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 cōtrary Gospell as the Apostle saith ver 7. as they did labour to corrupt and peruert that Gospel which S. Paul taught Therfore all traditiōs whether praeter or cōtra 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 Secōdly 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 Secōdly 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 iudgemēt 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 traditiōs 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 traditiōs 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 childrē were in the time of the law Circūcised 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 Deacōs 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 cōteined in
it hath nothing to do to iudge of Scripture being the seate of Antichrist neither is the authoritie of that Church to be credited but rather suspected and mistrusted 2 There are certaine writings of the Prophetes not canonicall and other writings of some that were no Prophetes made canonicall Ergo the Church hath authoritie to iudge of Scripture sic Stapleton For the first where he obiecteth that there are many writings of the Prophetes as of Solomon Nathan Ahiia Ieedo 2. Chronic. 9.29 that are lost and if they were extant should not be receiued We aunswere First it is not to be doubted of but some part of the canonicall Scripture is lost Secōdly how proueth he that if they were extant they were not to be acknowledged for Scripture To the second that bookes not made by Prophets are iudged canonicall as of Tobie Iudith We aunswere that these bookes ought not to be canonicall neither that euer they were so taken till of late it was decreed by Councels of no great antiquitie for in the Laodicene Councell and other auncient Councels they were deemed not to be canonicall 3 Certaine bookes of the new Testament before doubted of as the Epistle to the Hebrues the Apocalipse the 2. Epistle of Peter the second of Iohn are receiued into authoritie by the Church and other bookes as the Gospell of Thomas Mathias Andrew Peter were reiected by the authoritie of the Church We answere First we deny not but that the Church is to discerne betweene the true Scriptures forged bookes but this she doth not of her own authoritie but folowing the direction of Gods spirite speaking in those writings for the Church looking into the sacred and diuine matter of the Apostles writings was moued to acknowledge them for the word of God though of some they were doubted of finding the other to be fabulous bookes did by the direction of the same spirite reiect them Secondly Augustine and Hierome thinke that the Canon of Scripture might be confirmed in the Apostles time Iohn being the suruiuer of thē all who both acknowledged the true writings of the Apostles and condemned the contrarie If it be so the spirite of God in the Apostles hauing determined this question already concerning the canonicall Scripture the Church hath no authoritie to alter or chaunge that decree Plura apud Whitacher quaest 3. de Scriptur cap. 5. The Protestantes WE do not despise the sentence of the Church as our aduersaries doe falsely charge vs but we confesse that it is the duetie of the Church to geue testimony to the Scriptures as the Goldsmith doth trie the gold Fulk annot 2. Gal. 2. But the Church ought not to set the Lordes stampe vpon false coyne as the Papistes do in making Apocryphall bookes canonicall Neither doe we onely beleeue the Scripture because of the Churches testimonie nor chiefly but because the spirit of God doth so teach vs and the Scriptures them selues do testifie for them selues so that euerie man is bound to acknowledge the Scripture though there were no publike approbation of the Church Fulk 2. Galat. 6. Whitacher quaest 3. cap. 1. de Scripturis We do reason thus 1 The Iesuite doth reason strongly for vs he bringeth fiue arguments to proue the Scripture to be the word of God veritas vaticiniorum the constant and perpetuall truth of the Prophecies incredibilis scriptorum conspiratio the wonderfull harmonie and consent of holy writers of the Scripture testis est Deus ipse the spirite of God is a principall witnesse vnto vs testis est ipsa Scriptura the Scripture it selfe beareth witnesse as 2. Tim. 3. all Scripture is geuen by inspiration testis est diuinorum numerus infinitus miraculorum lastly the many and great miracles wrought by the Prophetes and Apostles do testifie for the truth thereof He maketh no mention at all of the testimonie of the Church but saith the same that we hold that the spirit of God inwardly working in our harts by the Scriptures them selues which we find to be most perfect consonant true of singular maiestie doth teach vs which is the word of God Bellarmin de verbo Dei lib. 1. cap. 2. 2 The Scripture geueth authoritie to the Church Ergo the Church geueth not authoritie to the Scripture the first we proue by our aduersaries own confession for being asked how they know that the Church erreth not they alledge such places of Scripture as Math. 28.20 I am with you to the end of the world and the like how then doth the Church geue authoritie to Scripture seeing it taketh her warrant and authoritie from thence the Iesuite him selfe saith that nihil est certius vel notius Scripturis nothing is more certaine or notoriously knowen then Scripture and againe sacra Scriptura est regula credendi certissima the holy Scripture is the most certaine rule of faith Bellarm. de verbo 1.2 If the authoritie of Scripture then be most certaine what reason is it that they should depend vpon the iudgement of the Church which is nothing so certaine the lesse certaine ought rather and so doth indeed depend of the more certaine the Church vpon the Scripture not contrariwise for the Scriptures are the foundation of the Church Ephe. 2.20 3 To beleeue the Scripture is a worke of faith the Church can not infuse faith into vs but the spirite of God Ergo the spirite of God not the Church teacheth vs to beleeue Scripture argum Whitach 18. 4 If the Scriptures depend vpon the approbation of the Church then the promises of saluation and eternall life conteined in the Scriptures do so likewise but it is absurde to thinke that the promises of God do stand vpō the allowance of men Ergo neither the Scriptures argum Caluini 5 The Scripture is the chief iudge and ought so to be in all cōtrouersies we may appeale from the Church to the Scripture not from the Scripture to the Church the Church is subiect to the Scriptures the rule of faith is in the scriptures not in the Church for the cōpanie of faithful which is the Church are ruled by faith they do not ouerrule faith neither are a rule thereof the Church is a point of beliefe as in the Creede not a rule or measure thereof Ergo the Church is not the chief iudge of Scripture but it selfe to be iudged by scripture Whitach argum 16. 6 We haue euident places of scripture Iohn 5.34 saith Christ I receiue no witnes of men but the scripture is the voyce of Christ and of the same authoritie Ergo. Ver. 36. I haue a greater testimonie thē of Iohn the scriptures do testifie of me Ver. 39. The testimony of the scriptures is greater thē the record of Iohn Ergo then of the Church 1. Iohn 5.6 the spirite beareth witnesse that the spirite that is the doctrine of the spirit is the truth And. ver 9. if we receiue the witnesse of man the witnesse of God is greater Ergo not the iudgement of the Church
the Prophets and Apostles to write S. Paule saith that what soeuer is writtē is written for our learning that through patience and cōsolation 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 etiā hinc diuinorū 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 saluatiō 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 cōcerning 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 sufficiēt 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 Testamēt 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 sufficiēt as some of Solomōs bookes are perished which he wrote of herbes plāts 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 hād 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 writtē by those Prophetes And as for the Epistle of S. Paule to the Laodiceās 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 cōmaundement of God Secondly Apocal. 11.1.14.13 Iohn is biddē to write that which he saw no doubt the other Apostles had the like cōmaundement 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 frō 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 condēneth those which preach any thing not besides or otherwise but contrarie and therefore not any other doctrine besides Scripture is forbidden but that
that faith was requisite to make a true member of the church here he saith that without faith a mēber cā not be knowen much lesse therfore made 3 The Rhemistes confesse in these very words that in the raigne of their imagined and supposed Antichrist the externall state of the Romane church and publike entercourse of the faithfull with the same shall cease and that there shal be onely a communion in hart with it and practise in secret Annot. in 2. Thess. 2. Sect. 10. Where then I pray you shal be your tabernaculum in sole ciuitas in monte candela splendens in domo your tabernacle in the sunne your Citie in a mountaine your candle shining in the house that is say you in the world Math. 5. Sect. 3. Ergo out of their owne wordes we conclude that the church shall not alwayes be visible and notoriously knowen in the world Lastly we will conclude with Augustine Aliquando in sola domo Noah Ecclesia erat in solo Abraham Ecclesia erat in solo Loth domo eius Ecclesia erat in solo Henoch Ecclesia erat Sometime the church was onely in Henochs house sometime onely in Noah some time in Abraham alone in Loth his house How then hath the church bene alwayes so visible and notoriously knowē to the world when it hath layen hidden some time in one house yea in one man THE SECOND QVESTION whether the Church may erre THis questiō is deuided into two parts First whether the catholike church may erre at all or not Secondly whether the visible church vpon earth may fall away from God into Idolatrie and apostasie THE FIRST PART WHETHER THE Catholike Church may erre in doctrine The Papistes THey do teach that the catholike church can not possiblie erre not onely in matters absolutely necessarie to saluation but not in any thing which error 16 it imposeth and commaundeth whether it be conteined in the word of God or not yea that it can not erre in these things which beside the word of God are commaunded And by the church here they do meane not onely the Pastors and Bishops but the whole companie of the faithfull so that neither that which all the pastors of the church do teach can be erronious nor what is receiued generally of the whole church Bellarm. de Eccles. lib. 3. cap. 14. Rhemist annot an Iohan. 14. ver 16. 1 The church say they is the pillar of truth 1. Tim. 3. Ergo it can not erre We answere First it is no otherwise the pillar of truth then a virgin without spot and wrincle Ephe. 5.27 As that place doth not priuiledge the church frō all sinne and imperfection of life so neither doth this place exempt her from all error in doctrine Secondly she is called the pillar of truth in respect of vs because the truth is preserued in the true church and is not els where to be found not because the truth dependeth vpon the church for S. Paule sendeth not Timothie in this place to learne of the church as though it could not possiblie be deceiued but saith he these things haue I written that thou mayst know how to behaue thy selfe in the house of God ver 14.15 Ergo the word of God is the rule of truth and the church hath no warrant to be kept from error but as she is lead and gouerned by the word of God Thirdly the argument foloweth not for Peter was a pillar and yet erred Gallat 2.9.11 2 They heape many arguments together The church hath the spirite of God to lead it into all truth the gates of hell shall not preuaile against it Math. 16. God hath geuen it Apostles teachers Euangelistes to keepe it in the truth Ephe. 4. Christ hath prayed for the church that it may be sanctified in the veritie Iohn 17. Christ prayed that Peters faith should not faile Ergo the church can not erre Rhemens annot 1. Timoth. 3.15 We answere euery one of the elect hath the spirite of God neither shall the gates of hell preuaile against the faith of any one of the elect to ouerthrow it Christ prayeth for euery one of his Disciples that they may be sanctified in the truth Iohn 17.20 wherefore it foloweth as well by these arguments that no one faithfull man can fall into error The pastors and teachers so long as they folow the Apostles doctrine may keepe the church from error but it is not gathered out of that place Ephe. 4. that the pastors if they swarue from Gods word can not erre Concerning Peter Christ prayed for him that his faith should not faile in that greeuous tentation which he fell into Secondly he prayed not for him as gouernour of the church but as he prayeth for euery faithfull man Iohn 17.23 Thirdly for all this prayer Peter erred Gallat 2. 3 This argument was vsed in the Councell of Basill the Church is without spot and wrincle Ephe. 5.27 Ergo without error We aunswere First S. Paule speaketh there of a glorious church such as it shal be in the kingdome of heauen not of the church as it is vpon earth so Reuel 7.14 The elders which sat round about the throne which are the Saintes in heauen were seene in long white robes which they had washed white in the bloud of the Lambe 2 It foloweth out of this place that the church is as well without sinne as free from error which the diuines in the Councell did also graunt But seeing by their owne confession euery member of the church being clothed in this mortall flesh sinneth how can the church be without sinne If the church consist of men and all men are sinners how is the church free If all the partes and members be sinnefull how is not the whole also polluted with sinne If all the partes of the body be sicke and diseased how can the whole be sound The church also is not ashamed to confesse her selfe to be blacke Cant. 1.5 she shal be made bewtifull and glorious without all spot blemish in the kingdome of God and euen now also is made righteous and iust before God through Christ not because she hath no sinne but because it is remitted and although some errors and imperfections remaine yet shall they be no hinderaunce to her saluation The Protestantes WE doubt not to say that the church of God may erre in some points not necessarie to saluation but can not fall cleane away from God into any dānable error Fulk annot in Ephe. 5. ver 29. That the church may erre as we say we do shew it thus and by the Church we vnderstand the whole companie and congregation the pastors with the people 1 When our Sauiour Christ suffred the church erred in faith Ergo it may erre the proposition is thus proued The church was either in the Scribes and Pharisies or els in the Apostles but both of them erred they in putting Christ to death the other in their incredulitie not beleeuing rightlie in the
that he prophecied being dead Ergo it was Samuel indeed Bellarm. De Purgat lib. 2. cap. 6. Augustine answereth that this booke was not receiued into the Canon of the scriptures It is not Canonicall De cura pro mortuis cap. 15. Arg. 3. He telleth Saul things to come as how the next day he should be ouercome and slaine But the diuell knoweth not things to come Bellar. ibid. Augustine answereth Facile est non incongruum It is an easie matter with God and not vnlikely that some things should be reuealed to euill spirits for the greater punishment of the wicked for otherwise we might maruaile Quomodo daemones agnouerint Christum quem Iudaei non agnoscebant How the diuels knewe Christ whom the Iewes did not acknowledge Ad Simplician lib. 2. quaest 3. The Protestants THat it was not the soule of Samuel which appeared who was now at rest but the diuell in the likenes of Samuel who also can transforme himselfe into an Angel of light Augustine proueth by these foure arguments Argum. 1. Because the Witch or Pythonist vsed enchantments vnto the which the soule of so holy a prophet was not subiect Daemoniacis incantationibus vti videtur De mirabilib scriptur 2. cap. 11. Bellarmine answereth that Samuel preuented her enchantment and came vp voluntarily Ans. The text is contrarie vers 11. for the woman first asketh Saul whom she should bring vp that is by her charmes and incantations and he sayd bring me vp Samuel Argum. 2. Quomodo Saul c. How could Saul obtaine to heare a Prophet speake from the dead whom God vouchsafed not to answere by Prophets aliue The text is that God gaue him no answere neither by Prophets nor by dreames therefore I haue called for thee vers 15. Ergo it was not Samuel for then God should haue giuen him answere by Prophets Argum. 3. If it had been Samuel he would not haue told a lye vnto Saul saying to morowe thou shalt be with me Magno quippe interuallo separari bonos à malis legimus for we reade that the good are separated from the bad by a great distance after this life as it appeareth in the storie of Diues and Lazarus August ad Simplician ibid. Bellarm. He sayth as much as you shall be dead noting the generall condition not the particular state of the dead Ans. This phrase in scripture importeth and implieth also the particular state of those that are departed as 2. Sam. 12.23 Dauid saith of his child I shall goe to him he shal not come to me And Luk. 23.43 Christ saith This day shalt thou be with me in Paradise In both places it signifieth to be in rest and ioye in the same place where they are with whom they are sayd they shal be Ergo it must be so taken here Argum. 4. If it had been Samuel Vtique vir iustus non permisisset se adorari The iust man would not haue suffered himselfe to be adored and worshipped as the diuell doth take it at Saules hands to be worshipped of him For the text sayth he enclined his face toward the ground and bowed himselfe or worshipped August quaest ex veteri testam 27. THE SECOND QVESTION CONCERNING Purgatorie THe question hath three parts first whether there be any Purgatorie for soules to be purged cleansed in after this life Secondly of other circumstances and matters that doe belong thereunto Thirdly of praier for the dead THE FIRST PART WHETHER THERE BE any Purgatorie after this life The Papists THere is they say a certaine infernall place in the earth called Purgatorie in the which as in a prison house the soules which were not fully purged in this life are there cleansed and purged by fire before they can be receiued into heauen Bellarm. de Purgator lib. 1.1 lib. 2.6 Rhemist Matth. 12. sect 6. Argum. 1. Zachar. 9.11 Thou hast loosed thy prisoners out of the pit where was no water Psalm 66.12 We went through fire and water These and such like places the Iesuite vnderstandeth of Purgatorie Lib. 1. de Purgator cap. 3. Ans. First the Iesuite brought this place before to proue that there was Limbus Patrum and now he maketh it serue for Purgatorie thus they can make the scripture to speake what they list themselues But Purgatorie and Limbus Patrum are two diuers yea and contrary things for the Limbus was onely for those that liued before Christ Purgatorie began since the Limbus was voyde of payne and punishment so is not Purgatorie wherefore if the Lake or pit in Zacharie signifie Purgatorie it maketh nothing for Limbus and if it serue for Limbus then they misse of a place for Purgatorie But indeede it signifieth no such thing but is taken onely in that place for the affliction and miserie of this life as we shewed out of Augustine And so doth he also expound such and the like places out of the Psalmes as Psalm 86.13 Thou hast deliuered my soule from the lowest graue Quid sayth he est lacus infimus nisi profundissima miseria qua non sit profundior What els sayth he is the lowest pit or graue but the lowest degree of miserie then the which there can be no greater Argum. 2. Luk. 8.55 Her spirit came againe and she arose Christ raised the rulers daughter to life This euidently sheweth that there is a third place beside Heauen and Hell for the soules that are there cannot returne againe Rhemist Ans. Surely a goodly argument the spirits of Lazarus and of the Maide returned Ergo there is a third place and why may you not thinke that their soules were whereas the soules of other righteous are And why may not the Lord bring at his pleasure if it pleaseth him the soules at rest into their bodies againe Fulk 8. sect 5. Argum. 3. Of all other they most insult and beare themselues bolde vpon that place of Saint Paul 1. Corinth 3. which being rightly vnderstood doth not helpe them anything at al vers 13. The fire shal trie euery mans worke vers 15. if any mans worke burne he shall suffer losse but he shall be safe himselfe yet as it were through the fire Bellarm. Rhemist by fire here vnderstand the flames of Purgatorie by wood stubble strawe veniall sinnes which must be purged by that fire Rhemist 1. Cor. 3. sect 3. Ans. First by the precious matter here as of gold siluer are not the workes of charitie vnderstood but the preaching of sound doctrine by straw and stubble and wood and other combustible matter the affectation of eloquence and corrupt teaching of the truth yet holding the foundation not veniall sinnes as the Rhemists affirme and this Bellarmine also granteth Secondly fire is here taken allegorically as the rest of the words are of gold siluer stubble neither can it be taken for their Purgatorie fire because it trieth the workes onely not the persons and all must be tried by this fire as well those that build gold and siluer as the
in heauen and not vpon the earth 3. What a strange saying is this that Christ giueth his flesh to be eatē in the Sacrament yet hideth it vnder the formes of bread and wine lest men should abhorre to eate it for is it to be thought that Christ would command any vnseemely thing or contrary to humanitie How could the Apostles command the Gentiles to abstaine frō strangled blood Act. 15. whē as by your doctrine they did eate dayly in their assemblies the raw flesh and blood of Christ And how is it that Christ now forgetteth his owne rule He that doth the truth sayth he commeth to the light that his deedes may be made manifest Iohn 3.21 But Christ now flieth the light shrowdeth himselfe vnder the shape of bread and wine and wil not shew his flesh These therefore are but sillie causes which you haue rendered why Christ would haue the substance of bread onely changed and not the accidents The Protestants AS the name of transubstantiation is straunge and newly deuised so is the meaning thereof most vnreasonable that in the Sacrament the substance of bread should be conuerted into the bodie of Christ the formes onely remaining An opinion contrary to scripture reason and common sense Argum. 1. As Christ said Math. 26. pointing to the bread This is my body so he sayth Iohn 6.35 I am the bread but in this place he was not changed into bread why then in the other place should the bread be turned into his body for the speech is all one Argum. 2. The bread in the Eucharist after the consecration is subiect to diuers changes and alterations and so likewise the wine for they may be boyled and made hot they may be infected with poyson for it is certaine that Victor the 3. Pope and Henry the 7. Emperour were poysoned with the Sacrament the wine may waxe sower and turne to vineger the bread may putrifie and breed wormes Ergo the substance of bread and wine remaine still for the accidents cannot be subiect to such alterations and to say that Christs bodie may be thus handled it were great impietie Argum. Pet. Martyris Bellarmine answereth Materia substituitur à Deo in ipso instanti in quo desinunt esse illae species God supplieth some other matter in the very instant when the formes begin to be changed Cap. 24. argum 6. Ans. Is not here good geare thinke you that if a man should come to poyson the Sacrament that is the bread and wine which are alreadie consecrate and made the bodie of Christ God should supplie by a miracle some other matter for him to worke vpon and so God himselfe should be accessarie vnto that wicked act Or if a sillie mouse should be so bold as gnaw vpon a consecrate Host that then likewise some other matter and substance should for that instant be appoynted and so God shall make miracles for mice And why I pray you may not the substance of bread still remaine as well as another substance to be put in the stead thereof Arg. 3. When Christ spake these words Hoc est corpus meum the bread was transubstantiate before or after or while the words were spoken Before they will not say for the elements were not then consecrate nor after for thē Christs words This is my bodie had not been true in that instant when they were spoken Neither was the transubstantiation wrought in the while of speaking for then should it not haue been done all at once but successiuely and one part after another as the words were spoken one after another But this is also contrarie to the opinion of the Papists that would haue it done all together Argum. 4. It is against the nature and propertie of accidents and externall formes to be without a subiect or substance wherein they should rest such are the whitenes and roundnes of the bread the rednes and sweetnes of wine if bread be gone what is become of the roundnes and whitenes and so of the wine If a man aske what round or white thing is this or what red and sweete thing is this shewing the cup what shall be answered we cannot say it is bread or wine for there is none left And I am sure they will not say that the bodie of Christ is either round or white or such like and yet somewhat there must needes be that must take denomination of these accidents Argum. 5. You say the very flesh of Christ that did hang vpon the Crosse is in the Sacrament but that cannot be for that flesh Christ tooke of the Virgine Mary this sacramentall flesh is made of bread Ergo it is not the same flesh which was crucified vpon the Crosse. Bellarm. The bodie of Christ is made of bread but not as any matter or materiall cause thereof but as the wine was made of water by our Sauiour Christ. Ans. And I pray you how was the wine made of the water was not the water the very matter which was turned into wine for one of these three changes and mutations it must needes haue first either the water was annihilate and turned to nothing and so the wine was created of nothing which I am sure you will not graunt secondly or els there was a mixture of wine and water the one being mingled with the other which is likewise false for it was very good and perfect wine neither I thinke will you easily admit that the bodie of Christ and the bread are mingled together in the Sacrament Thirdly there remaineth but the third kind of change that is the conuersion of one substance into another as the water was changed into wine and so is the substance of bread conuerted into the substance of Christs bodie if you will haue any chaunge at all and thus Christ hath gotten by your helpe a breaden bodie another from that which he tooke of the flesh of the Virgine Lastly the diuersitie of opinions which this grosse conceit of the carnall presence of Christ hath hatched doe easily shew and demonstrate vnto vs what we are to thinke of this popish doctrine Some doe hold that the elements doe still remaine in their owne nature in the Sacrament and that together with them the bodie of Christ is carnally present Others doe teach that there remaineth no more bread and wine but onely the verie naturall bodie of Christ of each opinion there are three sorts First of them that hold the elements not to be chaunged 1. Some are of opinion that the bodie of Christ and the elements are locally ioyned together either for that instant onely or els because of the vbiquitie and omnipresence of Christs humanitie of which opinion are the Lutherans 2. Some there were that thought onely so much of the bread to be changed into the bodie of Christ as was receiued of the faithfull and that part which the wicked receiued to be bread still 3. Others taught that the bread was assumed in the Sacrament to the
which is vsed in the Sacrament ought to be vnleauened because it is most agreeable to Christs institution who made the sacrament of vnleauened error 117 bread for he instituted his last Supper after he had eaten the Passeouer which was to be eaten with sweet and vnleauened bread according to the Lawa neither was there any leauen to be found in Israel for seuen daies together and not onely Christ but all the Iewes at that time did keepe the Passeouer and the next day after in the which Christ suffered was the first solemne festiuall day of the seuen being the fifteenth day of the moneth as it was commanded Leuiticus 23.5 Rhemist 1. Corinth 11. sect 10. Bellarm. lib. 4. de Eucharist cap. 7. The Protestants 1. WE deny not but that Christ vsed vnleauened bread at the institution of his last Supper hauing immediately before eaten the Paschall Lambe which we doubt not but he kept according to the Lawe with sweete bread yet in the time they are greatly deceiued affirming that all the Iewes eate the Passeouer like wise ouer eeuen and crucified Christ on the morrow which should haue beene and was vnto them as they say a chiefe festiuall day The truth is that Christ eate the Passeouer the 14 day at eeuen as it is appointed in the Law but the Iewes had a contrary tradition they would in no wise keepe two festiuall daies together and therefore because the sixteenth daie was their Sabboth they would not haue the feast of vnleauened bread vpon the fifteenth day though it were so appointed by the law to auoide the concurrence of two holy daies together but deferred it till the next day which was their Sabboth and eate the Passeouer the eeue before which was the 15. day at night whereas Christ reforming that abuse kept the Passeouer the eeue before according to the Law that is the 14. at night It appeareth then that the next day following which we call Friday wherein Christ was put to death was not kept of the Iewes as a holy day First the text saith they would not put Christ to death vpon the feast day fearing the tumult of the people Mark 14.2 Secondly if they had kept it holy as the Law commaunded they should haue done no seruile labour therein that is no work of the body Leuitic 23.7 But what could be a more seruile worke then to crucifie Christ to carry the Crosse and pitch it in the ground and such like which the Iewes would not haue done vpon that day which they were as straightly to keep as the Sabboth It is also called the preparation of the Sabboth Mark 15.43 Wherein they were wont to prepare against the Sabboth what was needfull but such workes of preparation could not haue bene done in that great festiual day Augustine also saith that the day of Christs suffering was not Pascha sed praeparatio Paschae It was not the Pasch but the preparation to it it is not therefore true that it was kept holy of the Iewes the day of Christs passion neither that they did eate the paschall Lambe the same eeue that Christ did but the night following If they shall obiect that place Mark 14.12 where the Euangelist saith It was the first day of vnleauened bread when Christ eat his passeouer and therefore all the Iewes began then to eate sweet bread We answere that the Euangelist hath relation vnto the right time of keeping the Passeouer as it was prescribed by the Law and obserued by Christ not to the corrupt custome of the Iewes Wherfore we graunt that Christ might eate vnleauened bread but not in such manner and order as they say Secondly it was not of the substance of the institution to eate vnleauened bread no more then to eat it at night and to receiue it sitting we are not more bound to the one then to the other Againe Christ vsed vnleauened bread because it was the vsuall bread at that time so we do vse that which is the vsuall bread in our time And S. Paul speaketh of such bread as was vsuall among the Gentiles when he saith The bread which we break 1. Cor. 10.17 Ergo ordinary bread and leauened to be vsed not vnleauened The Papists 2. COncerning the other element of wine which is vsed in the sacrament error 118 they say it is to be mixed with water and they impudently condemne all those Churches that doe not mixe water with wine in the Sacrament Argum. Water gushed out together with blood out of the side of Christ. Ergo wine and water is to be vsed together in the Eucharist Rhemist 1. Cor. 11. sect 10. Bellarm. lib. 4. de Eucharist cap. 10. The Protestants 1. WE deny not but that of ancient time in hot Countries especially where their wine was strong they vsed to mixe water with wine in their common drink and thereupon they so vsed it in the sacrament but it was neuer generally the practise of the East Countries so to do for the Armenians and Iberians vsed not of ancient time to put water in the Cup in the ministration Fulk nnot 1. Corinth 1â— sect 10. Secondly Be it that this mixture of wine were conuenient to be vsed you cannot make such a matter of necessitie of it as to charge them with heresie and denounce damnation against them that keepe not that custome especially seeing your Canonists and schoolemen do graunt that it is de honestate tantâ—m of decency onely not of necessitie And yet we are faine to drinke mingled wine many times against our willes for the Minister need put in no water it is mixed to his hands many times The Vintners craft standeth very well with popish profession Thirdly we holde it rather to be a superstitious custome and contrarie to Christs institution for he in his last supper gaue wine not water to be drunk for he calleth it the fruit of the Vine which is wine and not water Fourthly the water and bloud which issued out of Christs side signifie no such thing but rather as S. Iohn expoundeth them by water is betokened our washing from our sinnes whereof Baptisme is a pledge by blood the full satisfaction that Christ hath made for our sinnes whereof the other sacrament is a â—eale 1. Iohn 5.6 This is that Iesus Christ that came by water and blood not by water onely but by water and blood By the which words the Apostles meaning is not that by the water and blood which were shed vpon the crosse we should vnderstand the Sacraments of the Church but those spirituall graces whereof the Sacraments are liuely signes namely the satisfaction and ransome of our sinnes by Christs blood and our ablution and washing from the same Augustine picketh out no such fancie out of this mysterie as you doe for the mixture of wine and water but he doth more fitly apply it to the sacraments of the church E Christi latere dormientis in cruce promanarunt sacramenta ecclesiae in Psal.