of the rest and freest from corruptions ought to be receiued as most authentike And for the new Testament though there be a Syriacke translation verie auncient yet the Greeke ought to be preferred being the same toung wherein the Apostles and the Euangelistes wrote to be the onely authentike copie As for the Latin translation of the Bible we are able to proue it to be verie corrupt and faultie and therefore not authentike The Papistes Argumentes 1 THe Latin Church hath vsed the vulgare Latin translation for the space of 800. or 900. yeares and it is not like that the Church all this while was without the true Edition of the Scriptures Ergo it is onely authenticall We aunswere First by this Argument it foloweth that this vulgar Latin being generally vsed was preferred before other Latin translations which were at the first in great number not that therefore it is more authentike then the Hebrue in the old and the Geeeke in the new Testaments Secondly there were other Churches besides the Latin all this while as amongest the Greekes famous congregations and Churches that be it in the Latin Church the vulgar translation was reteined being erroneous yet the whole Church continued not in that errour which were not so tyed and bound to the Latin translation Thirdly if men all this while knowledge decreasing and a way being in preparing for Antichrist were negligent in correcting and amendiâ—â— the common translation this is no good Argument to make it authenticall â— As the Hebrues had an authentike translation in their own toung and ã€ˆâ€¦ã€‰ in theirs why should not the Latin Church haue it also authenticall in Latin We aunswere First it is no good reason because the Lord did consecrate the Hebrue and Greeke toung and therein would haue his word written that therefore he would or should also haue made the Latin as well authenticall as they Secondly if the Latin Church must haue an authentike translation why should not other countrys likewise haue their authenticals The Armenians had the Scriptures of old translated by Chrisostome the Sclauonians by Hierome the Gothes by Vlphilas why should not these also as well be authenticall and so looke into how many toungs the Scriptures should be translated so many authenticall translations should there be 3 They say that all other translations which are come forth since are erronious and much differ amoÌ„gest them selues Aunswere First this is no reason to prefere it before the Hebrue and Greeke though it were better theÌ„ all other traÌ„slations Secondly they charge vs falsly that our traÌ„slations are dissonant and erronious for their disagreement is not in such substantiall points where any of them do swarue from the originall we allow them not and yet there is not the meanest of them but may iustly compare with theirs yea and be preferred before it Thirdly if their traÌ„slation were so pure as they say Beza him selfe maketh it he would not haue set forth a

but the witnesse of the spirite doth certifie and assure vs of the truth and authoritie of scripture 7 I will adde one saying out of Augustine Mihi certum est nusquam a Christi authoritate discedere non enim reperio valentiorem Contra Academic lib. 3. cap. 20 I am resolued for no cause to leaue the authoritie of Christ speaking in the scriptures for I finde none more forcible Ergo the authoritie of scripture is aboue the Church which is denied by the Rhemistes annot 2. Gal. sect 2. THE FIRST QVESTION CONCERNING the perspicuitie and playnnes of the Scripture The Papistes OVr aduersaries do hold that the scriptures are most hard difficult and obscure error 6 Bellarmine saith necessario fatendum est Scripturas esse obscurissimas it must needes be graunted that the scriptures are most obscure de verbo Dei lib. 3. cap. 1. They do not onely affirme that some things are obscure in the scriptures but that they are all hard and doubtfull and vncertaine and compare theÌ„ therfore to a leaden rule which may be turned euery way Petrus a Soto And to a nose of wax Lindanus a Papist ex Tilmanno de verbo Dei error 5. Our Rhemistes say it is all one to affirme some things to be hard in a writer and the writer to be hard so they conclude that the scriptures are both in respect of the matter and manner very hard and therfore daungerous for the ignoraunt to read them Rhemens annot in 2. Pet. 3. ver 16. 1 They obiect that place 2. Pet. 3.16 where the Apostle saith speaking of S. Paules Epistles that many things are hard Ergo the Epistles of S. Paule are hard and so the scriptures this is Bellarmine and the Iesuites argument We answere First he saith not that Paules Epistles are hard but many things which he entreateth of Secondly they are hard not to all but the vnstable and vnlearned do peruert them Thirdly We denie not but that some places in the scripture are obscure and haue neede of interpretation but it foloweth not that therefore the whole scripture is obscure and because of some hard places that the people should be forbidden the reading of all 2 The scriptures are obscure both in the respect of the matter and manner first the matter is high and mysticall as of the Trinitie of the incarnatioÌ„ of the word of the nature of Angels such like We aunswere these mysteries may be said to be obscure three diuerse wayes First in their owne nature so are they hard indeed for by humane reason we can not attaine to the depth of theÌ„ Secondly in respect of their handling in the scripture so are they not obscure for all these things are plainly declared in the word as the nature of such deepe mysteries will afoord Thirdly in respect of vs so must they needs be obscure if men be not coÌ„tented with the knowledge in the word but curiously search further Luther therefore doth aptly distinguish of these things he saith that res Dei the things of God are obscure the very depth of his mysteries can not be comprehended of vs but res Scripturae these things as they are opened in scripture are plaine if we will content our selues with that knowledge Secondly saith Bellarmine the maner of handling is hard and obscure there are many tropes metaphores allegories Hebraismes which can not easily be vnderstood We aunswere First many of these are rather ornamentes of the scripture as tropes metaphores then impediments to the reader Secondly though the phrase of scripture seeme hard at the first yet by further trauell in the scriptures it may become easie and plaine for all things are not vnderstood at the first Thirdly we denie not but that some places are obscure and had neede to be opened 3 If the scriptures be not hard what need so many CommeÌ„taries and expositions Rhemist 2. Pet. 16. We aunswere First so many Commentaries are not requisite some may be spared Secondly expositions are needfull for the vnderstanding of darke places but many things are plaine inough without expositions and may be vnderstood of the simple The Protestantes WE do not hold that the scripture is euery where so plaine and euident that it need no interpretation as our aduersaries do slaunder vs and therefore here they do fight with their owne shadow Bellarm. lib. 3. de verbo cap. 1. We confesse that the Lord in the Scriptures hath tempered hard things and easie together that we might be exercised in the Scriptures and might knocke labour by prayer and studie for the opening of the sense and that there might be order kept in the Church some to be hearers some teachers expounders by whose diligent search and trauell the harder places may be opened to the people But this we affirme against our aduersaries first that all points of faith necessarie to saluation are plainely set forth in the Scriptures secondly that the Scriptures may with great profit be read of the simple and vnlearned notwithstanding the hardnesse of some places which in time also vsing the meanes they come to the vnderstanding of Ex Fulk annot 2. Pet. 3.16 Whitacher quaest 4. cap. 1. 1 First that which we maintaine is euident out of the scripture Deut. 30.11 the commaundement which I commaund thee is not hid from thee nor farre of And as it foloweth thou needest not ascend to the heauens or go beyond the sea the word is neare vnto thee euen in thy mouth and hart to do it argum Brentij Ergo the scriptures are plaine First the Iesuite aunswereth that it is meant onely of the decalogue and the ten commandements that they are easie not of the whole Scripture As though if the commandements be easie the rest of the scriptures be not likewise as the Prophets and historicall books being but commeÌ„taries and expositions of the decalogues S. Paule Rom. 10.6 vnderstandeth this place of the whole doctrine of faith who better knew the meaning of Moses then the Iesuite 2 2. Cor. 4.3 If our Gospell be hid it is to them onely that are lost Ergo the Scriptures are plaine to the faithfull The Iesuite aunswereth S. Paule speaketh of the knowledge of Christ not of the Scriptures First it is manifest out of the 2. verse that S. Paule speaketh of that Gospell which he preached to the Corinthians which is the same he wrote vnto them wherefore if the Gospell preached were easie and plaine why is not the Gospell written by him I meane the doctrine of faith being the same which he preached Secondly if they graunt that the knowledge of Christ is easie we aske no more for this is that we say that the doctrine of faith and saluation is plainly expressed in Scripture 3 This is the difference betweene the new Testament and the old the old is compared to a clasped booke Isay. 29.11 the new to a booke opened Apoca. 5. the knowledge of Christians farre exceedeth the knowledge of the Iewes it

was lawfull for them to read the scriptures much more for all Christians The Iesuite aunswereth that our knowledge is greater then theirs not in all scripture but in the misteries for our redemption onely We answere this is all we desire for if the misterie of saluation and redemption be plainly opened in the scripture why should not the people be admitted to the reading of the word to be confirmed in the knowledge of their redemption who seeth not what sillie aunsweres these be 4 Augustine thus writeth of this matter In ijs inquit quae aperte in Scripturis â—osita sunt inueniuntur ea omnia quae fidem continent moresque viuendi De doctrin Christia lib. 2. cap. 9. The plaine and easie places of scripture conteine all things necessarie vnto faith and good life Ergo the doctrine of saluation in the scriptures is not hard and difficult but easie of good Christians to be vnderstood THE SIXT QVESTION CONCERNING the interpretation of Scripture THis question doth diuide it selfe into three partes First concerning the diuerse senses of the scripture Secondly to whoÌ„ the chief authoritie to expound scripture is committed Thidly what meanes must be vsed in the interpretation of scripture THE FIRST PART OF THE SIXTH QVEstion of the diuerse senses of Scripture The Papistes error 7 THere are two straunge Assertions of our aduersaries coÌ„cerning this matter First they affirme that the scripture may haue diuerse senses and meanings in the same place The sense of the scripture is either literall say they historicall which is the first most proper sense or spirituall that is an higher sense deriued out of the other and it is of three kinds Allegoricall Tropologicall Anagogicall they shew by particular instance and induction that the scripture besides the literall sense may haue these also The Allegoricall sense is when besides the plaine historicall and literall meaning somewhat is signified which by an allegorie is referred vnto Christ or the Church as Gal. 4. beside the truth of the storie of the bond and free woman S. Paule applieth it vnto the two Testaments Ergo one place may haue more senses then one The Tropologicall sense is when as there is somewhat signified appertaining to manners as Deut. 25. Thou shalt not mussell the mouth of the oxe that treadeth out the corne this by S. Paule is applied to the Ministers of the Gospell 1. Cor. 9. Ergo the scripture hath diuerse senses The Anagogicall sense is wheÌ„ the place is applied to decipher set forth the kingdome of heauen and eternall things as Psal. 94. I sware vnto them if they should enter into my rest this is literally vnderstood of the rest in Canaan spiritually of life eternall Ergo many senses thus reasoneth Bellarmin lib. 3. de Scriptur cap. 3. The Protestantes WE affirme that of one place of scripture there can be but one sense which we call the literall sense when as the wordes are either taken properly or figuratiuely to expresse the thing which is meant as in this place the seede of the woman shall breake the Serpents head the literall sense is of Christ who should triumph ouer Sathan though it be spoken in a borowed and figuratiue speach There can be therefore but one sense which is the literall as for those three kinds they are not diuerse senses but diuerse applicatioÌ„s onely and collections out of one and the same sense 1 It shall appeare by a seuerall induction of all these kindes In the first example of the Allegoricall sense Galathes 4 the Apostle saith not that there is a double sense but that it may be allegorically applied which is historically set downe There is then but one sense of the place part whereof consisteth in the storie part in the allegorie so that the whole sense is conteined in them both Concerning the second exaÌ„ple of the Tropologicall there is not a twofold sense of that place but one whole generall sense that as the mouth of the oxe was not to be musled so the Minister of the Gospell must be prouided for Likewise of the Anagogicall kind it is not one sense to vnderstaÌ„d the rest of Canaan an other of the kingdome of God but there is one whole sense that as they for their Idolatrie were depriued of the land of promise so we should take heede lest by our disobedience we lose the hope of the kingdome of heaueÌ„ So we coÌ„clude that those are not diuerse senses but one sense diuersly applied 2 The literal sense is the onely sense of the place because out of that sense onely may an argument strongly be framed wherefore seeing allegories and tropes do not coÌ„clude they are not the senses of the place An allegorie or type may be part of the literall sense and then it concludeth but when an allegorie is framed beside the literall sense it concludeth not and therefore is no part of the sense as to reason thus the oxes mouth must not be musled Ergo the Minister must be maintained it foloweth well because it is part of the sense but allegories deuised beside the sense proue not though they may illustrate The Papistes THeir other assertion is this that it is lawfull to allegorise scripture both in the old and new Testament Bellarm. lib. 3. cap. 3. They reason thus Rhemens error 8 annot Heb. 4. ver 5. The Apostle applieth the rest of the Sabboth to the eternall rest Ergo the like applications of the fathers are lawfull See annot Heb. 7.2 the Apostle say they findeth great misteries euen in the very names Ergo it is lawfull to make allegories The Protestantes WE say it is daungerous to make allegories of Scripture without the warrant and direction of Gods spirite this was the occasion that diuerse of the auncient fathers greatly erred as the Iesuite him selfe repreheÌ„deth Papias Iustinus Lactantius for allegorising that place Reuel 20. which made them fall into the error of the Chiliastes by false interpreting of the thousand yeares there mentioned To their argumeÌ„ts our learned countryman D. Fulk answereth First it foloweth not because it was lawfull for the Apostles gouerned by the spirite to make allegories that it is therfore lawfull for others Secondly wheÌ„ the fathers or any other writers can be assured of the same spirite which the holy writers had and of the like dexteritie in vnderstanding and expounding Scripture they may likewise be bold to make allegories Let vs heare what Augustine saith of this matter Sicut mihi multum errare videntur qui nullas res gestas aliquid aliud praeter id quod eo modo gesta sunt significare arbitrantur ita multum audere qui prorsus ibi omnia significationib allegoricis inuoluta esse contendunt As they are much deceiued which thinke that the stories in the scripture do signifie no other thing but that which was done so they are to rash and bold that would draw all things to allegories which they read in scripture Ergo it is not

lawfull for any to inuent allegories of scripture as it seemeth good to them selues THE SECOND PART OF THE SIXTH QVEtion to whom the chief authoritie to expound Scripture is committed The Papistes error 9 IT was decreed in the Councell of Trent that scripture should be expouÌ„ded as the Church expoundeth it and according to the common and consonant coÌ„sent of the fathers Sect. 4. The Rhemistes say that the sense of the scriptures must be learned of the fathers and pastors of the Church Praefat. Sect. 18. If the fathers agree not the matter is referred to a generall Councell if there it be not determined we must haue recourse to the Pope and his Cardinals The Iesuite dare not referre the matter to the Pope alone to expound scripture but ioyneth the Colledge of Cardinals with him Bellarm. lib. 3. de script cap. 3. 1 They obiect that place Deut. 17.9 where the people are commaunded to resorte vnto the Priest or Iudge in doubtfull matters Ergo there ought to be a chief and supreme iudge in Ecclesiasticall matters Bellarm. We aunswere First here the ciuill Magistrate and the Iudge are ioyned together as ver 12. Wherefore if they will gather hereby that the Pope must be supreme Iudge in all Ecclesiasticall matters then the Emperour ought to be as well in ciuill SecoÌ„dly the text saith they shal come to the Priests ver 9. assigning many not to one onely Priest Thirdly they must iudge according to the law v. 11. not as they list theÌ„ selues Fourthly here is no mentioÌ„ made of doubts in interpreting scripture but of controuersies that may fall out betweene man and man either Ecclesiasticall to be decided by the Priest or ciuill by the Magistrate Fiftly we graunt that in euery country there ought be a supreme and high seate of iudgement for determining of controuersiall matters betweene men but it foloweth not that there should be a supreme iudge ouer the whole Church especially in such matters as this concerning the sense of the scriptures which iâ— not commited to the iudgement of men neither is any such controuersie named in that palce ver 8. 2 Ecclesiastes 12.11 The wisemaÌ„ coÌ„pareth the wordes of the wise to nayles which are fastned geuen by one pastor Ergo the Pope is supreme iudge We aunswere the wise men are here vnderstood to be the Pastors and Ministers of Gods word but this one pastor signifieth neither the high Priest in the old law nor the Pope in the new but Iesus Christ the high shepheard for our soules What great boldnesse is this to attribute that to the Pope which is onely proper to Christ 3 They also picke out some places in the new Testament as Math. 16.19 to thee will I geue the keyes of the kingdome of heauen Christ saith so to Peter Ergo the Pope hath authoritie to expound scripture We aunswere First by the keyes here is meant commission to preach the Gospell not onely to expound doubtes SecoÌ„dly they were geuen to all the Apostles not to Peter onely Math. 28. v. 18.19 Thirdly the Pope is not successor of Peter no more then any other godly Bishop nor so much vnlesse he folow Peters steps So they abuse that place Math. 18.17 he that will not heare the Church c. Ergo the Bishops and chief pastors must expound the doubt in scriptures Aunswere First our Sauiour speaketh here of the discipline of the Church of correctioÌ„s and admonitions not of interpreting scripture which dependeth not vpoÌ„ the will fantacie of Pope Cardinals or Popish Councels but must be tryed by the scriptures them selues Secondly we must geue eare to the Church but with a double condition we must be sure it is the Church of God secoÌ„dly we must not heare them coÌ„trary to the scriptures but so long as they do teach the doctrine of Christ. The Protestants WE haue a more compendious way to come to the vnderstanding of the scripture It were to loÌ„g wheÌ„ we doubt of any place to stay till we haue the generall consent of the pastors of the Church or to expect a generall Councell or go vp to Rome And it were to much to trouble the Popes grauitie with euery questioÌ„ The Lord hath shewed vs a more easie and ready way see that we neede not ascend to heauen or coÌ„passe the earth or passe the Alpes but the word of God is amongest vs the scriptures them selues and the spirite of God opening our harts do teach vs how to vnderstand them the interpretation of Scripture is not assigned to any succession of pastors or tryed to any place or persons Our arguments folow some few of them 1 That onely hath power to geue the sense of Scripture which doth beget vs faith the spirite onely by the Scriptures begetteth faith Rom. 10.17 faith commeth of hearing the word Ergo the spirit of God is the onely interpreter of scripture The proposition also is cleare for seeing the Scripture is the true sense and meaning therof if any should geue the sense of the scripture but that which worketh faith then vpon him should our faith be grounded If the Pope therefore geue the sense of Scripture and our faith ariseth of the Scripture vnderstood then our faith is builded vpon the Popes sense argum Whitach 2. 9. 2 The Scriptures caÌ„ not be interpreted but by the same spirit wherewith they were writteÌ„ but that spirite is found no where but in the Scriptures Ergo. The first part the Papistes them selues graunt the second is thus proued the spirite of the Apostles is not geuen by secret inspiration that sauoureth of Anabaptisme where is it theÌ„ to be found whether is it like that S. Peters spirite should be found in the Popes chaire or in his Epistles or if they haue S. Peters spirite where is S. Paules found but in his writings Yet it is all one spirite appeareth not els where but in the Scriptures where euery man may finde it as wel as the Pope the spirituall man iudgeth all things 1. Cor. 2.15 you haue an oyntment from him that is holy and you haue knowen all things and ver 27. you need not that any maÌ„ teach you By these places it is euident that euery faithfull man by the spirite of God may vnderstand the scriptures 3 The doctrine of the Church must be examined by the Scriptures Ergo the scriptures are not to stand to the iudgement of the Church The former part is proued by the example of the Berrheans Act. 17.11 If they did well in examining Paules doctrine much more may the decrees of the Pope Church CouÌ„cels be examined by the scriptures But they knew not whether Paule was an Apostle or not therefore they might examine his doctrine saith the Iesuite Answere it is no matter for the person of Paule they examined his doctrine which dependeth not vpon the person Secondly they could not be ignoraunt of his Apostleship who was famous throughout the Churches Thirdly they doubted onely whether Paul was an

Apostle but we are sure the Pope is none neither successor of any Apostle but very Antichrist Ergo we haue more iust cause to examine his decrees 4 Lastly let Augustine speake Nouit charitas vestra omnes nos vnum magistrum habere sub illo condiscipulos esse nec ideo magistri sumus quia de superiore loco loquimur vobis sed magister est omnium qui habitat in nobis omnib You know brethren saith he that we are all felow scholers vnder one maister and though we speake to you out of an higher place yet are we not your master he is the teacher and master of vs all that dwelleth in our harts Ergo the spirite of God speaking in the scriptures is the chief and best interpreter thereof THE THIRD PART OF THE SIXTH QVEstion concerning the meanes or methode to be vsed in interpreting of Scripture The Papistes error 10 OVr aduersaries prescribe this methode and course to be takeÌ„ in expounding of scripture which consisteth in foure rules the generall peactise of the Church the consonant interpretation of the fathers the decrees of generall Councels lastly the rule of faith consisting partly of the scriptures partly of traditions vnwritteÌ„ Stapleton CoÌ„cerning the three first we haue already touched them in part they appeare to be insufficient First the Councels and fathers he made chief interpreters of Scripture before and now they are but meanes what other chief iudge then is there to vse these meanes surely none but the scriptures Secondly these meanes are most vncertaine the practise of the Church is often changed fathers agree not in their expositioÌ„s and Councels can not alwayes be had Concerning the rule of faith consisting of vnwritten verities he groundeth it falsely vpon that place Rom. 12.6 let vs prophecie according to the rule of faith and Gal. 6.16 as many as walke according to this rule This rule was a certaine platforme of Religion geuen by the Apostles before the Scriptures were written according to the which say they the Scriptures were afterward compiled by the Apostles Rhemens in Rom. 12.6 Answere S. Paul meaneth no other rule but that which is set downe in his writings no other forme of doctrine but that conteined in his Epistles as in the 6. to the Galathians speaking of this rule he alludeth to the former verse where he saith he reioyced in nothing but in the Crosse of Christ his rule therfore is to receiue Christ onely without the ceremonies or workes of the law against the which heresie he disputeth in the whole Epistle But of all other it is a great blasphemie to say that the Apostles set downe the Scriptures by a rule as though the spirite of God by whom they spake had neede of any such direction The Protestantes WHen we say that the scriptures must expound them selues our meaning is that by certaine compendious and ready meanes we should labour to vnderstand the scriptures by them selues the meanes are especially these foure First to haue recourse to the originall toung as in the old Testament to the Hebrue in the new to the Greeke as 1. Tim. 2.15 through bearing of children they shal be saued if they continue in faith and loue In the English it is doubtfull whether this clause if they continue in faith be referred to children or to those that beare them but read the Greeke and the doubt is remoued for bearing of children is all one word in the originall ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ so that it must needes be vnderstood of the women for this word ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ bearing of children is in the singular number that which foloweth of the plurall and it is but an action not a person so that it should be improperly sayd if they continue that is in bearing of children Stapleton obiecteth against this meane that it is not now needefull seeing there is a perfect and absolute translatioÌ„ authorised by the Councell of Trent he meaneth the vulgare Latin We answere First it is no perfect but an erronious translation and verie corrupt Secondly if it were neuer so perfect yet for more certaintie it is profitable to search the originall euery man will trust his owne skill rather then another mans Thirdly the Councell did fondly in authorising an old blind translation before the authenticall copies of the Hebrue and Greeke 2 Secondly the scope of the place the circumstance of it with that which goeth before and commeth after must be wayghed which will bring great light to the place we haue in hand an example we haue 1. Pet. 4.8 loue couereth multitude of sinnes the Papistes gather out of these words that loue doth iustifie vs before God and taketh away our sinnes but by the circunstance of the place the Apostole saying immediatly before haue feruent loue among you it is euident he vnderstandeth brotherly loue amoÌ„gest our selues whereby faultes are buried forgeuen and forgotten Stapleton obiecteth that this is but an vncertaine way and many times fayleth for the scripture passeth many times from one matter and argument to another how then can it helpe to consider the circumstance of the place being of a diuerse matter We answere we say not that any of these meanes serueth for euery place but when one fayleth to vse another when the circumstance helpeth not to runne to the originall if there we find no succour to coÌ„pare places together and when we may to vse them all or the most 3 Thirdly the conference of places is very profitable as Iames. 2.21 Abraham was iustified by workes compare it with that place Rom. 4.2 there S. Paule saith flatly that Abraham was not iustified by workes Wherfore seeing one Apostle is not contrary to the other we must needs gather that this word iustified is diuersly taken Paule saith that Abraham was not iustified that is made righteous before God by his workes Iames saith he was iustified that is declared to be iust before men and so Thom. Aquinas expoundeth it Stapleton obiecteth that this meanes in coÌ„paring of places is of it selfe many times of smal force Answere as though we affirme that these meanes must be vsed asunder and not rather ioyntly together and where one fayleth another to helpe Secondly some things are found but once in the scriptures Aunswere they are then either very plaine or not greatly necessarie Thirdly heretikes haue erred in comparing of Scripture Answere they compared them not diligently nor with a syncere minde but corruptly and negligently 4 The fourth rule is the analogie and proportion of faith which is nothing els but the summe grounds of ReligioÌ„ gathered out of scripture such as are conteined in the Creede the Lordes Prayer the ten Commaundements and in our whole Catechisme We must take heede that in the interpretation of Scripture we swarue not from this rule of faith nor impugne any principle of Religion Wherefore the Papistes interpretation of those wordes of Christ we do reiect Hoc est corpus meum this is my

the Apostles writings Secondly if there were other matters which Christ vttered not how foloweth it nay what great presumptioÌ„ is it to say that those trifles and apish toyes which the Papistes vse in their Idolatrous sacrifice and their other beggarly ceremonies which boyes may well laugh at are those profouÌ„d matters which the Apostles were not then able to conceiue 3 That of all other they take to be an inuincible place 2. Thess. 2.15 keepe the instructions or traditions which ye haue bene taught either by word or by Epistle Ergo there are traditions besides scripture We aunswere when S. Paule wrote this Epistle all the scriptures were not writteÌ„ wherefore besides these two short Epistles which do not conteine the summe of the Gospell nor all necessarie preceptes he by his preaching supplied what was wanting and so declared vnto them the whole mysterie of the Gospell as he saith 1. Thess. 2.2 these he calleth his traditions because yet he had not written his other Epistles wherein those instructions and traditions are conteined This then is but a weake argument the Thessalonians had other instructioÌ„s and traditions beside the two Epistles writteÌ„ vnto them Ergo they had other traditioÌ„s beside all the writings of S. Paule and the other Apostles this is their mayne and waightie argument The Protestantes FIrst we graunt that all things are not written which our Sauiour Christ and the Apostles taught and that it was the Gospell which they preached as well as this which is written yet in substance they preached the same Gospell which now is expressed in the scripture neither was there any necessarie precept deliuered in their Sermons which is not now to be found in the scriptures Secondly we denie not but there were certaine rites and orders ordained by the Apostles in diuerse churches which were not coÌ„mitted to writing because they were not to continue and endure for euer in the Church as that precept Act. 16. that the Gentiles should abstaine from strangled and from bloud Thirdly we also graunt that the Church may vse externall rites and orders either left by tradition or ordained by the Church for decencie and comelynesse and tending to edification But we constantly affirme that there are no traditions in the Church of God necessarie to saluation beside scripture wherein all things are conteined necessarie to saluation both concerning faith and manners 1 It is not lawfull as to take ought from the word of God so to adde any thing vnto it Deut. 12.32 Apocal. 22.18 But they which bring in traditioÌ„s necessarie beside the scriptures do adde vnto them Ergo. To the proposition the Iesuite aunswereth that all addition to the word of God is not forbidden for the Prophets did write after Moses the Apostles after the Euangelistes We aunswere that those holy men had authoritie from God to compile scripture if the Papistes haue the like Apostolike authoritie for their traditions let them shew it and we will beleeue them Secondly the Prophetes did but explane Moses and expound the law and the Apostles did as it were set forth their Commentaries vpon the Gospell this therefore was no addition because they did not derogate from the perfection of the scriptures any way To the assumptioÌ„ they aunswere that their traditions are but expositioÌ„s of Scripture We aunswere their traditions are cleane contrarie to Scripture as the worshipping of Images and the sacrifice of their Masse and they adde to Scripture making it vnperfect saying it doth not conteine all things necessarie to saluation Wherefore they can not escape that curse which they runne into that adde to the word of God 2 All traditions among the Iewes besides the law were condemned Math. 15.3 Ergo all vnwritten traditions now must be abolished The Iesuite aunswereth First Christ condemned not the auncient traditions of Moses but those which were newly and lately inuented Aunswere first the Scripture maketh no mention of any such traditions of Moses Christ biddeth them search the Scriptures not runne vnto traditions Secondly these seemed to be auncient traditions bearing the name of Elders traditions and they were in great authoritie amongest the Iewes most like because of some long continuance Secondly saith he Christ findeth fault with wicked and impious traditions Aunswere First their traditions were not openly and plainly euill and pernicious but had some shew of holynesse as the washing of pots and tables and beds I would the Papists did not here take theÌ„ selues by the nose whose traditions come nearer to open impietie and blasphemie then theirs did Secondly Christ in opposing the Scripture against traditions therein condemneth all traditions not written besides the Scripture 3 If Paule preaching the whole Gospell Act. 20.27 did say none other things then Moses and the Prophetes then all things necessarie to saluation are conteined in the Scriptures For it can not be said to be a whole and perfite Gospell if any thing necessarie to saluation be wanting But Paule preached nothing but out of Moses and the Prophetes Act. 26.22 Ergo much more now is the Scripture a perfect rule of faith we hauing beside Moses and the Prophetes the holy writings of the Euangelistes and Apostles 4 Last of all although we might multiplie many arguments but these I trust strongly concluding out of Scripture may serue as a sufficient bulwarke against all Popish paper bullets Let vs heare in the knitting vp the iudgement of Augustine In his rebus inquit in quib nihil certi statuit Scriptura mos populi Dei vel instituta maiorum pro lege tenenda Epist. 86. In all those things saith he speaking of externall rules and ceremonies of the which we haue no certaine rule out of Scripture the custome of the people of God and the godly constitutions of our forefathers must stand for a law but concerning matters of faith and good maners the Scriptures do giue certaine rules as in another place In ijs quae aperte in Scriptura posita sunt inueniuntur illa omnia quae continent fidem moresque viuendi De doctrin Christian. 2.9 all things appertaining to faith and the rule of life are plainlie expressed in the Scripture Ergo by the sentence of Augustine traditions besides scripture haue nothing to do with the doctrine of faith and manners but do consist onely in externall rites and customes of the Church THE SECOND GENERALL CONTROVERSIE CONCERNING THE CHVRCH HAuing now finished the questions betweene our aduersaries and vs concerning the Scriptures and word of God which all do belong to the Propheticall office of Christ in the next place such controuersies are to be handled as do concerne the Kingly office of Christ. And seeing the Church of Christ is his kingdome where he ruleth and raigneth we must intreat of the Church and first in generall of the whole and in speciall of the partes and members This present controuersie concerning the Church in generall standeth vpon fiue principall questions 1 Of the definition of the Catholike Church two partes

yeare after Christ and that being expelled the citie by Claudius with the rest of the Iewes he returned to Ierusalem and there spake with Paul and after that went to Rome agayne and there ended his life This answere we shewe to bee very insufficient First Act. 15.2 it appeareth that there was as it were a standing and set councel of the Apostles at Ierusalem of the which Peter was one for the Church thought good to send vp to the Apostles and Elders which were at Ierusalem Secondly till the 18. yeare when this Councel was held it seemeth that Peter had laboured onely or especially amongst the Iewes of whom there were then but fewe at Rome for saith the Apostle he that was mightie in Peter in the Apostleship ouer the circumcision was also mightie in me Gal. 2.8 Therfore Peter was not knowne to haue laboured vntill this time in the circumcision Thirdly afterward it is more like he went to Antiochia then to Rome for after this Paul rebuked Peter at Antioch Gal. 2. Fourthly these are but bare coniectures of our aduersaries and craftie euasion without scripture but seeing we appose them out of scripture it is great reason they should likewise answere vs out of scripture 3 We haue diuers other obections also out of the scriptures as first that if Peter were at Rome it is not like that Paul would leaue him out in his salutation in the end of his Epistle RoÌ„ 16. sent to the brethren Our aduersaries answere but very simplie that at that time when S. Paul wrote his Epistle either Peter was not at Rome or els Paul might write some especiall letters to him by himselfe and this Epistle enclosed in them such goodly coniectures they haue But I pray you what needed S. Paul to haue written vnto the Romanes if S. Peter so faithfull and vigilant a Pastor were continually amongst them Other places also of scripture we haue as Philipp 2.20 speaking of Timothy he saith I haue none like minded to him that will faithfully care for your matters Coloss. 4.11 These onely are my workfellowes 2. Timoth. 4.11 onely Luke is with me Ergo Peter all this while was not at Rome for Paul would not haue left him out of the number of his fellowe-helpers at the lest he would not haue commended Timothy though he were a worthie yong man before him That which Bellarmine answereth is iust nothing that S. Paul speaketh in those places onely of his domesticall helpers which did minister vnto him When S. Paul speaketh plainly of his fellowe labourers these onely are my workfellowes to the kingdome of God Coloss. 4.11 An other argumeÌ„t doth arise out of S. Pauls words 2. Timoth. 4.16 At my first answering no man assisted me Ergo it is like that Peter was not then at Rome for he would not haue forsaken Paul Bellarmine answereth that he speaketh onely of such fauourers as hee had in Caesars court that they would not make sute for him to the Emperour But this is a weake solution First it appeareth by that which followeth that they left him without helpe in his open Apologie or defence they did not assist me sayth he but the Lord assisted me that is gaue me strength to defend my cause so that the word assisting must bee taken in the same sense before that they fayled him in that wherein God assisted him that is in speaking boldly in the defence of the truth Secondly it is proued by the diuers successe that he had at his first and second answering at the first all left him but at the next many were emboldened through his bonds what to doe more frankly to speake the word Philipp 1.14 Ergo at the first they forsooke him because they were afrayd to speake the word THE SECOND PART WHETHER PETER were Bishop of Rome error 39 OVr aduersaries would gladly bring it about that Peter was Bishop of Rome there enthronised and sate in the Bishoplike chayre many yeares and after left it to his successors 1 The Romane faith was first planted by Peter for he first preached to the Gentiles Act. 15.7 Ergo he was the first Bishop Answere First that Peter first preached to the Gentiles it is contrarie to the storie of the Acts for Paul was conuerted before Peter sawe the vision from heauen Act. 10. before which time Peter made a great question whether it were lawfull to preach to the Gentiles But Paul immediatly after his conuersion preached to the Gentiles Galath 2. therefore before Peter Neither is there any thing to the contrarie Act. 15.7 the Gentiles beleeued by S. Peters mouth as he sayth but not first Secondly that Peter first preached not at Rome it is thus gathered because it is not like that the Christian faith being spread farre abroad could be kept from Rome the space of 12. yeares for so long it was by their account before Peter came to Rome Agayne there were diuers that dwelled at Rome which heard the Apostles speake diuers tongues Act. 2. being straungers then and soiourners at Ierusalem and Rom. 16.7 he maketh mention of Andronicus and Iunia which were in Christ before him By these it is most like that the Christian faith was first sowed at Rome Thirdly it is more like that Paul preached at Rome before Peter for when he came to Rome he called the Iewes together who sayd vnto him that they had heard nothing concerning him by letters or from the brethren out of Iudea Act. 28.22 But if Peter had beene there Paul no doubt should haue been knowne at the least by name The Iewes also say vnto him wee will heare of thee what thou thinkest and some of them were perswaded by Paul some beleeued not It seemeth by this place that the Iewes in Rome had not heard of the Gospell before But if Peter had been amongst them who had an especiall charge of the circumcision he would haue had the greatest care of the Iewes to winne them to Christ. Fourthly though Peter had first preached to the Romanes it would not followe that therefore he was Bishop there for Paul first founded the Church of Ephesus yet they say Iohn was first Bishop there wherefore they should gayne nothing by this argument if it were true but that Peter was the first preacher and conuerter of the Romanes to the faith The Protestants IF wee take the name of Bishop generally for that office which hath the publique cure and charge of soules in that sense we denye not but Peter and the rest of the Apostles may be called Episcopi Bishops as Christ is called the shepheard and Bishop of our soules 1. Pet. 2.23 But taking it strictly for a Bishop of this or that place which is called Episcopus intitulatus a Bishop entituled wee denie that either Peter or Paul were Bishops Fox pag. 15. 1 Paul was Apostolus Gentium the Apostle of the Gentiles and Peter of the circumcision therefore it is more like that Paul was chiefe Pastor of the Romanes because

notwithstanding for popish inuocation of Angels for the Angel here coÌ„mendeth not the prayers of the Saints by his merit but by the much incense giuen vnto him to ad to the prayers of the Saints to make them acceptable which is the sweete smell and sauour of the precious dâ—ath and merites of Christ. Fulk in hunc locum Augustine indeede sometime ascribeth such an office vnto the Angelles to carry vp our prayers to Heauen as their charge is to carry vp our soules not as mediatours or intercessors but as the Lords messengers and agents here vpon earth to reporte vnto him our affaires dicuntur Angeli preces nostras vota Deo offerre non vt deum doceant qui omnia antequam fiant nouit sed vt super his dei voluntatem consulant The Angelles are said to offer vp our prayers and vowes vnto God not to informe or instruct the Lord but onely to consult and know his pleasure tom 9. de dilection Cap. 3. in Psalm 74. for the Angels haue two offices the one to execute the commaundement of God in the world and to attend vpon him to receiue their charge Math. 18.10 the other to returne vnto God as faithfull messengers the successe of their busines in the worlde Zechar. 1.10 Now whether the Angelles be appointed of God to report vnto him our sayings and doings as other affaires of our life the scripture no where euidently sheweth Neither if it were graunted would it any thing helpe their popish inuocation of Angelles Rhemist alleadge Tob. 12.12 to proue the offering of our prayers by Angelles Answer It is neither canonicall Scripture nor agreeable vnto it Fulk annot Coloss. 2. sect 3. The Protestants THe scripture alwayes maketh Christ our onely Mediator neither Angelles nor Saints by whome our prayers and all other spirituall sacrifices are offered vnto God Fulk ibid. 1 Hebrew 13.15 Let vs by him offer the sacrifice of praise alwayes to God 1. Peter 2.5 You are an holy priesthoode to offer vp spirituall sacrifices acceptable to God by Iesus Christ. Ergo Christ Iesus is our onely Mediator Secondly Galatian 3.19 The Lawe was ordayned by Angelles in the hand of a Mediator Ergo the Angelles are one office and the Mediator another Augustine sayeth QuÃ²d non aliquem ex Angelis dicit Mediatorem sed ipsum Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum habes alio loco vnus inquit Deus vnus mediator Dei hominum homo Christus Iesus That the Apostle calleth not any of the Angels but only Iesus Christ our Lord Mediator we haue in another place There is one God saith he and one Mediator of God and man the Man Iesus Christ. AN APPENDIX OR THIRD PART of this question whether Angelles or Saints know our heartes The Papists THe Angelles and other Celestiall spirites doe knowe our heartes and inwarde repentance And betweene the Angelles and the blessed soules of Saintes there is no difference in this case the one being as highly exalted and neere God as the other in whome and by whome only they see and know our affaires Luke 15.10 There is ioy in heauen in the presence of the Angelles ouer one sinner that repenteth Ergo they know our repentaunce Rhemist Lu. 15. Sect. 2. Ans. 1 Our heartes and inward repentance are not knowen to the Angelles but by the fruites and true effectes thereof 2 Although the elect after the resurrection shal be like in glorie to the Angelles yet it followeth not that they shall be like in all thinges much lesse that their soules now in heauen be in all thinges like vnto the Angelles whose presence and Ministerie God vseth in the preseruation of his chosen 3 That all thinges done in the worlde may be seene in God as in a glasse is but a prophane speculation and the deuise of an ydle braine Fulk ibid. Argum. 2 Abraham had knowledge of things in earth which were not in his time as that they had Moyses and the Prophetes bookes which hee neuer sawe Luk. 16. ver 29. Rhemist Answere First In this narration many thinges are spoken parabolically out of the which we must not ground any doctrine not taught els where in scripture for you may aswell say that soules haue fingers and tounges and that elementall water wil quench hell fire as that Abraham knew what books were written after his death Secondly Albeit that the doctrine of the Church comprehended in the scriptures might be reuealed to Abraham after his death yet it followeth not that he knew all thinges as you affirme the saintes doe by beholding the Maiestie of God Fulk annot ibid. The saintes therefore in heauen knowe so much as the Lord thinketh good to reueale vnto them they knowe not all things The Protestants WE deny not but that as Prophetes and holy men in this life may knowe many secret thinges reuealed vnto them by the spirit of God as Peter found out the secret fraude of Ananias Sapphirae Eliseus being absent found out Gehezi his corruption yea hee could tell what was doone in the King of Syria his chamber so the Lord may reueale vnto the saintes in heauen at his pleasure some thinges done vpon earth But that they receiued any such gift of God to know all thinges done vpon earth it is a great vntrueth and cleane contrary to the scriptures 1. Salomon sayeth in his prayer vnto God Heare thou in heauen in thy dwelling place and giue vnto euery man according to his wayes as thou knowest his heart for thou onely knowest the hearts of all the children of men 1. King 8.39 Out of this place we thus reason he only knoweth the heart that is the Iudge of all men and a rewarder of them according to their wayes But the Lord onely is iudge Ergo. Againe the wordes themselues be plaine that God onely knoweth the heart so that what knowledge of secrets the Saintes haue it is by reuelation not by searching the heart Againe S. Paul saith No man knoweth the thinges of man saue the spirit of man which is in him so the thinges of God knoweth no man but the spirite of God 1. Corinth 1.11 the Rhemist aunswer that no man knoweth the secrets of the heart naturally but by extraordinary gift he may as the Prophets did Ans. No man euer had or can haue a generall gift to know the heart but when God seeth it good to reueale it for otherwise the comparison holdeth not The spirit of God onely knoweth the things of God which also is giuen to men to know but not by receiuing any gift to search and looke into the nature and heart as it were of God for then should they knowe all the secrets of God which neuer any did but onely by reuelation of the spirite which openeth Gods secrets vnto them so farre as it is conuenient and needfull Euen after the same manner the spirite of God may reueale the secrets of the heart of man not by giuing them a generall gift

the doctrine deliuered in scriptures we doe not refuse though we be not bound to beleeue any mans report of such miracles but onely the writings of the Apostles and Euangelists so we affirme that there is no such necessitie of miracles as in times past neither that we are to be pressed to shewe miracles seeing we professe the ancient Apostolike faith which hath been alreadie confirmed by the miraculous workes of our Sauiour Christ and his Apostles Wherefore we condemne the fabulous histories and reports of popish Saints whose liues are fuller of miracles if we wil beleeue them then were the liues of Christ and his Apostles Nay there is nothing almost done in their seruice but by a miracle Christs bodie present in the Masse by a miracle Diuels chased away with holy water Saints know their thoughts heare their prayers are present here and there their bodies many yeeres kept from corruption and all by miracles I conclude this poynt with Augustine Aut non sunt vera quae dicuntur aut si haereticorum aliqua mira facta sunt magis cauere debemus Either they are not true miracles which they boast of or if they be we must beware and take heed of them the more The Papists error 35 SEcondly they doe as much maintaine their fabulous visions and apparitions as lying miracles as how Christ came in a pilgrims weede to Gregories table of hospitalitie Rhemist Hebr. 13.2 Peter beleeued the vision and apparition shewed to Cornelius at his report before it was written Ergo we ought to beleeue visions not written in scripture Rhemist Act. 10. sect 3. The Protestants FIrst that of our Sauiour Christs appearing is an hereticall fable and impugneth the article of our faith concerning Christs ascension into heauen and there remaining till his second comming Secondly Peter was not bound to beleeue Cornelius vision till he had been by vision admonished himselfe the Apostles which were then endued with the gift of discerning spirits could better iudge of true visions then any man now can yet we refuse not to giue credite to visions when they are as crediblie reported vnto vs as this was to Peter but no vision nor miracle nor angel from heauen shall drawe vs away from the doctrine of the scriptures to beleeue errors Lastly we denye not but that they may haue visions but such as one Vincentius bragged of that wrote against Augustine concerning the originall of the soule He sayd that another Vincentius who had been a captaine or chiefe Donatist appeared vnto him in vision and bad him write those bookes to whom Augustine thus answereth Ille qui se transfigurat in angelum lucis in eo tibi est transfiguratus quem tu fuisse veluti angelum lucis credidisti He that can transfigure himselfe into an angel of light did transfigure himself into the shape of that man whom thou esteemedst as an angell of light Such apparitions they may haue and yet no great cause to boast of them The Papists THirdly they say that the power of working miracles was in the Apostles actually error 36 and that they properly did giue health and other things by their miraculous gift though they receiued the force and vertue of God And therefore they finde fault with vs because we giue this note A miracle done by Christ by the hands of the Apostles First Peter sayth That which we haue giue we to thee Act. 3.6 Secondly we must not thinke that they had no more power then as dead instruments in the workmans hand Rhemist in hunc locum The Protestants WE both agree that the power of working miracles was giuen of God but herein we differ they think that this power was inherent in the Apostles and that hauing once receiued this power of God they could execute it themselues like as a man hauing the power of sense and mouing by nature moueth and seeth when he list himselfe But we hold against the Pelagians Gratiam dei ad singulos actus dari that the grace of God is daylie infused and we haue need of it for euery act it is not sufficient once generally to haue receiued it So then the Apostles were but the instruments of Christs working he is better sayd in them and by them to worke miracles then they in and by him Neither doth it followe that they are dead instruments for the horse I trowe that draweth in the plough is no dead instrument yet he hath neede for euery boute and turning to haue a driuer and a guide truely we are as vnfit for the Lords yoke by nature as the horse is for the plough and therefore haue need of the Lords continuall direction The Apostles then gaue that they had not as owners but as the Lords agents and instruments of his working Augustine thus writeth Maiora quam ipse fecit dicit eos facturos sed in eis vel per eos se faciente He saith they shall doe greater workes then he that is himselfe working in them or by them Ergo Christ wrought miracles by the hands of the Apostles they were his liuely instruments in working The Papists error 37 FOurthly they doe greatly triumph and reioyce for the miracles which are wrought by the vertue of holy reliques First the woman was healed by touching the hemme of Christs garment Ergo vertue in holy reliques Rhemist Secondly napkins that had touched S. Paules bodie wrought miracles by the vertue giuen vnto them Ergo reliques may Act. 19. vers 12. Rhemist The Protestants Ans. TO the first first the vertue was not in the hemme of Christs garment but he sayth it proceeded from himselfe Luk. 8.46 Secondly it was her faith that healed her for many that thronged Christ touched his garments but receiued no benefite neither was there any vertue in his garments when the souldiers parted them amongst them Thirdly if it pleased the Lord to vse some externall signes as of oyle clay spittle in healing of men yet haue we no warrant that he will doe the like by touching of reliques To the second first the napkins brought from Paul had no such vertue in them for the text is plaine that they were wrought by the hands of Paul Secondly not all that touched them were presently healed Thirdly they were but as signes and tokens to the diseased that the Apostle when it pleased God might dispense miracles euen when he was absent Lastly if they haue to this day miracles wrought by the reliques monuments of Saints I feare me nay I dare say they are no better then the Donatists miracles were either figmenta mendacium hominum vel portenta fallacium spirituum either the glosings and fables of lying men or the strange workings of deceiuing spirits THE FIFTH QVESTION CONCERNING Images and of the signe of the Crosse. THe first part concerning Images is subdeuided into certaine other articles and poynts First of the difference of Idols and Images Secondly whether it be lawfull to haue Images Thirdly if it

QVESTION OF THE NATVRE and definition of a Sacrament WE thus define a Sacrament to be an outward sensible signe representing an holy inward and spirituall grace instituted of Christ to be vsed in that manner he hath appoynted to seale vnto vs the promises of God and to assure vs of the remission of sinnes by the righteousnes of faith in Christ Rom. 4.11 Some things there be in this definition that are agreed vpon betweene vs and our aduersaries as that the Sacraments are outward signes of spirituall and holy graces and that there must be a conueniencie and agreement betweene the signe and the thing signified that not euery thing may be represented by a Sacrament but an holy and spirituall grace that a Sacrament ought to be instituted by a diuine not an humane authoritie Bellar. de Sacram. in gener lib. 1. cap. 9 The seuerall poynts then wherein we dissent from them and which they mislike in this definition are these First concerning the authoritie of instiâ—uting a Sacrament which we affirme to be deriued onely from Christ and manifestly to be proued out of the scriptures Secondly of the forme and manner of celebrating the Sacraments Thirdly of the instrumental or ministerial cause which is the Minister Fourthly of the vse and end of a Sacrament whether it be a scale of the promises of God and instituted for that end THE FIRST PART OF THE EFFICIENT CAVSE that is the author or institutor of a Sacrament The Papists THey doe willingly grant that neither the Apostles then had nor the Church error 87 now hath authoritie to institute Sacraments but that this power is onely in Christ and that the Apostles did but declare and deliuer that which they receiued of Christ yet for the triall of this they refuse to be iudged by the expresse word of God but flie vnto their traditions which they call the word of God not written Bellarm. lib. 1. de Sacram. cap. 14. 23. Argum. The sacrament of Baptisme and of the Eucharist were instituted without expresse warrant of scripture for at that time the newe testament was not written when Christ ordained those mysteries Ergo for the other Sacraments we need not the expresse coÌ„mandement of scripture Bellar. lib. 1. cap. 14. Ans. First the traditions of our Sauiour giuen vnto the Apostles concerning those two Sacraments were afterward written by the Apostles and expressely set downe in scripture therefore we doubt not but that they were of Christs institution But your traditions being not committed to writing concerning your other forged sacraments are iustly suspected seeing the Apostles should haue as well been charged with all the sacraments if Christ had instituted theÌ„ as with only two Secondly how then followeth it the word of God was sometime vnwritten therefore it is so still or Christ who was the author of the word written might institute sacraments without expresse scripture Ergo the testimonie of scripture is not necessarie now The Protestants WE hold no sacraments to be of Christs institution but those onely which the scripture testifieth to haue been commanded by Christ as Baptisme Math. 28.19 the Lords Supper Luk. 23.19 The other which haue no testimonie of scripture were not appoynted by Christ. Argum. 1. S. Paul saith That the scriptures are able to make the man of God absolute and perfect to euery good worke 1. Timoth. 3.17 But how can the Minister of God be perfectly furnished and prepared for the worke of the ministerie if he haue not sufficient direction out of the scriptures concerning the sacraments of the Church for how can he absolutely execute euery part of his office if he faile in the right vse of the sacraments Ergo seeing the scriptures are able to make him perfect from thence he receiueth sufficient instruction for the sacraments Argum. 2. Augustine saith Christus sacramentis numero paucissimis obseruatione facilimis c. Christ hath ioyned his people together by the sacrameÌ„ts few in number easie in obseruation such are Baptisme and the partaking of his bodie and blood then it followeth Et si quid aliud in scripturis canonicis commendatur And if any other sacrament be commanded in the canonicall scripture Epistol 118. Ergo we must attend vpon the scripture and written word of God if we will be instructed aright concerning the Sacraments THE SECOND PART OF THE FORME OF A Sacrament and the manner of consecration The Papists THe Sacrament is not consecrated say they by al the words of the institution error 88 but by a certain forme of speech to be vsed ouer the elemeÌ„ts as these words to be said ouer the bread This is my body the like ouer the wine This cup is the new testament c. And in Baptisme these In the name of the Father the Sonne and the holy Ghost These are the formes of the Sacrament and very words of consecration though spoken in a strange tongue without further inuocation of the name of God or giuing of thankes or without a Sermon which we require as they say as necessarie to the essence of a sacrament Rhemist 1. Corinth 11 sect 11.15 Bellarm. lib. 1. de Sacrament cap. 19. Argum. S. Paul sayth The cup of blessing which we blesse 1. Corinth 10.16 The Apostle referreth the benediction or blessing to the cup or Chalice which is nothing els but the consecration thereof Rhemist ibid. Ans. First wee denie not but that to blesse here doth signifie to sanctifie or consecrate but that is not done by a magicall murmuration of words ouer the Sacrament but by the whole action according to Christs institution in distributing receiuing giuing of thankes Secondly as for the words which Christ vttered in the institution we rehearse them not as a magicall charme to be sayd ouer the bread and wine to conuert their substance but to declare what they are made to vs by force of Christs institution namely his bodie and blood The Protestants WE doe not hold that it is an essentiall part of the Sacrament alwayes to haue a sermon before it as they vnderstand a sermon which notwithstanding were most conuenient and alwaies to bee wished but this wee affirme that the Sacrament cannot be rightly ministred vnlesse there be a declaration and shewing forth of the Lords death not only in the visible action of breaking distributing the elements but also in setting forth the end of the Lords death out of the word of God with an exhortation to thankfulnes which is alwaies obserued amongst vs in the dayly celebration and receiuing of the Sacrament Concerning the words of the institution we also grant that they are necessarily to be vsed in the celebration of the Sacrament but not as the Papists vse them For first they make them not all of one value but out of the whole institution picke out certaine consecratorie words as they call them as This is my bodie This is the cup whereas the other words Take ye eate ye drinke ye doe this in remembrance

this side and on that now on the right hand againe on the left to sigh to smite vpon his breast to lift vp the Chalice and shew it to the people and set it downe againe as also the diuiding of the host into three parts which signifie three parts of the Church in heauen in earth and in purgatorie the rinsing of part thereof in wine and eating part drie the washing of his fingers before consecration kissing of the altar the patten the booke the paxe sprinkling of holy water censing of odors crossing the chalice the bread their mouth breast and face which signe of the crosse they make aboue twentie times in one Masse while Adde also vnto these their tedious yrksome songs the rude noyse and vnedifying sound of strange instruments and the whole course of their Masse musicke set forth in a strange language and endited to the honour of Saints All these superstitious rites with diuers more vaine vnfruitfull abominable they notwithstanding with force and maine defend and maintaine Bellarm lib. 2. de missa cap. 14.15 Concil Tridâ—ntin sess 22. caâ— 7. The Protestants 1. THis multitude of humane inuentions agreeth not with the institution of the Lords Supper for we reade not of any such kissing kneeling becking bowing or the like ridiculous gestures to haue been vsed when our Sauiour instituted the Supper nor afterwards by the Apostles to haue been practised wherefore wee contenting our selues with the plaine institution of Christ doe worthily reiect all such toyes 2. Most of these gestures are impious and tend to idolatrie in the adoration of bread and wine which are but creatures and they are all friuolous and hypocriticall stealing away true deuotion from the heart and making men to rest in the outward gestures of the bodie Augustine sayth very well Corpus genibus flexis prosternis collum curuas in oratione video vbi iaciat corpus sed quaero vbi volitet animus Thou bowest the knee bendest thy bodie in prayer stretchest out thy necke I see where thy bodie lieth but what is become of thy soule 3. Concerning Church songs and Musicke Augustine thus writeth Sâ—briÃ¨ Psallimus in Ecclesia diuina cantica Prophetarum We sing treatably and soberly in the Church the diuine songs of the Prophets Two conditions he requireth first that we sing holy Psalmes taken out of the scriptures Secondly that they be sung treatably and distinctly Etiam illic sayth he si sonum non sensum libido audiendi desideret improbatur Euen in good songs if we follow the sound not the sense it is to be discommended but in popish songs neither of these conditions is kept for both the dittie for the most part is idolatrous stuffed with inuocation and adoration of Saints and the note is so diuided and drawne out in length that nothing can be vnderstood THE EIGHT QVESTION OF THE FORME OF THE Masse which consisteth partly of the Canon partly of such things as are rehearsed before and after the Canon THE FIRST PART OF THE PRAIERS WHICH goe before the Canon of the Masse WE doe not vtterly condemne whatsoeuer is sayd or sung in their Leiturgie or Masse for as they haue their introite so we doe bid the people after due preparation in our Communions to draw neere We haue also our Confiteor a confession of sinnes to be said before the Communion Other formes also which haue been vsed of ancient time we doe not refuse as Dominus vobiscum The Lord be with you Kyrieeleson Lord haue mercie of vs Sursum corda Lift vp your hearts with Alleluia praised be God and Sanctus Sanctus holy holy and Gloria in excelsis Glorie be to God on high the preface also to the Communion VerÃ¨ dignum iustum est It is meete right and our bounden duetie And we vse also the Lords praier after the distribution These formes we mislike not vsing the same our selues which notwithstanding we borrowe not from them but from the ancient and purer ages of the Church But the corruptions additions immutations which are vsed by them in these prefaces to the Masse we doe vtterly condemne as their introite and confiteor is stuft full of idolatry and inuocation of Saints their Kyrieeleson is 9. times repeated in an vnknown toung Eleuation and adoration was brought in by Pope Honorius anno 1222. the Agnus was deuised by Pope Sergius ann 700. the Pax by Innocentius plura apud Foxum p. 1403. THE SECOND PART OF THE Canon of the Masse The Papists 1. FIrst the forme of their Masse they haue they say by tradition from the Apostles error 139 Rhemist 1. Cor. 11. sect 22. The Protestants THeir owne authors doe testifie that euery patch of their Masse was thrust in by Popes later then the Apostles as by Leo the 1. Gregory the 1. Gregory the 3. Innocentius the 3. Honorius the 3. with many other yea Gregory the 1. confesseth that one Scholasticus made the most part of the Canon Ergo it was not deuised by the Apostles Bellarmine answereth that Gregory setteth not downe any one man by this name Scholasticus but meaneth generally some notable learned man and in this sense S. Peter saith he which was the author of the Canon may be called Scholasticus Bellarm. cap. 19. Ans. This deuise of the Iesuite is rather to be laughed at then to be confuted who euer heard before that S. Peter and the other Apostles were Scholastici Schoolemen what is this els but to set the spirite of God to schoole in saying that the Apostles being men endued with the holy Ghost were brought vp in Schooles Againe Gregory findeth fault with the said Scholasticus that in composing the Canon he would put in his own praiers and leaue out the Lords praier but if this Scholasticus had beene Peter I think Gregory would not haue beene so bolde as to haue rebuked him The Papists 2. THe Canon of the Masse they say is perfect and absolute voide of all error and therefore not to be changed or abrogated Concil Trident. sess 22. can 6. Bellarm. cap. 21. The Protestants BVt we on the contrary side more truly and agreeably to Scripture doubt not to say that there can be nothing more corrupt abominable fuller of all impiety heresie lying then is their idolatrous sacrifice of the Masse as it shall now more particularly appeare by the collection of the seuerall errors THE ERRORS AND BLASPHEMIES that are to be found in the Canon of the Masse 1. THe Priest speaking of the bread and wine thus saith Which we offer vnto thee for thy holy Catholike Church and againe afterward Which we offer for the redemption of their soules What great blasphemie is this to offer bread wine for the redemption of the Church for the which Christ in great loue offered vp himselfe 2. The Priest saith Worshipping the memoriall of the Virgine But Christ instituted the Sacrament to be kept in remembrance of himselfe and not for the worship of Saints 3. By

of his abasing and humiliation Fulke annot in hunc locum as S. Paul saith That he made himselfe of no reputation and tooke vpon him the forme of a seruant Philip. 2.7 The Protestants THat Christ our Sauiour by the vertue of his death did ouercome hel and the deuill we doe verily beleeue which may be called a discent into hell that he also suffered the torments of hell vpon the crosse and so descended into hell for vs to abide that bitter paine which we had deserued to suffer eternally we doe also holde and teach for what rather may be called hell then the anguish of soule which he suffered when he being God yet complained that he was forsaken of God Furthermore if descending into hell be taken according to the Hebrew phrase For entring into the state of the dead so we also graunt that Christ descended into hell Fulk Act. 2. sect 11. But for the descending of Christ into hell after your sense to deliuer the Patriarkes from thence when you can proue it out of Scripture we will yeelde vnto you 1. The soule of Christ which he committed into his Fathers hands was in Paradise where he promised the theefe should be with him Luke 22.43 How then could his soule be three daies in hell as you affirme from the time of his death to his resurrection Fulke Luke 11. sect 4. Bellarm. answereth that it was not impossible that the soule of Christ should be in two places at once cap. 15. which is an answere not worthy to be answered for who hath taught them so boldly to builde their phantasies vpon Gods power hauing no warrant not assurance of his wil May not the Vbiquitaries by the same reason proue the omnipresence of Christs humanity because he is able to make his soule and body to be in many places at once as well as in two and so consequently by his power which is infinite as well in all places as in many 2. We beleeue that the Patriarkes and godly Fathers were in heauen or Paradise as well before the resurrection of Christ as after for in as much as they were iustified by faith in his blood they receiued the same crowne and reward of righteousnes that we doe being iustified by the same meanes This we haue proued more at large controu 9. quest 1. Wherefore seeing there were none in hell which they call Limbus Patrum to be deliuered there was no such cause why Christ should descend into hell Therefore he descended not to deliuer the Patriarkes that remained in darkenes 3. They agree not among theÌ„selues about this article of Christs descension to deliuer the Patriarkes Andradius saith it caÌ„not be proued out of Scripture but Bellarmine and our Rhemists doe bring their best arguments for it out of Scripture they alleadge also diuers causes of his descension the Romane Catechisme rendreth two reasons one to set the Patriarkes at liberty the other to manifest the power and vertue of his death in hell but that S. Paul saith was sufficiently manifested and made knowne vpon the crosse Colos. 2.15 Thomas Aquinas beside these addeth a third that as Christ died for vs to free vs from death so it was conuenient that he should descend into hell to deliuer vs from the descension into hell as though Christ by his death did not fully deliuer vs from eternall damnation Some other holde that Christ went thither to suffer the torments of hell that he might fully pay our raunsome by suffering the whole punishmeÌ„t due vnto mankinde but this is a very grosse and erronious opinion for Christ suffered fully in body and soule vpon the Crosse when he cried Consummatum est It is finished that is he had fully appeased the wrath of God by his sufferings Augustine saith plainely that he knew not what good Christ wrought for the iust soules that were in the bosome of Abraham when he descended into hell a quib eum secundum beatificaÌ„ praesentiam diuinitatis nunquam video recessisse From whom I finde hee was neuer absent or withdrew himselfe by the blessed presence of his diuine power Ergo in his iudgement Christ descended not to deliuer the Patriarkes And concerning the soule of Christ he writeth flatly Si mortuo corpore anima latronis ad Paradisum mox vocatur quempiam adhuc tam impium credimus qui dicere audeat quoniam anima Saluatoris nostri triduo illo corporâ—ae mortis apud inferos custodiae mancipetur If the soule of the theefe straightway being gone from the body was called vp to heauen is there any man so wicked to say that the soule of our Sauiour was kept three daies in the prison of hel By his sentence then the soule of Christ passed straight to heauen and descended not to hell AN APPENDIX CONCERNING the place of Hell The Papists THe place where damned spirites are tormented they say is about the center of the earth the lowest of all places and nothing lower then it Bellarm. de error 102 Christi anima lib. 4. cap. 10. Their Limbus Patrum the place of darkenes where the Fathers were before Christ is say they in the highest parte and as it were the brimme of hel Rhemist Luke 1â— 22 Betweene these two places there is a great gulfe or space and there is Purgatory Rhemist Luk. 16. sect 8. Wherefore they conclude veros inferos esse loca subterranea That the subterrestriall and infernall places doe properly make hell Bellarm. cap. 8. And so hell should be properly a place of punishmeÌ„t because of the farre distance from heauen whereas not so much the distance of place as the absence of Gods spirite and losse of his fauour maketh it a place of horror and miserie Argum. 1. Math. 12.40 As Ionas was three daies and three nights in the belly of the Whale so the sonne of man must be in the hart of the earth but the graue is not in the hart but the brimme of the earth Ergo we must needes vnderstand Hell which is in the midst of the earth Bellarm. cap. 12. Ans. 1. This place cannot otherwise be applied then to signifie the burial of Christ and his abode in the graue and his rising againe the third day of his soule it cannot properly be meant for Christ saith he will giue them the signe of Ionas in himselfe but a signe is conspicuous visible and apparent how could then the descending of his soule be a signe vnto them which they knew not neither could see But the laying of his body into the graue and the remaining there to the third day they were all eye witnesses of Also there is great affinity betweene the two Greeke words ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ a signe which is there vsed Math. 12.40 and ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ which signifieth sepulchrum a graue the one word being fitly deriued of the other what better ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ then could he giue them then ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ his owne graue or Sepulchre Secondly to

Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n

Text snippets containing the quad